Have forgotten SQL queries as have not used it for a long time.
I have a following requirement.
Have a table called match where I keep my competitor details with respect to matches my team have played against them. So some important fields are like this
match_id
competior_id
match_winner_id
ismatchtied
goals_scored_my_team
goals_scored_comp
From this table I want to get the head to head information for all my competitors.
like this
Competitor Matches Wins Losses Draws
A 10 5 4 1
B 8 3 2 1
Draw information I can get from ismatchtied is set to 'Y' or 'N'.
I want to get all the info from one query. I can get all the info from executing queries separately and do complex logic processing in my server code. But my performance will take a hit.
Any help will be hugely appreciated.
cheers,
Saurav
You could use conditional aggregation, involving CASE expressions inside aggregate functions, like this:
SELECT
competitor_id,
COUNT(*) AS Matches,
COUNT(CASE WHEN goals_scored_my_team > goals_scored_comp THEN 1 END) AS Wins,
COUNT(CASE WHEN goals_scored_my_team < goals_scored_comp THEN 1 END) AS Losses,
COUNT(CASE WHEN goals_scored_my_team = goals_scored_comp THEN 1 END) AS Draws
FROM matches
GROUP BY
competitor_id
;
Every CASE above will evaluate to NULL when the condition isn't satisfied. And since COUNT(expr) omits NULLs, every COUNT(CASE ...) in the above query will effectively only count rows that match the corresponding WHEN condition.
So, the first COUNT counts only rows where my team scored more against the competitor, i.e. where my team won. In a similar way, the second and the third CASEs get the numbers of losses and draws.
SELECT m4.competior_id, COUNT(*) as TotalMathces,
(select count(*) from match m1 where goals_scored_my_team>goals_scored_comp AND m1.competior_id=m4.competior_id) as WINS,
(select count(*) as WIN from match m2 where goals_scored_comp>goals_scored_my_team AND m2.competior_id=m4.competior_id) as LOSES,
(select count(*) as WIN from match m3 where goals_scored_my_team=goals_scored_comp AND m3.competior_id=m4.competior_id) as DRAWS
FROM match m4 group by m4.competior_id;
Related
I've got a query that returns data like so:
student
course
grade
a-student
ENG-W05
100
a-student
MAT-W05
85
a-student
ENG-W06
100
b-student
MAT-W05
90
b-student
SCI-W05
75
The data is grouped by student and course. Ideally, I'd like to have the above data transformed into the below:
student
ENG-W05
MAT-W05
ENG-W06
SCI-W05
a-student
100
85
100
NULL
b-student
NULL
90
NULL
75
So, after the transformation, each student only has one record, with all of their grades (and any missing courses graded as null).
Does anyone have any ideas? Obviously, this is fairly simple to do if I take the data out and transform it in a language (like Python), but I'd love to get the data in the desired format with an SQL query.
Also, would it be possible to have the columns order alphabetically (ascending)? So, the final output would be:
student
ENG-W05
ENG-W06
MAT-W05
SCI-W05
a-student
100
100
85
NULL
b-student
NULL
NULL
90
75
EDIT: To clarify, the values in course aren't known. The ones I provided are just examples. So ideally, if more course values found there way into that first query result (the first table), they would still be mapped to columns in the final result (without needing to change the query). In reality, I actually have >1k distinct values for the course column, and so I can't manually write out each one.
demos:db<>fiddle
You can use conditional aggregation for that:
SELECT
student,
SUM(grade) FILTER (WHERE course = 'ENG-W05') as eng_w05,
SUM(grade) FILTER (WHERE course = 'MAT-W05') as mat_w05,
SUM(grade) FILTER (WHERE course = 'ENG-W06') as eng_w06,
SUM(grade) FILTER (WHERE course = 'SCI-W05') as sci_w05
FROM mytable
GROUP BY student
The FILTER clause allows to aggregate only some specific records. So this one aggregates all records for a specific course.
Finding the correct aggregate function could be difficult. Here SUM() does the job, as there's only one value per group. MAX() or MIN() would do it as well. It depends on your real requirement. If there's really only one value per group, it doesn't matter, you just need to do any aggregation.
Instead of FILTER clause, which is Postgres specific, you could use the more SQL standard fitting CASE clause:
SELECT
student,
SUM(
CASE
WHEN course = 'ENG-W05' THEN grade
END
) AS eng_w05,
...
You can use the conditional aggregation as follows:
select student,
max(case when course = 'ENG-W05' then grade end) as "ENG-W05",
max(case when course = 'MAT-W05' then grade end) as "MAT-W05",
max(case when course = 'ENG-W06' then grade end) as "ENG-W06",
max(case when course = 'SCI-W05' then grade end) as "SCI-W05"
from (your_query) t
group by student
Following this programming exercise: SQL with Street Fighter, which statement is:
It's time to assess which of the world's greatest fighters are through
to the 6 coveted places in the semi-finals of the Street Fighter World
Fighting Championship. Every fight of the year has been recorded and
each fighter's wins and losses need to be added up.
