I have a table of zip codes and a stored procedure to calculate all zipcodes within an X radius, given a zip code and a radius.
For example, to find all zip codes within 200 miles of 10001 I'd enterCALL zip(10001,200) and it would display each zip code.
In a new column "hradius", I would like to have all zip codes within 200 miles of that row's zip code.
I'm very new to SQL, thank you for any help.
Don't shove a string with multiple values into one field. Create a related table to link one zip code to multiple:
ZipOrigin ZipDest Distance
12345 23456 150
12345 34567 175
...
(Distance is optional - for example you could use it to find all zip codes within ANY radius less than X)
In this situation, if you want to pre-generate your list of matches, you're much better off using a separate table for the matches. You'll have two tables: one for your zip codes and one for the matches. The second table will have two columns, one for the source zip code and one for the matching zip code within X miles (200 in this case). There will be a separate row for each match. The results from the stored procedure should output to the second table. Once you have that you can use a query like the following:
SELECT zip.zipcode, zipJoin.zipcode
FROM zipCodes zip
INNER JOIN zipCodeMatches zipJoin
ON zip.zipcode = zipJoin.sourceZipCode
WHERE zip.zipcode = #zip
You should spend some time learning about proper table design and normalization and how to join tables together to help you understand these concepts.
Related
I've been wracking my brain here trying to figure out a way to achieve a solution to the following without external applications (such as Excel).
I'll set up the structure: We are using a 3rd party ERP that provides a nicely configured conversion system for product packaging types. I'm trying to create a query that will take all conversions for a given product and return them inline. Because the number of conversion records is indeterminate, the query would need to be recursive.
To make things simple, let's use package quantites for this scenario example. If a product can be shipped in [eaches, pairs, sets, packages, and cartons], the conversion table records would look something like this:
pkConvKey
fkProdID
childUnit
parentUnit
chPerParent
ConvRec001
Prod123
each
pair
2
ConvRec002
Prod123
pair
set
3
ConvRec003
Prod123
set
pack
7
ConvRec004
Prod123
pack
carton
24
Using the table above, I can determine how many pairs of Prod123 are contained in a carton by following the math:
24 packs x 7 sets x 3 pairs = 504 pairs per carton.
I could further multiply that by 2 to get the count of individual pieces in a carton (1,008). That's the idea behind the conversion table but here's my actual problem.
I'd like to return a table of records where associated conversions are in-line, thusly:
fkProdID
unit1
unit2
qtyInUnit2
unit3
qtyInUnit3
unit4
qtyInUnit4
unit5
qtyInUnit5
Prod123
each
pair
2
set
3
pack
7
carton
24
Complicating the matter is that the unit types are unknown (arbitrary) values and there is no requirement to have a full, intact chain from unit A to unit Z. (For example, there might be a conversion record from each to pair, and another from set to pack, but not one from pair to set).
In this scenario, the select can't recursively link the records, and they would appear in the resulting table as two separate records - which is fine.
I have attempted to join the table to itself on t1.parentUnit = t2.childUnit, but that obviously doesn't work recursively.
I fear my only solution is to left join the table over and over - as many as 20 times in the query, settling for NULL values if additional conversions do not exist but then I would also have many duplicate rows (with incomplete conversion chains) to weed out.
Can this be done in a select query?
Thanks in advance!
-Dan
So I'm trying to match entries in two databases so in the new table the row is comprised of two words that end in the same ending letter. I'm working with two tables that have one column in each of them, each named word. table 1 contains the following data in order: Dog, High, It, Weeks, while table two contains the data: Bat, Is, Laugh, Sing. I need to select from both of these tables and match the words so that each row is as follows: Dog | Sing, High | Laugh, It | Bat, Weeks | Is
The screenshot is what I have so far for my SQL statement. I'm still early on in learning SQL so any info to help on this would be appreciated.
Recommend reading up on SUBSTR() for more information on why the below code works: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/olap.111/b28126/dml_functions_2101.htm#OLADM679
SELECT
a.word
, b.word
FROM sec1313_words1 a
JOIN sec1313_words2 b
ON SUBSTR(b.word, -1) = SUBSTR(a.word, -1)
ORDER BY a.word
I am trying to improve the performance of updating only about 60K rows with data coming from different rows in the same table. At about 2 minutes, it's not terrible, but it's not great either, and my application really doesn't work if you have to wait so long between recalculations.
The app generates a set of financial statements for a business, where it calculates basic formulas on 1300 line items, like Rent, or Direct Labor, or Inventory costs, all of which roll up to totals that mimic the Balance Sheet, P&Ls, Cash Flow etc. Many of the line items need to calculate on a month by month basis, where for instance it has figure out April's On Hand Inventory before knowing what April's Inventory Value is. So the total program ends up looping through 48 months over 30 calculation passes, requiring about 8000 SQL statements. (fortunately it figures it all out by itself!) Each SQL is taking only a few milliseconds, but it adds up.
