I have the following table:
+----+----------+-----+-----------+----------+
| 1 | Ramesh | 32 | Ahmedabad | 2000.00 |
| 7 | Muffy | 24 | Indore | 10000.00 |
| 6 | Komal | 22 | MP | 4500.00 |
| 2 | Khilan | 25 | Delhi | 1500.00 |
| 3 | kaushik | 23 | Kota | 2000.00 |
| 5 | Hardik | 27 | Bhopal | 8500.00 |
| 4 | Chaitali | 25 | Mumbai | 6500.00 |
+----+----------+-----+-----------+----------+
And, I am using the following query to sort the table as per my preferred order, but I am getting the following SQL error:
CURSOR OPERATION CONFLICT
My query:
SELECT * FROM CUSTOMERS ORDER BY (CASE ADDRESS WHEN 'DELHI' THEN 1
WHEN 'BHOPAL' THEN 2
WHEN 'KOTA' THEN 3
WHEN 'AHMADABAD' THEN 4
WHEN 'MP' THEN 5
ELSE 100 END) ASC, ADDRESS DESC
Since Access does not suport CASE...WHEN, you have two options to get a custom sort order.
1) If you can edit the database structure, add a "SortOrder" column to the table.
Assuming the "Address" field has unique values in the "CUSTOMERS" table, create a field in the "CUSTOMERS" table called "SortOrder", specifying "1" for "Delhi", "2" for "Bhopal", and so on:
SELECT *
FROM CUSTOMERS
ORDER BY CUSTOMERS.SortOrder DESC;
However, if it"s possible for the same "Address" value to appear multiple times in the "CUSTOMERS" table, you should create a new table like "ADDRESSES" that contains the Address and SortOrder values. The SQL would ultimately look like this:
SELECT CUSTOMERS.*
FROM CUSTOMERS INNER JOIN ADDRESSES ON CUSTOMERS.Address = ADDRESSES.Address
ORDER BY ADDRESSES.SortOrder DESC;
2) Alternatively, if you can"t edit the database structure, using the IIf() function in the ORDER BY clause:
SELECT *
FROM CUSTOMERS
ORDER BY IIf([ADDRESS] = 'DELHI',1,IIf([ADDRESS] = 'BHOPAL',2,
IIf([ADDRESS] = 'KOTA',3,IIf([ADDRESS] = 'AHMADABAD',4,
IIf([ADDRESS] = 'MP',5,6))))) DESC;
You should avoid doing this unless you can't edit the database structure because function calls are slow, especially when multiple conditions are evaluated as in this example. If you need to specify any additional sorting for the "ADDRESS" field, you will need to add additional IIf() functions, which will slow this down even further.
If you're able to specify a sort order for every value of "ADDRESS", you should use a single Switch() function instead of nested IIf() functions.
CASE does not exist in Access. You can use Switch() instead.
Related
I was looking to provide an answer to this question in which the OP has two tables:
Table1
+--------+--------+
| testID | Status |
+--------+--------+
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
+--------+--------+
Table2
+----+--------+--------+--------+
| ID | testID | stepID | status |
+----+--------+--------+--------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | pass |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | fail |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | pass |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | pass |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | pass |
| 6 | 3 | 1 | fail |
+----+--------+--------+--------+
Here, the OP is looking to update the status field for each testID in Table1 with pass if the status of all stepID records associated with the testID in Table2 have a status of pass, else Table1 should be updated with fail for that testID.
In this example, the result should be:
+--------+--------+
| testID | Status |
+--------+--------+
| 1 | fail |
| 2 | pass |
| 3 | fail |
+--------+--------+
I wrote the following SQL code in an effort to accomplish this:
update Table1 a inner join
(
select
b.testID,
iif(min(b.status)=max(b.status) and min(b.status)='pass','pass','fail') as v
from Table2 b
group by b.testID
) c on a.testID = c.testID
set a.testStatus = c.v
However, MS Access reports the all-too-familiar, 'operation must use an updateable query' response.
I know that a query is not updateable if there is a one-to-many relationship between the record being updated and the set of values, but in this case, the aggregated subquery would yield a one-to-one relationship between the two testID fields.
Which left me asking, why is this query not updateable?
You're joining in a query with an aggregate (Max).
Aggregates are not updateable. In Access, in an update query, every part of the query has to be updateable (with the exception of simple expressions, and subqueries in WHERE part of your query), which means your query is not updateable.
You can work around this by using domain aggregates (DMin and DMax) instead of real ones, but this query will take a large performance hit if you do.
