Really difficult problem at the moment, as this is something that I am trying to do in SQL but I know should be done with another language such as PHP.
Essentially what I have is a database which has order numbers, and product codes related to policies.
For some orders there are multiple phases such as a cancellation, and an upgrade (for example when an upgrade is made the original policy is cancelled and then an upgrade is made for the difference)
What I want to do, is run a query that will exclude all cancellations related to an upgrade order (dictated as UP in product code) but keep all cancellations related to a change of detail (dictated as CD in product code).
So in short;
The query will need to find all orders including cancellations, but then delete any cancellation which has the same order number as a UP.
I know that this essentially could be done with a 'foreach' which finds all UP product codes, and the related order number, and then deletes all cancellations associated with that order number - but I don't know how to achieve this in SQL without creating multiple tables on a temporary basis and deleting them after.
Table Structure is as such:
| Order Number | Product Code | Transaction Value |
| 1 | RRCN | -30 |
| 1 | RRUP | 12 |
| 2 | SMFP | 30 |
| 3 | SMCN | -12 |
| 3 | SMCD | 12 |
| 4 | HUCN | -30 |
So I would need the query to show all the table, but remove the RRCN related to the RRUP. So query should look for RRUP, see it is order 1, then find the RRCN related to order 1 and remove this from the results - please note, results NOT the original table.
Any ideas? Much appreciated! (I am running SQL Server 2008)
This query should do the job:
SELECT * FROM Q19427600
WHERE RIGHT(ProductCode,2) <> 'CN'
OR (RIGHT(ProductCode,2) = 'CN' AND
OrderNumber NOT IN (SELECT OrderNumber FROM Q19427600 WHERE RIGHT(ProductCode,2) = 'UP'));
Returns results:
OrderNumber ProductCode TransactionValue
1 RRUP 12
2 SMFP 30
3 SMCN -12
3 SMCD 12
4 HUCN -30
Related
I have a postgres database that contains an audit log table which holds a historical log of updates to documents. It contains which document was updated, which field was updated, which user made the change, and when the change was made. Some sample data looks like this:
doc_id | user_id | created_date | field | old_value | new_value
--------+---------+------------------------+-------------+---------------+------------
A | 1 | 2018-07-30 15:43:44-05 | Title | | War and Piece
A | 2 | 2018-07-30 15:45:13-05 | Title | War and Piece | War and Peas
A | 1 | 2018-07-30 16:05:59-05 | Title | War and Peas | War and Peace
B | 1 | 2018-07-30 15:43:44-05 | Description | test 1 | test 2
B | 2 | 2018-07-30 17:45:44-05 | Description | test 2 | test 3
You can see that the Title of document A was changed three times, first by user 1 then by user 2, then again by user 1.
Basically I need to know which user was the last one to update a field on a particular document. So for example, I need to know that User 1 was the last user to update the Title field on document A. I don't really care what time it happened, just the document, field, and user.
So sample output would be something like this:
doc_id | field | user_id
--------+-------------+---------
A | Title | 1
B | Description | 2
Seems like it should be fairly straightforward query to write but I'm having some trouble with it. I would think that group by would be in order but the problem is that if I group by doc_id I lose the user data:
select doc_id, max(created_date)
from document_history
group by doc_id;
doc_id | max
--------+------------------------
B | 2018-07-30 15:00:00-05
A | 2018-07-30 16:00:00-05
I could join these results table back to the document_history table but I would need to do so based on the doc_id and timestamp which doesn't seem quite right. If two people editing a document at the exact same time I would get multiple rows back for that document and field. Maybe that's so unlikely I shouldn't worry about it, but still...
Any thoughts on a way to do this in a single query?
You want to filter the records, so think where, not group by:
select dh.*
from document_history
where dh.created_date = (select max(dh2.created_date) from document_history dh2 where dh2.doc_id = dh.doc_id);
In most databases, this will have better performance than a group by, if you have an index on document_history(doc_id, created_date).