I'm pretty sure I can't reduce the number of loops, so I keep trying to figure out how to make each SQL quicker. The basic structure is as follows:
LI: Line item table that holds the basic info of each item, primary key LID
LID Name
123 Sales_1
124 Sales_2
200 Total Sales
Formula: Master/Detail tables that create any formula from the line items
Total sales=Sales_1 + Sales_2
or
{200}={123}+{124}
(I use curly braces to be able to find and replace the LIDs within the formula, as shown in the SQL below)
FC: Formula Calculation table: all line items by month, about 1300 items x 48 months=62K records. Primary key FID
FID SQL_ID LID LID_brace LIN OutputMonth Formula Amount
3232 25 123 {123} Sales_1 1 1200
3255 26 124 {124} Sales_2 1 1500
5454 177 200 {200} Total Sales 1 {123}+{124}
DMO:Operand Join table, which links a formula to its detail lines within the same table, so once Sales_1 is calculated, it can find the Total Sales record and update it, which then will evaluate then send its amount up the chain to the other LIDs that depend on it, such as Total Income. It locates the record to update based on the SQL_id, which is set based on the calc pass and month. Its complex to setup, but pretty straightforward once you actually run things
Master_FID Detail_FID
5454 3232 (links total sales to sales_1)
5454 3255 (links total sales to sales_2)
SQL1:
Update FC inner join DMO on FC.FID=DMO.Master_FID inner join FC2 on DMO.Detail_FID=FC2.FID set FC.formula=replace(FC.Formula,FC.LID_brace,FC2.Amount) where FC.sql_id=177
The above will change {123} + {124} to 1200+1500 which will then evaluate to 2700 when I run the following
SQL2:
UPDATE FC SET FC.amount = Eval([fc].[formula]) WHERE (((FC.calc_sql_id)=177 )
So those two sql statements are run over and over again, with the only thing changing is the SQL_id.
There are indexes on the SQL_ID, LID, FID etc
When measuring, the milliseconds per record can range from .04ms if there are many records included (~10K for some passes), up to 10 or 15 ms for just one record updated. Perhaps it is the setup of the query causing a whole lot of overhead time, because it doesn't seem to be a function of the actual number of records updated? Also its not very consistent, where some runs have 20+ ms compared to less than 3ms when it runs it again.
I know this is a complex question i'm asking that probably doesn't have a simple answer, but I'm just looking for directions for what might help. For instance, a parameter query if there isn't a whole lot of change between runs? Does Access have a better time of running a query if knows about it in advance, i.e a named query with parameters vs dynamic SQL? Am I just doomed because it still needs to run those 8000 queries?
Also, is there inherently a problem with trying to update the same table through a secondary join table, and/or is there a better way to do it?
Is it also because string replacing isn't efficient this way? If I tried RegEx would that be quicker? I would have to make a function that could do that within a query, but it seems like that's going to be slower.
Thanks in advance, this has been a most vexing problem!!!
I have an unusual question that seems simple but has me stumped in a SQL Server stored procedure.
I have 2 tables as described below.
tblMaster
ID, CommitDate, SubUser, OrigFileName
Sample data
ID CommitDate SubUser OrigFileName
----------------------------------------
1 2014-10-07 Test1 Test1.pdf
2 2014-10-08 Test2 Test2.pdf
3 2014-10-09 Test3 Test3.pdf
The above table is basically the header table that tracks the committed files. In addition to this, we have a details table with the following structure.
tblIndex
ID, FileID (Linking column to the header row described above), Word
Sample data:
1. 1, 1, Oil
2. 2, 1, oil
3. 3, 2, oil
4. 4, 2, tank
5. 5, 3, tank
The above rows represent the words that we want to search on and if a certain criteria matches return the corresponding filename/header row ID. What I would love to figure out to do is if I do a search for
One word (i.e. "oil"), then the system should respond with all the files that meet the criteria (easiest case and figured out)
If more than one word is searched for (i.e. "oil" and "tank"), then we should only see the second file since it is the only one that has both oil and tank as its key words.
Tried using a LIKE "%oil%" AND LIKE "%tank%" and that resulted in no rows being created since one value can't be both oil and tank.
Tried doing a LIKE "%oil%" OR LIKE "%tank%" but I get files 1, 2, and 3 since the OR is inclusive of all the other rows.
One last thing, I recognize I could just do a search for the first term and then save the results into a temp table and then search for the second term in that second table and I will get what I am looking for. The problem with that is that I don't exactly know how many items will be searched for. I don't want to have to create a structure where I am constantly having to store data into another temp table if someone does a search for 6 "keywords".
Any help/ideas will be much appreciated.
try this ! slightly differing from the previous answer
SELECT distinct FileID,COUNT(distinct t.word) FROM tblIndex t
WHERE t.Word LIKE '%oil%' OR t.Word LIKE '%tank%'
GROUP BY FileID
HAVING COUNT(distinct t.word) > 1
One simple option would be to do something like this :
SELECT FileID
FROM tblIndex t
WHERE t.Word LIKE '%oil%' OR t.Word LIKE '%tank%'
GROUP BY FileID
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
This assume you do not have duplicate in your tblIndex.
I'm also unsure whether you really need the like or not. According to your sample data you don't, a basic comparison would be way more efficient and would avoid possible collisions.
I have 2 .csv with ';' separated files i loaded into Qlikview.
first file contains:
ID | date/time | Price | Postalcode
the second contains
ID | Postalcode | City | Region
I've first did an extract to a .qvd file and in the .qvw i added the following code:
Customerpostalcode:
LOAD %key_CustomerId,
TimeDate,
Price,
%key_postalcode
FROM
[$(vExtract)Customerpostalcodes.qvd]
(qvd);
Postcodes:
LEFT JOIN (Customerpostalcodes)
LOAD %key_postalcodeID,
%key_postalcode,
City,
Region
FROM
[$(vExtract)Postalcodes.qvd]
(qvd);
Now here in Belgium you have multiple cities for one postal code
for example if postal code is "9700" then i have 15 cities but if the price for postal code 9700 is €50 than i got 15 times €50. How can i tell Qlikview to only count and sum this price one time each postal code?
Thx
The problem here is that you have a many-to-many relationship in your Postcodes table so JOINing this into the first table will explode the table with the repeated entries.
Perhaps you need to try and figure out a way of expanding your source data for Customerpostalcode so that the table also contains more address information for the customer (for example by including City). This way you could then join the tables on both %key_postalcode and City which would then result in hopefully single matches which would then solve your issue.