You can also work around it by rewriting your aggregates to take place in an EXISTS or NOT EXISTS clause, since that's part of the WHERE clause thus doesn't need to be updateable. That would likely minimally affect performance, but means you have to split this query in two: 1 query to set all the fields to "pass" that meet your condition, another to set them to "fail" if they don't.
I want to create a new table using the results from some queries. I might be looking at this the wrong way so please feel free to let me know. Because of this I will try to make this question simple without putting my code to match each employee number with each manager level column from table2
I have two tables, one has employee names and employee numbers example
table 1
+-------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
| emplpyeenum | firstname | last name | location |
+-------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
| 11 | joe | free | JE |
| 22 | jill | yoyo | XX |
| 33 | yoda | null | 9U |
+-------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
and another table with employee numbers under each manager level so basically a hierarchy example
Table 2
+---------+----------+----------+
| manager | manager2 | manager3 |
+---------+----------+----------+
| 11 | 22 | 33 |
+---------+----------+----------+
I want to make a new table that will have the names besides the numbers, so for example but with employee number beside the names
+---------+--------+----------+
| level 1 | level2 | level3 |
+---------+--------+----------+
| jill | joe | yoda |
+---------+--------+----------+
How can I do this?
edit sorry guys I don't have permission to create a new table or view
Why not change your table2 to this?
+------------+----------+
| EmployeeId | ManagerId|
+------------+----------+
| 11 | NULL |
+------------+----------+
| 22 | 11 |
+------------+----------+
| 33 | 22 |
+------------+----------+
Then you can do what you want with the data. At least your data will be properly normalized. In your table2. What happen if employee 33 hire another employee below him? You will add another column?
Based on your available table, this should give you the result you want.
SELECT m1.firstname, m2.firstname, m3.firstname
FROM table2 t
LEFT JOIN table1 m1 ON m1.employeenum = t.manager
LEFT JOIN table1 m2 ON m2.employeenum = t.manager2
LEFT JOIN table1 m3 ON m3.employeenum = t.manager3
You can just do a basic create table, then do a insert select to that will fill the table the way you need it. All you have to do is replace the select statement that I provided with the one you used to create the levels table output.
create table Levels
(
level1 varchar(25),
level2 varchar(25),
level3 varchar(25)
)
insert into Levels(level1, level2, level3)
select * from tables --here you would put the select statement that you used to create the information. If you dont have this script then let me know
I have data on approx 1000 individuals, where each individual can have multiple rows, with multiple dates and where the columns indicate the program admitted to and a code number.
I need each row to contain a distinct date, so I need to delete the rows of duplicate dates from my table. Where there are multiple rows with the same date, I need to keep the row that has the lowest code number. In the case of more than one row having both the same date and the same lowest code, then I need to keep the row that also has been in program (prog) B. For example;
| ID | DATE | CODE | PROG|
--------------------------------
| 1 | 1996-08-16 | 24 | A |
| 1 | 1997-06-02 | 123 | A |
| 1 | 1997-06-02 | 123 | B |
| 1 | 1997-06-02 | 211 | B |
| 1 | 1997-08-19 | 67 | A |
| 1 | 1997-08-19 | 23 | A |
So my desired output would look like this;
| ID | DATE | CODE | PROG|
--------------------------------
| 1 | 1996-08-16 | 24 | A |
| 1 | 1997-06-02 | 123 | B |
| 1 | 1997-08-19 | 23 | A |
I'm struggling to come up with a solution to this, so any help greatly appreciated!
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 (X64)
The following works with your test data
SELECT ID, date, MIN(code), MAX(prog) FROM table
GROUP BY date
You can then use the results of this query to create a new table or populate a new table. Or to delete all records not returned by this query.
SQLFiddle http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/0ebb5/5
You can use min() function: (See the details here)
select ID, DATE, min(CODE), max(PROG)
from table
group by DATE
I assume that your table has a valid primary key. However i would recommend you to take IDas Primary key. Hope this would help you.
This is the basic question about sql statements.
What is the difference between
SELECT * FROM "Users"
and
SELECT "Users".* FROM "Users"
[TableName].[column] is usually used to pinpoint the table you wish to use when two tables a present in a join or a complex statement and you want to define which column to use out of the two with the same name.
It's most common use is in a join though, for a basic statement such as the one above there is no difference and the output will be the same.
