I need to create a table for operating on data, which has been provided to me like this:
col1 col2 col3
1 < 3 50%
2 < 5 50%
3 < 10 50%
1 5>RC >=3 25%
2 10>RC >=5 25%
3 20>RC >=10 25%
1 >=5 0%
2 >=10 0%
3 >=20 0%
A user of the system would be passing a number, which is present in col2 and col1 above. Let's say that the user passed 7 for col2 and 1 for col1. Business requirement is that I should return the user the following row
1 >=5 0%
Roughly speaking, it means that I checked the value in col2, and noticed that it is >=5, which my input data fits.
I was thinking of splitting col2 across two columns - one for storing the number and the other for operator. Something like this:
col1 col2 col3 col4
1 3 50% <
2 5 50% <
3 10 50% <
1 5>RC >=3 25%
2 10>RC >=5 25%
3 20>RC >=10 25%
1 5 0% >=
2 10 0% >=
3 20 0% >=
Thsi way, I will be able to write queries for addressing queries based on data in first and last three columns (though I have not running queries right now, I just did dry run). What I am not able to figure out so far is - How to address the data in rows 4,5,6? You can ignore the RC part in those rows, as I can certainly do away with it, as I am concerned with the numeric range for my queries.
I tried splitting the data for rows 4,5,6 in 2 rows each, something like:
1 3 25% >=
1 5 25% <
2 5 25% >=
2 10 25% <
3 10 25% >=
3 20 25% <
But, I see an imminent issue here, when it comes to retrieving the data. Let's say that user paased col2 = 7 AND col1 = 1. Now, I should have got only one row,that is row number 7 in the first table in my question, but I am also getting an additional row (1st row in last table, where I was splitting data for BETWEEN conditions)
Can anyone suggest me a better approach for storing this data so that my requierment can be achieved?
SQLFiddle demo: http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!4/d2d90/7
I suggest, that you should just split col2 in two columns - lower and higher bound, replacing not existing bound, for example, with NULL. It will look something like this:
+----+-------+-------+----+
|col1|col2_lb|col2_hb|col3|
+----+-------+-------+----+
|1 |NULL |3 |50% |
+----+-------+-------+----+
|2 |NULL |5 |50% |
+----+-------+-------+----+
|3 |NULL |10 |50% |
+----+-------+-------+----+
|1 |3 |5 |25% |
+----+-------+-------+----+
|... |... |... |... |
+----+-------+-------+----+
|1 |5 |NULL |0% |
+----+-------+-------+----+
Using this structure, you'll be able to find needed row with simple query:
SELECT *
FROM T_TABLE t
WHERE t.col1 = :VAL1
AND NVL(t.col2_lb,:VAL2) <= :VAL2
AND NVL(t.col2_hb,:VAL2+1) > :VAL2
Related
I have looked at the COALESCE documentation and it mentions the typical case of using COALESCE to make default/situational parameters, e.g.
COALESCE(discount, 5)
which evaluates to 5 if discount is not defined as something else.
However, I have seen it used where COALESCE actually evaluated all the arguments, despite the documentation explicitly saying it stops evaluating arguments after the first non-null argument.
Here is an example similar to what I encountered, say you have a table like this:
id | wind | rain | snow
1 | null | 2 | 3
2 | 5 | null | 6
3 | null | 7 | 2
Then you run
SELECT *
FROM weather_table
WHERE
COALESCE(wind, rain, snow) >= 5
You would expect this to only select rows with wind >= 5, right? NO! It selects all rows with either wind, rain or snow more than 5. Which in this case is 2 rows, specifically these two:
2 | 5 | null | 6
3 | null | 7 | 2
Honestly, pretty cool functionality, but it really irks me that I couldn't find any example of this online or in the documentation.
Can anyone tell me what's going on? Am I missing something?
You would expect this to only select rows with wind >= 5, right?
No, I expect it to select rows with what the Coalesce function returns.
The Coalesce function delivers the value of the first non-null parameter. You had Coalesce(wind,rain,snow). The first row had (null,2,3), so coalesce returned 2. The second row had (5,null,6) so returned 5. The third row had (null,7,2) so returned 7.
The last two rows meet the condition >=5, so 2 rows are retrieved.