Each row of the table fighters records, alongside the fighter's name,
whether they won (1) or lost (0), as well as the type of move that
ended the bout.
id
name
won
lost
move_id
winning_moves
id
move
However, due to new health and safety regulations, all ki blasts have
been outlawed as a potential fire hazard. Any bout that ended with
Hadoken, Shouoken or Kikoken should not be counted in the total wins
and losses.
So, your job:
Return name, won, and lost columns displaying the name, total number of wins and total number of losses. Group by the fighter's
name.
Do not count any wins or losses where the winning move was Hadoken, Shouoken or Kikoken.
Order from most-wins to least
Return the top 6. Don't worry about ties.
How could we group the fighters by their names?
We have tried:
select name, won, lost from fighters inner join winning_moves on fighters.id=winning_moves.id
group by name order by won desc limit 6;
However it displays:
There was an error with the SQL query:
PG::GroupingError: ERROR: column "fighters.won" must appear in the
GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function LINE 3: select
name, won, lost from fighters inner join winning_move...
In addition we have also tried to include all selected rows:
select name, won, lost from fighters inner join winning_moves on fighters.id=winning_moves.id
group by name,won,lost order by won desc limit 6;
But the results differ from the expected.
Expected:
name won lost
Sakura 44 15
Cammy 44 17
Rose 42 19
Karin 42 13
Dhalsim 40 15
Ryu 39 16
Actual:
name won lost
Vega 2 1
Guile 2 1
Ryu 2 1
Rose 1 0
Vega 1 0
Zangief 1 0
Besides we have read:
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_join.asp
MySql Inner Join with WHERE clause
How to limit rows in PostgreSQL SELECT
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_groupby.asp
GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
PostgreSQL column must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function when using case statement
must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
I guess you need to have sum() to aggregate the ids wins n loss. In addition to that you dont need join as you dont wanna show the move in the first query
select name, sum(won) as wins,
sum(lost)
from fighters
group by name order by sum(won)
desc limit 6;
i guess i just lack the keywords to search, but this is burning on my mind:
how can i add a condition to the sum-function in the select-statement like
select sum(a), sum(b where c=1) from db;?
this means, i want to see the sum of column a and the sum of column b, but only of the records in column b of which column c has the value 1.
the output of heidi just says "bad syntac near WHERE". may there be any other way?
thanks in advance and best regards from Berlin, joachim
The exact syntax may differ depending on the database engine, however it will be along the lines of
SELECT
sum(a),
sum(CASE WHEN c = 1 THEN b ELSE 0 END)
FROM
db
select sum(case when c=1 then b else 0 end)
This technique is useful when you need a lot of aggregates on the same set of data - you can query the entire table without applying a where filter, and have a bunch of these which give you aggregated data for a specific filter.
It's also useful when you need a lot of counts based on filters - you can do sums of 1 or 0:
select sum(case when {somecondition} then 1 else 0 end)
I have the following table (highscores),
id gameid userid name score date
1 38 2345 A 100 2009-07-23 16:45:01
2 39 2345 A 500 2009-07-20 16:45:01
3 31 2345 A 100 2009-07-20 16:45:01
4 38 2345 A 200 2009-10-20 16:45:01
5 38 2345 A 50 2009-07-20 16:45:01
6 32 2345 A 120 2009-07-20 16:45:01
7 32 2345 A 100 2009-07-20 16:45:01
Now in the above structure, a user can play a game multiple times but I want to display the "Games Played" by a specific user. So in games played section I can't display multiple games. So the concept should be like if a user played a game 3 times then the game with highest score should be displayed out of all.
I want result data like:
id gameid userid name score date
2 39 2345 A 500 2009-07-20 16:45:01
3 31 2345 A 100 2009-07-20 16:45:01
4 38 2345 A 200 2009-10-20 16:45:01
6 32 2345 A 120 2009-07-20 16:45:01
I tried following query but its not giving me the correct result:
SELECT id,
gameid,
userid,
date,
MAX(score) AS score
FROM highscores
WHERE userid='2345'
GROUP BY gameid
Please tell me what will be the query for this?
Thanks
Requirement is a bit vague/confusing but would something like this satisfy the need ?
(purposely added various aggregates that may be of interest).
SELECT gameid,
MIN(date) AS FirstTime,
MAX(date) AS LastTime,
MAX(score) AS TOPscore.
COUNT(*) AS NbOfTimesPlayed
FROM highscores
WHERE userid='2345'
GROUP BY gameid
-- ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC -- for ex. to have games played most at top
Edit: New question about adding the id column to the the SELECT list
The short answer is: "No, id cannot be added, not within this particular construct". (Read further to see why) However, if the intent is to have the id of the game with the highest score, the query can be modified, using a sub-query, to achieve that.
As explained by Alex M on this page, all the column names referenced in the SELECT list and which are not used in the context of an aggregate function (MAX, MIN, AVG, COUNT and the like), MUST be included in the ORDER BY clause. The reason for this rule of the SQL language is simply that in gathering the info for the results list, SQL may encounter multiple values for such an column (listed in SELECT but not GROUP BY) and would then not know how to deal with it; rather than doing anything -possibly useful but possibly silly as well- with these extra rows/values, SQL standard dictates a error message, so that the user can modify the query and express explicitly his/her goals.
