Never ran into this before. I'd like to do it in SQL, but I can in Excel as a fall-back... It's a relatively small set of data.
Suppose I have the following data:
foo | val
----+-----
A | red
A | blue
B | up
B | down
...and I want the result...
foo | agg
----+---------
A | red,blue
B | up,down
So if I could invent my own aggregate functions, it would be:
select foo
,concat(val,',') as agg
from mytable
group by 1
Does anything like this exist? Specifically I'm on Netezza.
Thanks!
Check out the thread https://www-304.ibm.com/connections/forums/html/topic?id=a2402d13-1fdc-4e65-b0ad-adbedbe2c9e1
May be it will be of your help. But for single pass query, you have to be sure for possible maximum number of repetition. Or you can have a multi pass query
Related
Given a table defined as such:
CREATE TABLE test_values(name TEXT, values INTEGER[]);
...and the following values:
| name | values |
+-------+---------+
| hello | {1,2,3} |
| world | {4,5,6} |
I'm trying to find a query which will return:
| name | value |
+-------+-------+
| hello | 1 |
| hello | 2 |
| hello | 3 |
| world | 4 |
| world | 5 |
| world | 6 |
I've reviewed the upstream documentation on accessing arrays, and tried to think about what a solution using the unnest() function would look like, but have been coming up empty.
An ideal solution would be easy to use even in cases where there were a significant number of columns other than the array being expanded and no primary key. Handling a case with more than one array is not important.
We can put the set-returning function unnest() into the SELECT list like Raphaël suggests. This used to exhibit corner case problems before Postgres 10. See:
What is the expected behaviour for multiple set-returning functions in SELECT clause?
Since Postgres 9.3 we can also use a LATERAL join for this. It is the cleaner, standard-compliant way to put set-returning functions into the FROM list, not into the SELECT list:
SELECT name, value
FROM tbl, unnest(values) value; -- implicit CROSS JOIN LATERAL
One subtle difference: this drops rows with empty / NULL values from the result since unnest() returns no row, while the same is converted to a NULL value in the FROM list and returned anyway. The 100 % equivalent query is:
SELECT t.name, v.value
FROM tbl t
LEFT JOIN unnest(t.values) v(value) ON true;
See:
What is the difference between LATERAL JOIN and a subquery in PostgreSQL?
Well, you give the data, the doc, so... let's mix it ;)
select
name,
unnest(values) as value
from test_values
see SqlFiddle
Here's my problem: I want to write a query (that goes into a larger query) that takes a table like this;
ID | DATE
A | 1
A | 2
A | 3
B | 1
B | 2
and so on, and transforms it into;
ID | DATE1 | DATE2
A | 1 | 2
A | 2 | 3
A | 3 | NOW
B | 1 | 2
B | 2 | NOW
Where the numbers are dates, and NOW() is always appended to the most recent date. Given free rein I would do this in Python, but unfortunately this goes into a larger query. We're using SyBase's SQL Anywhere 12, I think? I interact with the database using SQuirreL SQL.
I'm very stumped. I thought (SQL query to transform a list of numbers into 2 columns) would help, but I'm afraid I don't know enough to make it work. I was thinking of JOINing the table to itself, but I don't know how to SELECT for only the A-1-2 rows instead of the A-1-3 rows as well, for instance, or how to insert the NOW() value into it. Does anyone have any ideas?
I made a an sqlfiddle.com to outline a solution for your example. You were mentioning dates, but using integers so I chose to do an integer example, but it can be modified. I wrote it in postgresql so the coalesce() function can be substituted with nvl() or similar. Also, the parameter '0' can be substituted with any value, including now(), but you must change the data type of the "i" column in the table to be a date as well. Please let me know if you need further help on this.
select a.id, a.i, coalesce(min(b.i),'0') from
test a
left join test b on b.id=a.id and a.i<b.i
group by a.id,a.i
order by a.id, a.i
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!15/f1fba/6
When performing SELECT statements including number columns (prices, for example), the result always is left to right ordered, which reduces the readability. Therefore I'm searching a method to format the output of number columns right to left.
I already tried to use something like
SELECT ... SPACE(15-LEN(A.Nummer))+A.Nummer ...
FROM Artikel AS A ...
which gives close results, but depending on font not really. An alternative would be to replace 'SPACE()' with 'REPLICATE('_',...)', but I don't really like the underscores in output.
Beside that this formula will crash on numbers with more digits than 15, therefore I searched for a way finding the maximum length of entries to make it more save like
SELECT ... SPACE(MAX(A.Nummer)-LEN(A.Nummer))+A.Nummer ...
FROM Artikel AS A ...
but this does not work due to the aggregate character of the MAX-function.
So, what's the best way to achieve the right-justified order for the number-columns?
Thanks,
Rainer
To get you problem with the list box solved have a look at this link: http://www.lebans.com/List_Combo.htm
I strongly believe that this type of adjustment should be made in the UI layer and not mixed in with data retrieval.