If your DBMS supports window functions (e.g. PostgreSQL, SQL Server; aka analytic function in Oracle) you could do something like this (SQLFiddle with Postgres, other systems might differ slightly in the syntax):
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!17/981af/4
SELECT DISTINCT
doc_id, field,
first_value(user_id) OVER (PARTITION BY doc_id, field ORDER BY created_date DESC) as last_user
FROM get_last_updated
first_value() OVER (... ORDER BY x DESC) orders the window frames/partitions descending and then takes the first value which is your latest time stamp.
I added the DISTINCT to get your expected result. The window function just adds a new column to your SELECT result but within the same partition with the same value. If you do not need it, remove it and then you are able to work with the origin data plus the new won information.
I want to combine two tables into one:
The first table: Payments
id | 2010_01 | 2010_02 | 2010_03
1 | 3.000 | 500 | 0
2 | 1.000 | 800 | 0
3 | 200 | 2.000 | 300
4 | 700 | 1.000 | 100
The second table is ID and some date (different for every ID)
id | date |
1 | 2010-02-28 |
2 | 2010-03-01 |
3 | 2010-01-31 |
4 | 2011-02-11 |
What I'm trying to achieve is to create table which contains all payments before the date in ID table to create something like this:
id | date | T_00 | T_01 | T_02
1 | 2010-02-28 | 500 | 3.000 |
2 | 2010-03-01 | 0 | 800 | 1.000
3 | 2010-01-31 | 200 | |
4 | 2010-02-11 | 1.000 | 700 |
Where T_00 means payment in the same month as 'date' value, T_01 payment in previous month and so on.
Is there a way to do this?
EDIT:
I'm trying to achieve this in MS Access.
The problem is that I cannot connect name of the first table's column with the date in the second (the easiest way would be to treat it as variable)
I added T_00 to T_24 columns in the second (ID) table and was trying to UPDATE those fields
set T_00 =
iif(year(date)&"_"&month(date)=2010_10,
but I realized that that would be to much code for access to handle if I wanted to do this for every payment period and every T_xx column.
Even if I would write the code for T_00 I would have to repeat it for next 23 periods.
Your Payments table is de-normalized. Those date columns are repeating groups, meaning you've violated First Normal Form (1NF). It's especially difficult because your field names are actually data. As you've found, repeating groups are a complete pain in the ass when you want to relate the table to something else. This is why 1NF is so important, but knowing that doesn't solve your problem.
You can normalize your data by creating a view that UNIONs your Payments table.
Like so:
CREATE VIEW NormalizedPayments (id, Year, Month, Amount) AS
SELECT id,
2010 AS Year,
1 AS Month,
2010_01 AS Amount
FROM Payments
UNION ALL
SELECT id,
2010 AS Year,
2 AS Month,
2010_02 AS Amount
FROM Payments
UNION ALL
SELECT id,
2010 AS Year,
3 AS Month,
2010_03 AS Amount
FROM Payments
And so on if you have more. This is how the Payments table should have been designed in the first place.
It may be easier to use a date field with the value '2010-01-01' instead of a Year and Month field. It depends on your data. You may also want to add WHERE Amount IS NOT NULL to each query in the UNION, or you might want to use Nz(2010_01,0.000) AS Amount. Again, it depends on your data and other queries.
It's hard for me to understand how you're joining from here, particularly how the id fields relate because I don't see how they do with the small amount of data provided, so I'll provide some general ideas for what to do next.
Next you can join your second table with this normalized Payments table using a method similar to this or a method similar to this. To actually produce the result you want, include a calculated field in this view with the difference in months. Then, create an actual Pivot Table to format your results (like this or like this) which is the proper way to display data like your tables do.
Good morning all, apologies for the title... i had trouble simplifying the problem down to a line. My database platform is Teradata.
