I have a table that has a composite key of 3 columns
st_id, sj_id, order
and want to delete a row based on a specific st_id and sj_id and by taking the max(order)
Could you please help?
As far as I know, you'll need to do this in two steps (this is from memory, so may not compile first time):
DELETE
FROM table
WHERE st_id = my_st_id
AND sj_id = my_sj_id
AND order IN (
SELECT MAX(order)
FROM table
WHERE st_id = my_st_id
AND sj_id = my_sj_id)
What this does is perform the inner (SELECT) query first, returning the maximum order. Those results then get passed to the outer query which does the delete.
Related
I have two tables. Table 1 has about 750,000 rows and table 2 has 4 million rows. Table two has an extra ID field in which I am interested, so I want to write a query that will check if the 750,000 table 1 records exist in table 2. For all those rows in table 1 that exist in table 2, I want the respective ID based on same SSN. I tried the following query:
SELECT distinct b.UID, a.*
FROM [Analysis].[dbo].[Table1] A, [Proteus_8_2].dbo.Table2 B
where a.ssn = b.ssn
Instead of getting 750,000 rows in the output, I am getting 5.4 million records. Where am i going wrong?
Please help?
You're requesting all the rows in your select if b.UID is a unique field in column two.
Also if SSN is not unique in table one you can get the higher row count than the total row count for table 2.
You need to consider what you want from table 2 again.
EDIT
You can try this to return distinct combinations of ssn and uid when ssn is found in table 2 provided that ssn and uid have a cardinality of 1:1, i.e., every unique ssn has a single unique uid.
select distinct
a.ssn,b.[UID]
from [Analysis].[dbo].[Table1] a
cross apply
( select top 1 [uid] from [Proteus_8_2].[dbo].[Table2] where ssn = a.ssn ) b
where b.[UID] is not null
Try with LEFT JOIN
SELECT distinct b.UID, a.*
FROM [Analysis].[dbo].[Table1] A LEFT JOIN [Proteus_8_2].dbo.Table2 B
on a.ssn = b.ssn
Since the order detail table is in a one-many relationship to the order table, that is the expected result of any join. If you want something different, you need to define for us the business rule that will tell us how to select only one record from the Order detail table. You cannot effectively write SQL code without understanding the business rules that of what you are trying to achieve. You should never just willy nilly select one record out of the many, you need to understand which one you want.
I have 3 data tables.
In the entries data table I have entries with ID (entryId as primary key).
I have another table called EntryUsersRatings in there are multiple entries that have entryId field and a rating value (from 1 to 5).
(ratings are stored multiple times for one entryId).
Columns: ratingId (primary key), entryId, rating (integer value).
In the third data table I have translations of entries in the first table (with entryId, languageId and title - translation).
What I would like to do is select all entries from first data table with their titles (by language ID).
On a top of that I want average rating of each entry (which can be stored multiple times) that is stored in EntryUsersRatings.
I have tried this:
SELECT entries.entryId, EntryTranslations.title, AVG(EntryUsersRatings.rating) AS AverageRating
FROM entries
LEFT OUTER JOIN
EntryTranslations ON entries.entryId = EntryTranslations.entryId AND EntryTranslations.languageId = 1
LEFT OUTER JOIN
EntryUsersRatings ON entries.entryId = EntryUsersRatings.entryId
WHERE entries.isDraft=0
GROUP BY title, entries.entryId
isDraft is just something that means that entries are not stored with all information needed (just incomplete data - irrelevant for our case here).
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
EDIT: my solution gives me null values for rating.
Edit1: this query is working perfectly OK, I was looking into wrong database.
We also came to another solution, which gives us the same result (I hope someone will find this useful):
SELECT entries.entryId, COALESCE(x.EntryUsersRatings, 0) as averageRating
FROM entries
LEFT JOIN(
SELECT rr.entryId, AVG(rating) AS entryRating
FROM EntryUsersRatings rr
GROUP BY rr.entryId) x ON x.entryId = entries.entryId
#CyberHawk: as you are using left outer join with entries, your result will give all records from left table and matching record with your join condition from right table. but for unmatching records it will give you a null value .
check out following link for the deta:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187518(v=sql.105).aspx
Here's my requirement:
I have 2 tables, orders and orderContents. For each row in the orders table, there are a certain number of rows that contain description of the order. id column serves as foreign key.
What I want is to get all the details for each order (details from orderContents, including id column from orders table) table, but limit no. of results based on common column (foreign key, id)
Problem is that it limits orderContents rows, instead of limiting order rows.
How can I achieve desired effect?