In our specific case, we could add the id in the SELECT and also add it in the GROUP BY list, but in doing so the grouping upon which the aggregation takes place would be different: the results list would include as many rows as we have id + gameid combinations the aggregate values for each of this row would be based on only the records from the table where the id and the gameid have the corresponding values (assuming id is the PK in table, we'd get a single row per aggregation, making the MAX() and such quite meaningless).
The way to include the id (and possibly other columns) corresponding to the game with the top score, is with a sub-query. The idea is that the subquery selects the game with TOP score (within a given group by), and the main query's SELECTs any column of this rows, even when the fieds wasn't (couldn't be) in the sub-query's group-by construct. BTW, do give credit on this page to rexem for showing this type of query first.
SELECT H.id,
H.gameid,
H.userid,
H.name,
H.score,
H.date
FROM highscores H
JOIN (
SELECT M.gameid, hs.userid, MAX(hs.score) MaxScoreByGameUser
FROM highscores H2
GROUP BY H2.gameid, H2.userid
) AS M
ON M.gameid = H.gameid
AND M.userid = H.userid
AND M.MaxScoreByGameUser = H.score
WHERE H.userid='2345'
A few important remarks about the query above
Duplicates: if there the user played several games that reached the same hi-score, the query will produce that many rows.
GROUP BY of the sub-query may need to change for different uses of the query. If rather than searching for the game's hi-score on a per user basis, we wanted the absolute hi-score, we would need to exclude userid from the GROUP BY (that's why I named the alias of the MAX with a long, explicit name)
The userid = '2345' may be added in the [now absent] WHERE clause of the sub-query, for efficiency purposes (unless MySQL's optimizer is very smart, currently all hi-scores for all game+user combinations get calculated, whereby we only need these for user '2345'); down side duplication; solution; variables.
There are several ways to deal with the issues mentioned above, but these seem to be out of scope for a [now rather lenghty] explanation about the GROUP BY constructs.
Every field you have in your SELECT (when a GROUP BY clause is present) must be either one of the fields in the GROUP BY clause, or else a group function such as MAX, SUM, AVG, etc. In your code, userid is technically violating that but in a pretty harmless fashion (you could make your code technically SQL standard compliant with a GROUP BY gameid, userid); fields id and date are in more serious violation - there will be many ids and dates within one GROUP BY set, and you're not telling how to make a single value out of that set (MySQL picks a more-or-less random ones, stricter SQL engines might more helpfully give you an error).
I know you want the id and date corresponding to the maximum score for a given grouping, but that's not explicit in your code. You'll need a subselect or a self-join to make it explicit!
Use:
SELECT t.id,
t.gameid,
t.userid,
t.name,
t.score,
t.date
FROM HIGHSCORES t
JOIN (SELECT hs.gameid,
hs.userid,
MAX(hs.score) 'max_score'
FROM HIGHSCORES hs
GROUP BY hs.gameid, hs.userid) mhs ON mhs.gameid = t.gameid
AND mhs.userid = t.userid
AND mhs.max_score = t.score
WHERE t.userid = '2345'
In short I have 2 tables:
USERS:
------------------------
UserID | Name
------------------------
0 a
1 b
2 c
CALLS:
------------------------
ToUser | Result
------------------------
0 ANSWERED
1 ENGAGED
1 ANSWERED
0 ANSWERED
Etc, etc (i use a numerical referance for result in reality)
I have over 2 million records each detailing a call to a specific client. Currently I'm using Case statements to count each recurance of a particular result AFTER I have already done the quick total count:
COUNT(DISTINCT l_call_log.line_id),
COALESCE (SUM(CASE WHEN l_call_log.line_result = 1 THEN 1 ELSE NULL END), 0) AS [Answered],
COALESCE (SUM(CASE WHEN l_call_log.line_result = 2 THEN 1 ELSE NULL END), 0) AS [Engaged],
COALESCE (SUM(CASE WHEN l_call_log.line_result = 4 THEN 1 ELSE NULL END), 0) AS [Unanswered]
Am I doing 3 scans of the data after my inital total count? if so, is there a way I can do one sweep and count the calls as-per-result in one go?
Thanks.
This would take one full table scan.
EDIT: There's not enough information to answer; because the duplicate removal (DISTINCT) that I missed earlier, we can't tell what strategy that would be used.... especially without knowing the database engine.
In just about every major query engine, each aggregate function is executed per each column per each row, and it may use a cached result (such as COUNT(*) for example).
Is line_result indexed? If so, you could leverage a better query (GROUP BY + COUNT(*) to take advantage of index statistics, though I'm not sure if that's worthwhile depending on your other tables in the query.
There is the GROUP BY construction in SQL. Try:
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT l_call_log.line_id)
GROUP BY l_call_log.line_result
I would guess it's a table scan, since you don't have any depending subqueries. Run explain on the query to be sure.