I am working w/ a table like the following (let's call it "t1")
+------------+----------------------------------------+
| Service_Id | Product |
+------------+----------------------------------------+
| 1 | Traffic |
| 1 | Weather |
| 1 | Travel |
| 1 | Audio |
| 1 | Audio Add-on |
| 2 | Traffic |
| 2 | Weather |
| 2 | Travel |
+------------+----------------------------------------+
I am trying to select service_id's that are related to the following products AND ONLY the following products: Traffic, Weather, Travel
"Service_Id = 1" does not apply here because while it has the required products, it also has an "audio" product related to it... so we have to leave it out. I was able to successfully do this through a series of temp (volatile) tables but it's feeling really hacky and I feel there's got to be a better way. Thanks for your assistance.
I'm doing stuff like that (find a subset/superset/exact match for a set of rows) in my training classes using pizzas :-)
There are several ways to get your result, but for an exact match the easiest way is a SUM using following logic:
SELECT service_id
FROM t1
GROUP BY 1
HAVING
SUM(CASE WHEN Product IN ('Traffic', 'Weather', 'Travel') THEN 1 ELSE -1 END = 3
Assuming that Product is unique for every service_ID.
SELECT service_ID
FROM tableName a
WHERE Product IN ('Traffic', 'Weather', 'Travel') AND
EXISTS
(
SELECT 1
FROM tableName b
WHERE a.Service_ID = b.Service_ID
GROUP BY b.Service_ID
HAVING COUNT(*) = 3 -- <<== total number of products
)
GROUP BY service_ID
HAVING COUNT(*) = 3 -- <<== total number of products
SQLFiddle Demo (demo is running under MySQL database, not sure if it will work on teradata)
I am running into a rather annoying thingy in Access (2007) and I am not sure if this is a feature or if I am asking for the impossible.
Although the actual database structure is more complex, my problem boils down to this:
I have a table with data about Units for specific years. This data comes from different sources and might overlap.
Unit | IYR | X1 | Source |
-----------------------------
A | 2009 | 55 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 80 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 101 | 2 |
A | 2010 | 150 | 3 |
A | 2011 | 90 | 1 |
...
Now I would like the user to select certain sources, order them by priority and then extract one data value for each year.
For example, if the user selects source 1, 2 and 3 and orders them by (3, 1, 2), then I would like the following result:
Unit | IYR | X1 | Source |
-----------------------------
A | 2009 | 55 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 150 | 3 |
A | 2011 | 90 | 1 |
I am able to order the initial table, based on a specific order. I do this with the following query
SELECT Unit, IYR, X1, Source
FROM TestTable
WHERE Source In (1,2,3)
ORDER BY Unit, IYR,
IIf(Source=3,1,IIf(Source=1,2,IIf(Source=2,3,4)))
This gives me the following intermediate result:
Unit | IYR | X1 | Source |
-----------------------------
A | 2009 | 55 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 150 | 3 |
A | 2010 | 80 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 101 | 2 |
A | 2011 | 90 | 1 |
Next step is to only get the first value of each year. I was thinking to use the following query:
SELECT X.Unit, X.IYR, first(X.X1) as FirstX1
FROM (...) AS X
GROUP BY X.Unit, X.IYR
Where (…) is the above query.
Now Access goes bananas. Whatever order I give to the intermediate results, the result of this query is.
Unit | IYR | X1 |
--------------------
A | 2009 | 55 |
A | 2010 | 80 |
A | 2011 | 90 |
In other words, for year 2010 it shows the value of source 1 instead of 3. It seems that Access does not care about the ordering of the nested query when it applies the FIRST() function and sticks to the original ordering of the data.
Is this a feature of Access or is there a different way of achieving the desired results?
Ps: Next step would be to use a self join to add the source column to the results again, but I first need to resolve above problem.
Rather than use first it may be better to determine the MIN Priority and then join back e.g.
