I have the following structure
construction
id
1
building-step
id construction_id step_id worker_id
1 1 1 1
1 1 2 2
step
id name
1 foundation
2 wall
3 roof
When a new construction is added using a template, building-steps are generated. After the initial configuration steps can be added or removed.
One of the requirements is to display the construction template as a string. The template is dynamic because you can add and remove steps.
In this case the template name is "foundation+wall". If I add another building-step the template name will be "foundation+wall+roof".
My question is, how can this be done in optimized way?
Is the SQL structure the problem for this dynamic complexity?
In Postgres specifically you can use the string_agg function, which concats rows of strings.
In you example, you could try:
select string_agg(nm,'+') from(
select st.name as nm
from building-step bs
inner join
step st
on bs.step_id=st.id
where bs.construction_id=1
order by bs ASC
); --done by hand, may have small errors
It will support edits in both tables anytime, and will perform nicely.
Related
I have two tables. One is for Task and second is dependency table for the tasks.
I want a query to give me all the tasks (recursively) based on a particular id.
I have two tables. One is for Task
ID TASK
1 Abc
2 Def
3 Ghi
4 Jkl
5 Mno
6 Pqr
The second one is for getting dependent tasks
ID DEPENDENT_ON
2 1
3 1
4 2
4 6
5 2
6 5
Is it possible to write a sql query to get a list of all the tasks (recursive) which are dependent on a particular task.
Example.
I want to check all tasks dependent on ID=1.
Expected output (which is 2 and 3):
2.Def
3.Ghi
Furthermore query should also give output of these two dependent tasks and so on.
Final output should be:
2.Def -- level one
3.Ghi -- level one
4.Jkl -- Dependent on task 2
5.Mno -- Dependent on task 2
6.Pqr -- Dependent on task 5
Formatting is not important. Just output is required
I need to join two tables and then do a recursive search.
You must OUTER JOIN the second table (which you didn't name, so I have called it TASK_TREE) through DEPENDENT_ON to the parent ID. Outer join because task 1 is the top of the tree and depends on no task. Then use Oracle's hierarchical query syntax to walk the tree:
select t.id, t.task, tt.dependent_on, level
from tasks t
left outer join task_tree tt on tt.id = t.id
connect by prior t.id = tt.dependent_on
start with t.id = 1
/
I have included the level so you can see how the tree unfurls. The Oracle SQL documentation covers hierarchical queries in depth. Find out more. If you don't want to use Oracle's proprietary hierarchical syntax, from 11gR2 Oracle supported recursive WITH clause. Find out more.
Incidentally, your posted data contains a error. Task 4 depends on both 2 and 6. Hierarchies must have child nodes which depend on a single parent node. Otherwise you'll get all sorts of weird results.
I'm developing a system using Trac, and I want to limit the number of "changelog" entries returned. The issue is that Trac collates these entries from multiple tables using a union, and then later combines them into single 'changesets' based on their timestamp. I wish to limit the results to the latest e.g. 3 changesets, but this requires retrieving as many rows as necessary until I've got 3 unique timestamps. Solution needs to work for SQLite/Postgres.
Trac's current SQL
Current SQL Result
Time User Field oldvalue newvalue permanent
=======================================================================
1371806593507544 a owner b c 1
1371806593507544 a comment 2 lipsum 1
1371806593507544 a description foo bar 1
1371806593324529 b comment hello world 1
1371806593125677 c priority minor major 1
1371806592492812 d comment x y 1
Intended SQL Result (Limited to 1 timestamp e.g.)
Time User Field oldvalue newvalue permanent
=======================================================================
1371806593507544 a owner b c 1
1371806593507544 a comment 2 lipsum 1
1371806593507544 a description foo bar 1
As you already pointed out on your own, this cannot be resolved in SQL due to the undetermined number of results. And I think this is not even required.