EDIT: Updating tables and desired result set
Orders table:
OrderContents table:
Desired result on limiting number of records to 2:
I'm assuming you are trying to say that you want the results from both tables but only for the first X orders. If so, try this:
SELECT OC.*, O.* FROM OrderContents OC
INNER JOIN (SELECT *
FROM Orders
ORDER BY ID
LIMIT 2) O ON O.ID=OC.ID
Basically, I have a table of data with plenty of records (10,000+)
They all have 4 fields in common which must have data entered. The unique data is TIME.
I have already done a group sort query which has identified the group's of data based on these 4 fields, and then calculated an average time for each group.
I'm now needing to re-insert the average time against the real time in a table so each individual record's time can be evaluated against the average of its type.
For instance, one group from the query would have the result
Process1, Week2, Operator3, Shift4, AvgOfTIME = 120.70
It would then need to re-insert that average time into all records that match those criteria, but do it for every group result and record.
Is this even possible?
you need to update table use subquery
update t1 set t1.timefield = s2.AvgOfTIME
from yourtable t1
inner join
(
-- you query for calculating avg time
)
as t2
on t1.Process1 = t2.Process1 and t1.Week2 = t2.Week2 and t1.Operator3 = t2.Operator3 and t1.Shift4 = t2.Shift4
Downloads table:
id (primary key)
user_id
item_id
created_at
updated_at
The user_id and item_id in this case are both incorrect, however, they're properly stored in the users and items table, respectively (import_id for in each table). Here's what I'm trying to script:
downloads.each do |download|
user = User.find_by_import_id(download.user_id)
item = item.find_by_import_id(download.item_id)
if user && item
download.update_attributes(:user_id => user.id, :item.id => item.id)
end
end
So,
look up the user and item based on
their respective "import_id"'s. Then
update those values in the download record
This takes forever with a ton of rows. Anyway to do this in SQL?
If I understand you correctly, you simply need to add two sub-querys in your SELECT statement to lookup the correct IDs. For example:
SELECT id,
(SELECT correct_id FROM User WHERE import_id=user_id) AS UserID,
(SELECT correct_id FROM Item WHERE import_id=item_id) AS ItemID,
created_at,
updated_at
FROM Downloads
This will translate your incorrect user_ids to whatever ID you want to come from the User table and it will do the same for your item_ids. The information coming from SQL will now be correct.
If, however, you want to update the tables with the correct information, you could write this like so:
UPDATE Downloads
SET user_id = User.user_id,
item_id = Item.item_id
FROM Downloads
INNER JOIN User ON Downloads.user_id = User.import_id
INNER JOIN Item ON Downloads.item_id = Item.import_id
WHERE ...
Make sure to put something in the WHERE clause so you don't update every record in the Downloads table (unless that is the plan). I rewrote the above statement to be a bit more optimized since the original version had two SELECT statements per row, which is a bit intense.
Edit:
Since this is PostgreSQL, you can't have the table name in both the UPDATE and the FROM section. Instead, the tables in the FROM section are joined to the table being updated. Here is a quote about this from the PostgreSQL website:
When a FROM clause is present, what essentially happens is that the target table is joined to the tables mentioned in the fromlist, and each output row of the join represents an update operation for the target table. When using FROM you should ensure that the join produces at most one output row for each row to be modified. In other words, a target row shouldn't join to more than one row from the other table(s). If it does, then only one of the join rows will be used to update the target row, but which one will be used is not readily predictable.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/sql-update.html
With this in mind, here is an example that I think should work (can't test it, sorry):
UPDATE Downloads
SET user_id = User.user_id,
item_id = Item.item_id
FROM User, Item
WHERE Downloads.user_id = User.import_id AND
Downloads.item_id = Item.import_id
That is the basic idea. Don't forget you will still need to add extra criteria to the WHERE section to limit the rows that are updated.
i'm totally guessing from your question, but you have some kind of lookup table that will match an import user_id with the real user_id, and similarly from items. i.e. the assumption is your line of code:
User.find_by_import_id(download.user_id)
hits the database to do the lookup. the import_users / import_items tables are just the names i've given to the lookup tables to do this.
UPDATE downloads
SET downloads.user_id = users.user_id
, downloads.item_id = items.items_id
FROM downloads
INNER JOIN import_users ON downloads.user_id = import_users.import_user_id
INNER JOIN import_items ON downloads.item_id = import_items.import_item_id
Either way (lookup is in DB, or it's derived from code), would it not just be easier to insert the information correctly in the first place? this would mean you can't have any FK's on your table since sometimes they point to one table, and others they point to another. seems a bit odd.