SELECT
t.UNIT,
t.IYR,
t.X1,
t.Source ,
t.PrioritySource
FROM
(SELECT
Unit,
IYR,
X1,
Source,
SWITCH ( [Source]=3, 1,
[Source]=1, 2,
[Source]=2, 3) as PrioritySource
FROM
TestTable
WHERE
Source In (1,2,3)
) as t
INNER JOIN
(SELECT
Unit,
IYR,
MIN(SWITCH ( [Source]=3, 1,
[Source]=1, 2,
[Source]=2, 3)) as PrioritySource
FROM
TestTable
WHERE
Source In (1,2,3)
GROUP BY
Unit,
IYR ) as MinPriortiy
ON t.Unit = MinPriortiy.Unit and
t.IYR = MinPriortiy.IYR and
t.PrioritySource = MinPriortiy.PrioritySource
which will produce this result (Note I include Source and priority source for demonstration purposes only)
UNIT | IYR | X1 | Source | PrioritySource
----------------------------------------------
A | 2009 | 55 | 1 | 2
A | 2010 | 150 | 3 | 1
A | 2011 | 90 | 1 | 2
Note the first subquery is to handle the fact that Access won't let you join on a Switch
Yes, FIRST() does use an arbitrary ordering. From the Access Help:
These functions return the value of a specified field in the first or
last record, respectively, of the result set returned by a query. If
the query does not include an ORDER BY clause, the values returned by
these functions will be arbitrary because records are usually returned
in no particular order.
I don't know whether FROM (...) AS X means you are using an ORDER BY inline (assuming that is actually possible) or if you are using a VIEW ('stored Query object') here but either way I assume the ORDER BY is being disregarded (because an ORDER BY should only apply to the final result).
The alternative is to use MIN() (or possibly MAX()).
This is the most concise way I have found to write such queries in Access that require pulling back all columns that correspond to the first row in a group of records that are ordered in a particular way.
First, I added a UniqueID to your table. In this case, it's just an AutoNumber field. You may already have a unique value in your table, in which case you can use that.
This will choose the row with a Source 3 first, then Source 1, then Source 2. If there is a tie, it picks the one with the higher X1 value. If there is a further tie, it is broken by the UniqueID value:
SELECT t.* INTO [Chosen Rows]
FROM TestTable AS t
WHERE t.UniqueID=
(SELECT TOP 1 [UniqueID] FROM [TestTable]
WHERE t.IYR=IYR ORDER BY Choose([Source],2,3,1), X1 DESC, UniqueID)
This yields:
Unit IYR X1 Source UniqueID
A 2009 55 1 1
A 2010 150 3 4
A 2011 90 1 5
I recommend (1) you create an index on the IYR field -- this will dramatically increase your performance for this type of query, and (2) if you have a lot (>~100K) records, this isn't the best choice. I find it works quite well for tables in the 1-70K range. For larger datasets, I like to use my GroupIncrement function to partition each group (similar to SQL Server's ROW_NUMBER() OVER statement).
The Choose() function is a VBA function and may not be clear here. In your case, it sounds like there is some interactivity required. For that, you could create a second table called "Choices", like so:
Rank Choice
1 3
2 1
3 2
Then, you could substitute the following:
SELECT t.* INTO [Chosen Rows]
FROM TestTable AS t
WHERE t.UniqueID=(SELECT TOP 1 [UniqueID] FROM
[TestTable] t2 INNER JOIN [Choices] c
ON t2.Source=c.Choice
WHERE t.IYR=t2.IYR ORDER BY c.[Rank], t2.X1 DESC, t2.UniqueID);
Indexing Source on TestTable and Choice on the Choices table may be helpful here, too, depending on the number of choices required.
Q:
Can you get this to work without the need for surrogate key? For
example what if the unique key is the composite of
{Unit,IYR,X1,Source}
A:
If you have a compound key, you can do it like this-- however I think that if you have a large dataset, it will totally kill the performance of the query. It may help to index all four columns, but I can't say for sure because I don't regularly use this method.
SELECT t.* INTO [Chosen Rows]
FROM TestTable AS t
WHERE t.Unit & t.IYR & t.X1 & t.Source =
(SELECT TOP 1 Unit & IYR & X1 & Source FROM [TestTable]
WHERE t.IYR=IYR ORDER BY Choose([Source],2,3,1), X1 DESC, Unit, IYR)
In certain cases, you may have to coalesce some of the individual parts of the key as follows (though Access generally will coalesce values automatically):
t.Unit & CStr(t.IYR) & CStr(t.X1) & CStr(t.Source)
You could also use a query in your FROM statements instead of the actual table. The query itself would build a composite of the four fields used in the key, and then you'd use the new key name in the WHERE clause of the top SELECT statement, and in the SELECT TOP 1 [key] of the subquery.
