I have two tables here
BIODATA
ID NAME
1 A
2 B
YEAR
ID JOIN YEAR GRADUATE YEAR
1 1990 1991
2 1990 1993
I already use
select
NAME,
max(year(JOIN_YEAR) - year(GRADUATE_YEAR)) as MAX
from
DATA_DIRI
right join DATA_KARTU
ON BIODATA.ID = YEAR.ID;
but the result became:
+--------+------+
| NAME | MAX |
+--------+------+
| A | 3 |
+--------+------+
I already try a lot of different kind of joins but I still can't find how the NAME to be "B". Anyone can help me? Thanks a lot before
If you use an aggregate and a non-aggregate in the selection set at once, then the row used for the non-aggregate field is essentially picked at random.
Basically, how max works is this - it gathers all rows for each group by query (if there is no group by, all of them), calculates the max and puts that in the result.
But since you also put in a non-aggregate field, it needs a value for that - so what SQL does is just pick a random row. You might think 'well, why doesn't it pick the same row max did?' but what if you used avg or count? These have no row associated with it, so the best it can do is pick randomly. This is why this behaviour exists in general.
What you need to do is use a subquery. Something like select d1.id from data_diri d1 where d1.graduate_year - d1.join_year = (select max(d2.graduate_year - d2.join_year from data_diri d2))
Related
I am using sql server management studio 2012 and have to make a query to show which subject a student has failed(condition for failing is point<5.0) the most for the first time from this table
StudentID | SubjectID | First/Second_Time | Point.
1 | 02 | 1 | 5.0
2 | 04 | 2 | 7.0
3 | 03 | 2 | 9
... etc
Here are my teacher's query:
SELECT SubjectID
FROM Result(NAME OF the TABLE)
WHERE [First/Second_Time] = 1 AND Point < 5
GROUP BY SubjectID
HAVING count(point) >= ALL
(
SELECT count(point)
FROM Result
WHERE [First/Second_Time] = 1 AND point < 5
GROUP BY SubjectID
)
I don't understand the reason for making the having query. Because Count(point) is always >=all(select count(point)
from Result
where First/Second_Time=1 and point<5
group by SubjectID), isnt it ?
and it doesn't show that the subject has most student fail for the first time. Thanks in advance and sorry for my bad english
The subquery is returning a list of the number of times a subject was failed (on the first attempt). It might be easier for you to see what it's doing if you run it like this:
SELECT SubjectID, count(point)
FROM Result
WHERE [First/Second_Time] = 1 AND point < 5
GROUP BY SubjectID
So if someone failed math twice and science once, the subquery would return:
2
1
You want to know which subject was failed the most (in this case, which subject was failed 2 or more times, since that is the highest number of failures in your subquery). So you count again (also grouping by subject), and use having to return only subjects with 2 or more failures (greater than or equal to the highest value in your subquery).
SELECT SubjectID
FROM Result
WHERE [First/Second_Time] = 1 AND Point < 5
GROUP BY SubjectID
HAVING count(point)...
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178543.aspx for more examples.
Sounds like you are working on a project for a class, so I'm not even sure I should answer this, but here goes. The question is why the having clause. Have you read the descriptions for having and all ?
All "Compares a scalar value with a single-column set of values".
The scalar value in this case is count(point) or the number of occurrences of a subject id with point less than 5. The single-column set in this case is a list of the number of occurrences of every subject that has less than 5 points.
The net result of the comparison is in the ">=". "All" will only evaluate to true if it is true for every value in the subquery. The subquery returns a set of counts of all subjects meeting the <5 and 1st time requirement. If you have three subjects that meet the <5 and 1st time criteria, and they have a frequency of 1,2,3 times respectively, then the main query will have three "having" results; 1,2,3. Each of the main query results has to be >= each of the subquery results for that main value to evaluate true. So going through step by step, First main value 1 is >= 1, but isn't >= 2 so 1 drops because the "having" is false. Second main value 2 is >=1, is >= 2, but is not >= 3 so it drops. Third value, 3, evaluates true as >= 1, 2, and 3, so you end up returning the subject with the highest frequency.
This is fairly clear in the "remarks" section of the MSDN discussion of "All" keyword, but not as relates to your specific application.
Remember, MSDN is our friend!
I have a requirement wherein i need to find the record number of the records that are returned from the resultset. I know that i can use ROWNUM to get the record number from the resultset but my issue is slightly different. below are the details
Table : ProcessSummary
Columns:
PS_PK ProcessId StepId AsscoiateId ProcessName AssetAmount
145 25 50 Process1 3,500.00
267 26 45 Process2 4,400.00
356 27 70 Process3 2,400.00
456 28 80 90 Process4 780.00
556 29 56 67 Process5 4,500.00
656 45 70 Process6 6,000.00
789 31 75 Process7 8,000.00
Now what i need to do is fetch all the records from the ProcessSummary Table when either of ProcessId OR StepId OR AssociateId is NULL. I wrote the below query
select * from ProcessSummary where ProcessId IS NULL OR StepId IS NULL OR AsscoiateId IS NULL
As expected i got 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th records in the resultset that got returned.
Now what i need is to get the records numbers 1,2,3,6,7. I tried to use the ROWNUM as below but i got the values of 1,2,3,4,5 and not 1,2,3,6,7.
select ROWNUM from ProcessSummary where ProcessId IS NULL OR StepId IS NULL OR AsscoiateId IS NULL
Is it possible to get the ROWNUM values in the sequence that i want and if yes then can you please let me know how can i do this. Also if ROWNUM cannot be used then what would be the other option that i can use to get the result in the form that i want.
Any help would be greately appericiated as i could not find much on the net or SO regarding this sort of requirement.