In your case there is no difference. It emerges, when you are selecting from multiple tables. * takes data from all the tables, TABLE_NAME.* - all the data from this table. Suppose, we have a database with 2 tables:
mysql> SELECT * FROM report;
+----+------------+
| id | date |
+----+------------+
| 1 | 2013-05-01 |
| 2 | 2013-06-02 |
+----+------------+
mysql> SELECT * FROM sites_to_report;
+---------+-----------+---------------------+------+
| site_id | report_id | last_run | rows |
+---------+-----------+---------------------+------+
| 1 | 1 | 2013-05-01 16:20:21 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 | 2013-05-03 16:20:21 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 2013-05-03 14:21:47 | 1 |
+---------+-----------+---------------------+------+
mysql> SELECT
-> *
-> FROM
-> report
-> INNER JOIN
-> sites_to_report
-> ON
-> sites_to_report.report_id=report.id;
+----+------------+---------+-----------+---------------------+------+
| id | date | site_id | report_id | last_run | rows |
+----+------------+---------+-----------+---------------------+------+
| 1 | 2013-05-01 | 1 | 1 | 2013-05-01 16:20:21 | 1 |
| 2 | 2013-06-02 | 1 | 2 | 2013-05-03 16:20:21 | 1 |
| 2 | 2013-06-02 | 2 | 2 | 2013-05-03 14:21:47 | 1 |
+----+------------+---------+-----------+---------------------+------+
mysql> SELECT
-> report.*
-> FROM
-> report
-> INNER JOIN
-> sites_to_report
-> ON
-> sites_to_report.report_id=report.id;
+----+------------+
| id | date |
+----+------------+
| 1 | 2013-05-01 |
| 2 | 2013-06-02 |
| 2 | 2013-06-02 |
+----+------------+
In the case of example given by you, there is no difference between them when it comes to semantics.When it comes to performance it might be too little... just parsing two different length strings....
But, it is only true for the example given by you. Where as in queries where multiple tables are involved tableName.* disambiguate the table from which table we want to select all columns.
Example:
If you have two tables TableA and TableB. Let's suppose that they have column with same names that is Name. If you want to specify from which table you want to select Name column. Table-name qualifier helps.
`select TableA.Name, TableB.Name where TableA.age=TableB.age`
That's all I can say.
The particular examples specified would return the same result and have the same performance. There would be no difference in that respect, therefore.
However, in some SQL products, difference in interpreting * and alias.* has effect, in particular, on what else you can add to the query. More specifically, in Oracle, you can mix an alias.* with other expressions being returned as columns, i.e. this
SELECT "Users".*, SomeColumn * 2 AS DoubleValue FROM "Users"
would work. At the same time, * must stand on its own, meaning that the following
SELECT *, SomeColumn * 2 AS DoubleValue FROM "Users"
would be illegal.
For the examples you provided, the only difference is in syntax. What both of the queries share is that they are really bad. Select * is evil no matter how you write it and can get you into all kinds of trouble. Get into the habit of listing the columns you want to have included in your result set.
I want to make a table like following
| ID | Sibling1 | Sibling2 | Sibling 3 | Total_Siblings |
______________________________________________________________
| 1 | Tom | Lisa | Null | 2 |
______________________________________________________________
| 2 | Bart | Jason | Nelson | 3 |
______________________________________________________________
| 3 | George | Null | Null | 1 |
______________________________________________________________
| 4 | Null | Null | Null | 0 |
For Sibling1, Sibling2, Sibling3: they are all nvarchar(50) (can't change this as the requirement).
My concern is that how can I calculate the value for Total_Siblings so it will display the number of siblings like above, using SQL? i attempted to use (Sibling1 + Sibling 2) but it does not display the result I want.
Cheers
A query like this would do the trick.
SELECT ID,Sibling1,Sibling2,Sibling3
,COUNT(Sibling1)+Count(Sibling2)+Count(Sibling3) AS Total
FROM MyTable
GROUP BY ID
A little explanation is probably required here. Count with a field name will count the number of non-null values. Since you are grouping by ID, It will only ever return 0 or 1. Now, if you're using anything other than MySQL, you'll have to substitute
GROUP BY ID
FOR
GROUP BY ID,Sibling1,Sibling2,Sibling3
Because most other databases require that you specify all columns that don't contain an aggregate function in the GROUP BY section.
Also, as an aside, you may want to consider changing your database schema to store the siblings in another table, so that each person can have any number of siblings.
You can do this by adding up individual counts:
select id,sibling1,sibling2,sibling3
,count(sibling1)+count(sibling2)+count(sibling3) as total_siblings
from table
group by 1,2,3,4;
However, your table structure makes this scale crappily (what if an id can belong to, say, 50 siblings?). If you store your data into a table with columns of id and sibling, then this query would be as simple as:
select id,count(sibling)
from table
group by id;