Notice that the value for snow was never returned in your example, because either wind or rain always had a value.
After writing out the question so clear, I realized what was going on myself. But I want to answer it here in case anyone else is confused.
Turns out the reason is the COALESCE function is run once for each row, which I suppose I could have known. Then it all makes sense.
It checks for each row, do I have non-null wind, if it is >= 5 I add this row to the result, if not I check if rain is non-null, and so on.
Notably though, if my table was had been like this:
id | wind | rain | snow
1 | 0 | 2 | 3
2 | 5 | 0 | 6
3 | 0 | 7 | 2
The command would have worked like I thought, and the COALESCE function completely useless, would have picked only that one row
2 | 5 | 0 | 6
equal to SELECT * FROM weather_table WHERE wind >= 5.
It only works if there are columns which are null (0 <> null).
I have a table that tests an item and stores any faliures similar to:
Item|Test|FailureValue
1 |1a |"ZZZZZZ"
1 |1b | 123456
2 |1a |"MMMMMM"
2 |1c | 111111
1 |1d |"AAAAAA"
Is there a way in SQL to essential pivot these and have the failure values be output to individual columns? I know that I can already use STUFF to achieve what I want for the Test field but I would like the results as individual columns if possible.
I'm hoping to achieve something like:
Item|Tests |FailureValue1|FailureValue2|FailureValue3|Failure......
1 |1a,1b |"ZZZZZZ" |123456 |NULL |NULL ......
2 |1a,1b |"MMMMMM" |111111 |"AAAAAA" |NULL ......
Kind regards
Matt
I would like to create a script that takes the rows of a table which have a specific mathematical difference in their ASCII sum and to add the rows to a separate table, or even to flag a different field when they have that difference.
For instance, I am looking to find when the ASCII sum of word A and the ASCII sum of word B, both stored in rows of a table, have a difference of 63 or 31.
I could probably use a loop to select these rows, but SQL is not my greatest virtue.
ItemID | asciiSum |ProperDiff
-------|----------|----------
1 | 100 |
2 | 37 |
3 | 69 |
4 | 23 |
5 | 6 |
6 | 38 |
After running the code, the field ProperDiff will be updated to contain 'yes' for ItemID 1,2,3,5,6, since the AsciiSum for 1 and 2 (100-37) = 63 etc.
This will not be fast, but I think it does what you want:
update t
set ProperDiff = 'yes'
where exists (select 1
from t t2
where abs(t2.AsciiSum - t.AsciiSum) in (63, 31)
);
It should work okay on small tables.
I don't know if Stata can do this but I use the tabulate command a lot in order to find frequencies. For instance, I have a success variable which takes on values 0 to 1 and I would like to know the success rate for a certain group of observations ie tab success if group==1. I was wondering if I can do sort of the inverse of this operation. That is, I would like to know if I can find a value of "group" for which the frequency is greater than or equal to 15% for example.
Is there a command that does this?
Thanks
As an example
sysuse auto
gen success=mpg<29
Now I want to find the value of price such that the frequency of the success variable is greater than 75% for example.
According to #Nick:
ssc install groups
sysuse auto
count
74
#return list optional
local nobs=r(N) # r(N) gives total observation
groups rep78, sel(f >(0.15*`r(N)')) #gives the group for which freq >15 %
+---------------------------------+
| rep78 Freq. Percent % <= |
|---------------------------------|
| 3 30 43.48 57.97 |
| 4 18 26.09 84.06 |
+---------------------------------+
groups rep78, sel(f >(0.10*`nobs'))# more than 10 %
+----------------------------------+
| rep78 Freq. Percent % <= |
|----------------------------------|
| 2 8 11.59 14.49 |
| 3 30 43.48 57.97 |
| 4 18 26.09 84.06 |
| 5 11 15.94 100.00 |
+----------------------------------+
I'm not sure if I fully understand your question/situation, but I believe this might be useful. You can egen a variable that is equal to the mean of success, by group, and then see which observations have the value for mean(success) that you're looking for.
egen avgsuccess = mean(success), by(group)
tab group if avgsuccess >= 0.15
list group if avgsuccess >= 0.15
Does that accomplish what you want?