You can use a slightly modified trac/ticket/templates/ticket.html Genshi template to get what you want. Change
<div id="changelog">
<py:for each="change in changes">
into
<div id="changelog">
<py:for each="change in changes[-3:]">
and place the file into <env>/templates/ restart your web-server. But watch out for changes to ticket.html, whenever you attempt to upgrade your Trac install. Every time you do that, you might need to re-apply this change on the current template of the respective version. But IMHO its still a lot faster and cleaner than to patch Trac core code.
If you want just three records (as in the "Data Limit 1" result set), you can use limit:
select *
from t
order by time desc
limit 3
If you want all records for the three most recent time stamps, you can use a join:
select t.*
from t join
(select distinct time
from t
order by times desc
limit 3
) tt
on tt.time = t.time
I have a table with few columns and I want to achieve the following functionality using DB2 query.
say for e.g. USR table has User ID column and Option ID column
USER ID OPTION ID
1 1
1 5
1 22
1 100
1 999
I want to write a query and result should be next available number in sequence.
So when the first time query will be executed, it should return me the next
available option ID as 2, so user will enter #2, so DB would have now
USER ID OPTION ID
1 1
1 2
1 5
1 22
1 100
1 999
so now when the query will be executed, it will show me available Option ID as 3.
Can somebody help to get the optimized query to get the correct results?
Please note that I think that exposing option_id to the user is a terrible idea, business requirement or no. Surrogate id's like this are meant to be completely hidden from the end user ('natural' keys, like credit-card numbers, obviously have to be exposed, but still shouldn't be dictated in this manner).
The following should work on any version of DB2:
SELECT a.optionid + :nextIncrement as next_value
FROM Usr as a
LEFT JOIN Usr as b
ON b.userid = a.userid
AND b.optionid = a.optionid + :nextIncrement
WHERE a.userid = :userId
AND b.userid IS NULL
ORDER BY a.optionid ASC
FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY
(statement run against a local table on my iSeries instance, with host variables replaced)
Again, I strongly recommend you not use this, and see about getting the business requirement changed.
I am working on a pivot table query.
The schema is as follows
Sno, Name, District
The same name may appear in many districts eg take the sample data for example
1 Mike CA
2 Mike CA
3 Proctor JB
4 Luke MN
5 Luke MN
6 Mike CA
7 Mike LP
8 Proctor MN
9 Proctor JB
10 Proctor MN
11 Luke MN
As you see i have a set of 4 distinct districts (CA, JB, MN, LP). Now i wanted to get the pivot table generated for it by mapping the name against districts
Name CA JB MN LP
Mike 3 0 0 1
Proctor 0 2 2 0
Luke 0 0 3 0
i wrote the following query for this
select name,sum(if(District="CA",1,0)) as "CA",sum(if(District="JB",1,0)) as "JB",sum(if(District="MN",1,0)) as "MN",sum(if(District="LP",1,0)) as "LP" from district_details group by name
However there is a possibility that the districts may increase, in that case i will have to manually edit the query again and add the new district to it.
I want to know if there is a query which can dynamically take the names of distinct districts and run the above query. I know i can do it with a procedure and generating the script on the fly, is there any other method too?
I ask so because the output of the query "select distinct(districts) from district_details" will return me a single column having district name on each row, which i will like to be transposed to the column.
You simply cannot have a static SQL statement returning a variable number of columns. You need to build such statement each time the number of different districts changes. To do that, you execute first a
SELECT DISTINCT District FROM district_details;
This will give you the list of districts where there are details. You then build a SQL statement iterating over the previous result (pseudocode)
statement = "SELECT name "
For each row returned in d = SELECT DISTINCT District FROM district_details
statement = statement & ", SUM(IF(District=""" & d.District & """,1 ,0)) AS """ & d.District & """"
statement = statement & " FROM district_details GROUP BY name;"
And execute that query. You'll then need have to handle in your code the processing of the variable number of columns
a) "For each " is not supported in MySQL stored procedures.
b) Stored procedures cannot execute prepared statements from concatenated strings using so called dynamic SQL statements, nor can it return results with more than One distinct row.
c) Stored functions cannot execute dynamic SQL at all.