Thanks
Vikeng21
rownum is an internal numbering that gives you a row number based on the current query results only, so that numbering is not tied to a specific record, and it will change when you change the data or the query.
But the numbering you ask for is already in your table. It looks like you just need to SELECT PS_PK .. instead. PS_PK is the field in your table that contains the actual number you want.
You can generate a numbering using an analytical function, and then filter that query. You need some fields to order by, though. In this case I've chosen PS_PK, but it can be another field, like ProcessName or a combination of other fields as well.
select
*
from
(select
dense_rank() over (order by PS_PK) as RANKING,
p.*
from
ProcessSummary p)
where
ProcessId IS NULL OR StepId IS NULL OR AsscoiateId IS NULL
So, in this query, first a numbering is calculated for each row that is returned from the inner query. The numbering is returned as the field RANKING. And then the other query filters further, but still will return the field RANKING with the original numbering.
Instead of dense_rank there is also rank and row_number. The differences are subtle, but you can just experiment and read some docs here and here to learn about the differences and see which one fits you best.
Note that this might slow down your query, because the inner query first generates a number for each row in the table (there is no filtering on that level now).
I am working on an Oracle 11g database query that needs to retrieve a list of the highest NUM value between duplicated rows in a table.
Here is an example of my context:
ID | NUM
------------
1 | 1111
1 | 2222
2 | 3333
2 | 4444
3 | 5555
3 | 6666
And here is the result I am expecting after the query is executed:
NUM
----
2222
4444
6666
I know how to get the GREATEST value in a list of numbers, but I have absolutely no guess on how to group two lines, fetch the biggest column value between them IF they have the same ID.
Programmaticaly it is something quite easy to achieve, but using SQL it tends to be a litle bit less intuitive for me. Any suggestion or advise is welcomed as I don't even know which function could help me doing this in Oracle.
Thank you !
This is the typical use case for a GROUP BY. Assuming your Num field can be compared:
SELECT ID, MAX(NUM) as Max
FROM myTable
GROUP BY ID
If you don't want to select the ID (as in the output you provided), you can run
SELECT Max
FROM (
SELECT ID, MAX(NUM) as Max
FROM myTable
GROUP BY ID
) results
And here is the SQL fiddle
Edit : if NUM is, as you mentioned later, VARCHAR2, then you have to cast it to an Int. See this question.
The most efficient way I would suggest is
SELECT ids,
value
FROM (SELECT ids,
value,
max(value)
over (
PARTITION BY ids) max_value
FROM test)
WHERE value = max_value;
This requires that the query maintain a single value per id of the maximum value encountered so far. If a new maximum is found then the existing value is modified, otherwise the new value is discarded. The total number of elements that have to be held in memory is related to the number of ids, not the number of rows scanned.
See this SQLFIDDLE
I have health data relating to deaths. Individual should die once maximum. In the database they sometimes don't; probably because causes of death were changed but the original entry was not deleted. I don't really understand how this was allowed to happen, but it has. So, as a made up example, I have:
Row_number | Individual_ID | Cause_of_death | Date_of_death
------------+---------------+-----------------------+---------------
1 | 1 | Stroke | 3 march 2008
2 | 2 | Myocardial infarction | 1 jan 2009
3 | 2 | Pulmonary Embolus | 1 jan 2009
I want each individual to have only one cause of death.
In the example, I want a query that returns row 1 and either row 2 or row 3 (not both). I have to make an arbitrary choice between rows 2 and 3 because there is no timestamp in any of the fields that can be used to determine which is the revision; it's not ideal but is unavoidable.
I can't make the SQL work to do this. I've tried inner joining distinct Individual_ID to the other fields, but this still gives all the rows. I've tried adding a 'having count(Individual_ID) = 1' clause with it. This leaves out people with more than one cause of death completely. Suggestions on the internet seem to be based on using a timestamped field to choose the most recent, but I don't have that.
IBM DB2. Windows XP. Any thoughts gratefully received.
Have you tried using MIN (or MAX) against the cause of death. (and the date of death, if they died on two different dates)
SELECT IndividualID, MIN(Cause_Of_Death), MIN (Date_Of_Death)
from deaths
GROUP BY IndividualID
I don't know DB2 so I'll answer in general. There are two main approaches:
select *
from T
join (
select keys, min(ID) as MinID
from T
group by keys
) on T.ID = MinID
And
select *, row_number() over (partition by keys) as r
from T
where r = 1
Both return all rows, no matter if duplicate or not. But they returns only one duplicate per "key".
Notice, that both statements are pseudo-SQL.
The row_number() approach is probably preferable from a performance standpoint. Here is usr's example, in DB2 syntax:
select * from (
select T.*, row_number() over (partition by Individual_ID) as r
from T
)
where r=1;
I'm somewhat new to SQL queries, and I'm struggling with this particular problem.
Let's say I have query that returns the following 3 records (kept to one column for simplicity):
Tom
Jack
Tom
And I want to have those results grouped by the name and also include the fraction (ratio) of the occurrence of that name out of the total records returned.
So, the desired result would be (as two columns):
Tom | 2/3
Jack | 1/3
How would I go about it? Determining the numerator is pretty easy (I can just use COUNT() and GROUP BY name), but I'm having trouble translating that into a ratio out of the total rows returned.
SELECT name, COUNT(name)/(SELECT COUNT(1) FROM names) FROM names GROUP BY name;
Since the denominator is fixed, the "ratio" is directly proportional to the numerator. Unless you really need to show the denominator, it'll be a lot easier to just use something like:
select name, count(*) from your_table_name
group by name
order by count(*) desc
and you'll get the right data in the right order, but the number that's shown will be the count instead of the ratio.
If you really want that denominator, you'd do a count(*) on a non-grouped version of the same select -- but depending on how long the select takes, that could be pretty slow.