I want to represent the list "hi", "hello", "goodbye", "good day", "howdy" (with that order), in a SQL table:
pk | i | val
------------
1 | 0 | hi
0 | 2 | hello
2 | 3 | goodbye
3 | 4 | good day
5 | 6 | howdy
'pk' is the primary key column. Disregard its values.
'i' is the "index" that defines that order of the values in the 'val' column. It is only used to establish the order and the values are otherwise unimportant.
The problem I'm having is with inserting values into the list while maintaining the order. For example, if I want to insert "hey" and I want it to appear between "hello" and "goodbye", then I have to shift the 'i' values of "goodbye" and "good day" (but preferably not "howdy") to make room for the new entry.
So, is there a standard SQL pattern to do the shift operation, but only shift the elements that are necessary? (Note that a simple "UPDATE table SET i=i+1 WHERE i>=3" doesn't work, because it violates the uniqueness constraint on 'i', and also it updates the "howdy" row unnecessarily.)
Or, is there a better way to represent the ordered list? I suppose you could make 'i' a floating point value and choose values between, but then you have to have a separate rebalancing operation when no such value exists.
Or, is there some standard algorithm for generating string values between arbitrary other strings, if I were to make 'i' a varchar?
Or should I just represent it as a linked list? I was avoiding that because I'd like to also be able to do a SELECT .. ORDER BY to get all the elements in order.
As i read your post, I kept thinking 'linked list'
and at the end, I still think that's the way to go.
If you are using Oracle, and the linked list is a separate table (or even the same table with a self referencing id - which i would avoid) then you can use a CONNECT BY query and the pseudo-column LEVEL to determine sort order.
You can easily achieve this by using a cascading trigger that updates any 'index' entry equal to the new one on the insert/update operation to the index value +1. This will cascade through all rows until the first gap stops the cascade - see the second example in this blog entry for a PostgreSQL implementation.
This approach should work independent of the RDBMS used, provided it offers support for triggers to fire before an update/insert. It basically does what you'd do if you implemented your desired behavior in code (increase all following index values until you encounter a gap), but in a simpler and more effective way.
Alternatively, if you can live with a restriction to SQL Server, check the hierarchyid type. While mainly geared at defining nested hierarchies, you can use it for flat ordering as well. It somewhat resembles your approach using floats, as it allows insertion between two positions by assigning fractional values, thus avoiding the need to update other entries.
If you don't use numbers, but Strings, you may have a table:
pk | i | val
------------
1 | a0 | hi
0 | a2 | hello
2 | a3 | goodbye
3 | b | good day
5 | b1 | howdy
You may insert a4 between a3 and b, a21 between a2 and a3, a1 between a0 and a2 and so on. You would need a clever function, to generate an i for new value v between p and n, and the index can become longer and longer, or you need a big rebalancing from time to time.
Another approach could be, to implement a (double-)linked-list in the table, where you don't save indexes, but links to previous and next, which would mean, that you normally have to update 1-2 elements:
pk | prev | val
------------
1 | 0 | hi
0 | 1 | hello
2 | 0 | goodbye
3 | 2 | good day
5 | 3 | howdy
hey between hello & goodbye:
hey get's pk 6,
pk | prev | val
------------
1 | 0 | hi
0 | 1 | hello
6 | 0 | hi <- ins
2 | 6 | goodbye <- upd
3 | 2 | good day
5 | 3 | howdy
the previous element would be hello with pk=0, and goodbye, which linked to hello by now has to link to hey in future.
But I don't know, if it is possible to find a 'order by' mechanism for many db-implementations.
Since I had a similar problem, here is a very simple solution:
Make your i column floats, but insert integer values for the initial data:
pk | i | val
------------
1 | 0.0 | hi
0 | 2.0 | hello
2 | 3.0 | goodbye
3 | 4.0 | good day
5 | 6.0 | howdy
Then, if you want to insert something in between, just compute a float value in the middle between the two surrounding values:
pk | i | val
------------
1 | 0.0 | hi
0 | 2.0 | hello
2 | 3.0 | goodbye
3 | 4.0 | good day
5 | 6.0 | howdy
6 | 2.5 | hey
This way the number of inserts between the same two values is limited to the resolution of float values but for almost all cases that should be more than sufficient.