But to answer your original question i have created a SQL Fiddle:
MS SQL Server 2008 Schema Setup:
CREATE TABLE dbo.some_numbers(n INT);
Create some example data:
INSERT INTO dbo.some_numbers
SELECT CHECKSUM(NEWID())
FROM (VALUES (1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1))X(x);
The following query is using the OVER() clause to specify that the MAX() is to be applied over all rows. The > and < that the result is wrapped in is just for illustration purposes and not required for the solution.
Query 1:
SELECT '>'+
SPACE(MAX(LEN(CAST(n AS VARCHAR(MAX))))OVER()-LEN(CAST(n AS VARCHAR(MAX))))+
CAST(n AS VARCHAR(MAX))+
'<'
FROM dbo.some_numbers SN;
Results:
| COLUMN_0 |
|---------------|
| >-1486993739< |
| > 1620287540< |
| >-1451542215< |
| >-1257364471< |
| > -819471559< |
| >-1364318127< |
| >-1190313739< |
| > 1682890896< |
| >-1050938840< |
| > 484064148< |
This query does a straight case to show the difference:
Query 2:
SELECT '>'+CAST(n AS VARCHAR(MAX))+'<'
FROM dbo.some_numbers SN;
Results:
| COLUMN_0 |
|---------------|
| >-1486993739< |
| >1620287540< |
| >-1451542215< |
| >-1257364471< |
| >-819471559< |
| >-1364318127< |
| >-1190313739< |
| >1682890896< |
| >-1050938840< |
| >484064148< |
With this query you still need to change the display font to a monospaced font like COURIER NEW. Otherwise, as you have noticed, the result is still misaligned.
SELECT TOP 1 Col1,col2
FROM table ... JOIN table2
...Some stuff...
ORDER BY DESC
gives different result. compared to
SELECT Col1,col2
FROM table ... JOIN table2
...Some stuff...
ORDER BY DESC
2nd query gives me some rows , When I want the Top 1 of this result I write the 1st query with TOP 1 clause. These both give different results.
why is this behavior different
This isn't very clear, but I guess you mean the row returned by the first query isn't the same as the first row returned by the second query. This could be because your order by has duplicate values in it.
Say, for example, you had a table called Test
+-----+------+
| Seq | Name |
+-----+------+
| 1 | A |
| 1 | B |
| 2 | C |
+-----+------+
If you did Select * From Test Order By Seq, either of these is valid
+-----+------+
| Seq | Name |
+-----+------+
| 1 | A |
| 1 | B |
| 2 | C |
+-----+------+
+-----+------+
| Seq | Name |
+-----+------+
| 1 | B |
| 1 | A |
| 2 | C |
+-----+------+
With the top, you could get either row.
Having the top 1 clause could mean the query optimizer uses a completely different approach to generate the results.
I'm going to assume that you're working in SQL Server, so Laurence's answer is probably accurate. But for completeness, this also depends on what database technology you are using.
Typically, index-based databases, like SQL Server, will return results that are sorted by the index, depending on how the execution plan is created. But not all databases utilize indices.
Netezza, for example, keeps track of where data lives in the system without the concept of an index (Netezza's system architecture is quite a bit different). As a result, selecting the 1st record of a query will result in a random record from the result set floating to the top. Executing the same query multiple times will likely result in a different order each time.
If you have a requirement to order data, then it is in your best interest to enforce the ordering yourself instead of relying on the arbitrary ordering that the database will use when creating its execution plan. This will make your results more predictable.
Your 1st query will get one table's top row and compare with another table with condition. So it will return different values compare to normal join.
I have something like this in a postgres db:
| foo | 1,2 | a,b |
And I want to expand it to:
| foo | 1 | a |
| foo | 2 | b |
I know I can do this with plpgsql but wondering whether there was a way to it with sql.
Thanks in advance
Consider this demo:
SELECT name
,unnest(a)
,unnest(b)
FROM (VALUES ('foo', '{1,2}'::int[], '{a,b}'::text[])) t(name, a, b)
Result:
name | unnest | unnest
------+--------+--------
foo | 1 | a
foo | 2 | b
(2 rows)
Or, if you have comma-separated strings and not ARRAYs:
SELECT name
,regexp_split_to_table(a, ',')
,regexp_split_to_table(b, ',')
FROM (VALUES ('foo', '1,2'::text, 'a,b'::text)) t(name, a, b)
Same Result.
More about unnest() and regexp_split_to_table() in the manual.
Are you wanting a one to one relationship between the list items, assuming there are multiple lists in each row, or is there some relationship between the items so you always want A tied to 1 and b tied to 2?
From a single straight sql statement, not really. I think you would have to use a stored procedure and loop through the table. If it is feeding in to an application, you can grab everything in one sql statement then use your code to loop through it and break out the lists from each row.