It is a nightmare to keep track of once you got a good idea and everyone seems to debunk it before they think "Why would anyone wanna..."
I hope you find your solution, I am still searching for mine.
The closes I got was
(excuse the pseudo code)
-> to stored procedure, build function that...
1) create temp table
2) load data to temp table from columns using your if statements
3) load the temp table out to INOUT or OUT parameters in a stored procedure as you would a table call... IF you can get it to return more than one row
Also another tip...
Store your districts as a table conventional style, load this and iterate by looping through the districts marked active to dynamically concatenate out a querystring that could be plain text for all the system cares
Then use;
prepare stmName from #yourqyerstring;
execute stmName;
deallocate prepare stmName;
(find much more on the stored procedures part of the mysql forum too)
to run a different set of districts every time, without having to re-design your original proc
Maybe it's easier in numerical form.
I work on plain text content in my tables and have nothing to sum, count or add up
The following assumes you want matches of distinct (name/district) pairs. I.e. Luke/CA and Duke/CA would yield two results:
SELECT name, District, count(District) AS count
FROM district_details
GROUP BY District, name
If this is not the case simply remove name from the GROUP BY clause.
Lastly, notice that I switched sum() for count() as you are trying to count all of the grouped rows rather than getting a summation of values.
Via comment by #cballou above, I was able to perform this sort of function which is not exactly what OP asked for but suited my similar situation, so adding it here to help those who come after.
Normal select statement:
SELECT d.id ID,
q.field field,
q.quota quota
FROM defaults d
JOIN quotas q ON d.id=q.default_id
Vertical results:
ID field quota
1 male 25
1 female 25
2 male 50
Select statement using group_concat:
SELECT d.id ID,
GROUP_CONCAT(q.fields SEPARATOR ",") fields,
GROUP_CONCAT(q.quotas SEPARATOR ",") quotas
FROM defaults d
JOIN quotas q ON d.id=q.default_id
Then I get comma-separated fields of "fields" and "quotas" which I can then easily process programmatically later.
Horizontal results:
ID fields quotas
1 male,female 25,25
2 male 50
Magic!
I have the following tables, the groups table which contains hierarchically ordered groups and group_member which stores which groups a user belongs to.
groups
---------
id
parent_id
name
group_member
---------
id
group_id
user_id
ID PARENT_ID NAME
---------------------------
1 NULL Cerebra
2 1 CATS
3 2 CATS 2.0
4 1 Cerepedia
5 4 Cerepedia 2.0
6 1 CMS
ID GROUP_ID USER_ID
---------------------------
1 1 3
2 1 4
3 1 5
4 2 7
5 2 6
6 4 6
7 5 12
8 4 9
9 1 10
I want to retrieve the visible groups for a given user. That it is to say groups a user belongs to and children of these groups. For example, with the above data:
USER VISIBLE_GROUPS
9 4, 5
3 1,2,4,5,6
12 5
I am getting these values using recursion and several database queries. But I would like to know if it is possible to do this with a single SQL query to improve my app performance. I am using MySQL.
Two things come to mind:
1 - You can repeatedly outer-join the table to itself to recursively walk up your tree, as in:
SELECT *
FROM
MY_GROUPS MG1
,MY_GROUPS MG2
,MY_GROUPS MG3
,MY_GROUPS MG4
,MY_GROUPS MG5
,MY_GROUP_MEMBERS MGM
WHERE MG1.PARENT_ID = MG2.UNIQID (+)
AND MG1.UNIQID = MGM.GROUP_ID (+)
AND MG2.PARENT_ID = MG3.UNIQID (+)
AND MG3.PARENT_ID = MG4.UNIQID (+)
AND MG4.PARENT_ID = MG5.UNIQID (+)
AND MGM.USER_ID = 9
That's gonna give you results like this:
UNIQID PARENT_ID NAME UNIQID_1 PARENT_ID_1 NAME_1 UNIQID_2 PARENT_ID_2 NAME_2 UNIQID_3 PARENT_ID_3 NAME_3 UNIQID_4 PARENT_ID_4 NAME_4 UNIQID_5 GROUP_ID USER_ID
4 2 Cerepedia 2 1 CATS 1 null Cerebra null null null null null null 8 4 9
The limit here is that you must add a new join for each "level" you want to walk up the tree. If your tree has less than, say, 20 levels, then you could probably get away with it by creating a view that showed 20 levels from every user.