In general, though, I will either: (a) create a new table with an AutoNumber field, (b) add an AutoNumber field, (c) add an integer and populate it with a unique number using VBA - this is useful when you get a MaxLocks error when trying to add an AutoNumber, or (d) use an already indexed unique key.
Accounts (table)
+----+----------+----------+-------+
| id | account# | supplier | RepID |
+----+----------+----------+-------+
| 1 | 123xyz | Boston | 2 |
| 2 | 245xyz | Chicago | 2 |
| 3 | 425xyz | Chicago | 3 |
+----+----------+----------+-------+
PayOut (table)
+----+----------+----------+-------------+--------+
| id | account# | supplier | datecreated | Amount |
+----+----------+----------+-------------+--------+
| 5 | 245xyz | Chicago | 01-15-2009 | 25 |
| 6 | 123xyz | Boston | 10-15-2011 | 50 |
| 7 | 123xyz | Boston | 10-15-2011 | -50 |
| 8 | 123xyz | Boston | 10-15-2011 | 50 |
| 9 | 425xyz | Chicago | 10-15-2011 | 100 |
+----+----------+----------+-------------+--------+
I have accounts table and I have payout table. Payout table comes from abroad so we do not have any control over it. This leaves us with a problem that we can't join the two tables based on record ID field, that is one problem which we can't solved. We therefore join based on Account#, SupplierID (2nd and 3rd column). This creates a problem that it creates (possibly) many to many relationship. But we filter our records if they are active and we use a second filter on payout table when the payout was created. Payout are created months to month. There are two problems with this in my view
The query takes quite a bit of time to complete (could be inefficient)
There are certain duplicates that are removed which should not be removed. Example is record 6 and 8 in payout table. What happened here is, we got a customer, then the customer cancelled then he got him back. In this case +50, -50 and +50. Again all values are valid and must show in the report for audit purposes. Currently only one +50 is shown, the other is lost. There are a couple of other problems within the report that comes once in a while.
Here is the query. It uses groups by to remove duplicates. I would like to have an advance query which outperforms and which does takes into account that no record in PayOut table is duplicated as long as they come up in the month of the report.
Here is our current query
/* Supplied to Store Procedure */
-----------------------------------
#RepID // the person for whome payout is calculated
#Month // of payment date
#year // year of payment date
-----------------------------------
select distinct
A.col1,
A.col2,
...
A.col10,
B.col2,
B.Col2,
B.Amount /* this is the important column, portion of which goes to Rep */
from records A
JOIN payout B
on A.Supplier = B.Supplier AND A.Account# = B.Account#
where datepart(mm, B.datecreated) = #Month /* parameter to stored procedure */
and datepart(yyyy, B.datecreated) = #Year
and A.[rep ID] = #RepID /* parameter to SP */
group by
col1,col2,col3,....col10
order by customerName
Is this query optimum? Can I improve it using CROSS APPLY or WHERE EXISTs that will make it faster as well as remove the duplicate problem?
Note that this query is used to get payout of a rep. Hence every record has repid field who it is assigned to. Ideally I would like to use Select WHERE Exist query.
It's difficult to understand exactly what you want because in one place you say you 'want' the duplicates but then you say that you are using the group by to remove duplicates. So the first thought would be "Why not just get rid of the group by?". But I have to believe you are smart enough to have thought of that yourself, so I assume it's got to be there for a reason.
I think someone here could help you pretty easily if you could post the actual query, but since you say you can't I will just try to give you some direction in solving the problem...
Instead of trying to do everything in one statement, use temporary tables or views to split it up. It may be easier for you to think about how to get rid of the duplicates you don't want and keep the ones you do first and put those into a temporary table, and then join the tables together and work with that.