2 - The only other approach that I know of is to create a recursive database function, and call that from code. You'll still have some lookup overhead that way (i.e., your # of queries will still be equal to the # of levels you are walking on the tree), but overall it should be faster since it's all taking place within the database.
I'm not sure about MySql, but in Oracle, such a function would be similar to this one (you'll have to change the table and field names; I'm just copying something I did in the past):
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION GoUpLevel(WO_ID INTEGER, UPLEVEL INTEGER) RETURN INTEGER
IS
BEGIN
DECLARE
iResult INTEGER;
iParent INTEGER;
BEGIN
IF UPLEVEL <= 0 THEN
iResult := WO_ID;
ELSE
SELECT PARENT_ID
INTO iParent
FROM WOTREE
WHERE ID = WO_ID;
iResult := GoUpLevel(iParent,UPLEVEL-1); --recursive
END;
RETURN iResult;
EXCEPTION WHEN NO_DATA_FOUND THEN
RETURN NULL;
END;
END GoUpLevel;
/
Joe Cleko's books "SQL for Smarties" and "Trees and Hierarchies in SQL for Smarties" describe methods that avoid recursion entirely, by using nested sets. That complicates the updating, but makes other queries (that would normally need recursion) comparatively straightforward. There are some examples in this article written by Joe back in 1996.
I don't think that this can be accomplished without using recursion. You can accomplish it with with a single stored procedure using mySQL, but recursion is not allowed in stored procedures by default. This article has information about how to enable recursion. I'm not certain about how much impact this would have on performance verses the multiple query approach. mySQL may do some optimization of stored procedures, but otherwise I would expect the performance to be similar.
Didn't know if you had a Users table, so I get the list via the User_ID's stored in the Group_Member table...
SELECT GroupUsers.User_ID,
(
SELECT
STUFF((SELECT ',' +
Cast(Group_ID As Varchar(10))
FROM Group_Member Member (nolock)
WHERE Member.User_ID=GroupUsers.User_ID
FOR XML PATH('')),1,1,'')
) As Groups
FROM (SELECT User_ID FROM Group_Member GROUP BY User_ID) GroupUsers
That returns:
User_ID Groups
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 2,4
7 2
9 4
10 1
12 5
Which seems right according to the data in your table. But doesn't match up with your expected value list (e.g. User 9 is only in one group in your table data but you show it in the results as belonging to two)
EDIT: Dang. Just noticed that you're using MySQL. My solution was for SQL Server. Sorry.
-- Kevin Fairchild
There was already similar question raised.
Here is my answer (a bit edited):
I am not sure I understand correctly your question, but this could work My take on trees in SQL.
Linked post described method of storing tree in database -- PostgreSQL in that case -- but the method is clear enough, so it can be adopted easily for any database.
With this method you can easy update all the nodes depend on modified node K with about N simple SELECTs queries where N is distance of K from root node.
Good Luck!
I don't remember which SO question I found the link under, but this article on sitepoint.com (second page) shows another way of storing hierarchical trees in a table that makes it easy to find all child nodes, or the path to the top, things like that. Good explanation with example code.
PS. Newish to StackOverflow, is the above ok as an answer, or should it really have been a comment on the question since it's just a pointer to a different solution (not exactly answering the question itself)?
There's no way to do this in the SQL standard, but you can usually find vendor-specific extensions, e.g., CONNECT BY in Oracle.
UPDATE: As the comments point out, this was added in SQL 99.