I'm trying make a report which contains some prices on every row, and I want to print the sum of prices -which are printed on the page- at the bottom of every page. I don't find it smart to print the grand totals in every page, for my situation at least.
Example:
First Page
Name | Price1 | Price2 | Price3 | Price4 -table header
Record 1 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 20
Record 2 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15
Total 2 records | 25 | 30 | 30 | 35 -table footer for page 1
Second Page
Name | Price1 | Price2 | Price3 | Price4 -starting 2. page, table header
Record 3 | 20 | 30 | 30 | 30
Total 1 records | 20 | 30 | 30 | 30 -end of the table
Grand T. (3 rec) | 45 | 60 | 60 | 65 -end of the table
I put 2 records for the first page and 1 for second page, its just to demonstrate what I want. I did my best to make it look clear.
I can see two possible ways this could be done.
Since you say that there's a predictable number of rows per page (let's say, for ease of constructing an example, that there are 25), you could do the following:
In your query, assign each row a consecutive sequence number. You could do this like this:
WITH Cte
AS (
SELECT Name,
Price1,
Price2,
Price3,
Price4,
RecordNumber = Row_Number() OVER (ORDER BY [whatever])
FROM [tables]
)
SELECT Name,
Price1,
[etc]
RowGroup = Floor((RecordNumber * 1.0) / 25 )
FROM Cte
ORDER BY RecordNumber
Then, in your report, group by RowGroup, and subtotal your rows.
If you have other, higher-level groupings in the report, you will probably have to start a new page after each higher-level group, because otherwise it will throw the placement off for the page subtotals.
(You might also be able to do this with the RowNumber() function in SSRS without modifying the underlying query, but there are a lot of rules about what functions you can use when, and I don't know if that would be allowed.)
The other option I can think of is more complicated and involves using the report Code section and setting some module-level functions. Let me know if you think that's something you need to see.
Related
I'm really sorry as this was probably answered before, but I couldn't find something that solved the problem.
In this case, I'm trying to get the result of dividing two sums in the same column.
| Id | month | budget | sales |
| -- | ----- | ------ | ----- |
| 1 | jan | 1000 | 800 |
| 2 | jan | 1000 | 850 |
| 1 | feb | 1200 | 800 |
| 2 | feb | 1100 | 850 |
What i want is to get the % of completition for each id and month (example: get 0,8 or 80% in a fifth column for id 1 in jan)
I have something like
sel
id,
month,
sum (daily_budget) as budget,
sum (daily_sales) as sales,
budget/sales over (partition by 1,2) as efectivenes
from sales
group by 1,2
I know im doing this wrong but I'm kinda new with sql and cant find the way :|
Thanks!
This should do it
CAST(ROUND(SUM(daily_sales) * 100.00 / SUM(daily_budget), 1) AS DECIMAL(5,2)) AS Effectiveness
I'm new at SQL too but maybe I can help. Try this?
sel
id,
month,
sum (daily_budget) as budget,
sum (daily_sales) as sales,
(sum(daily_budget)/sum(daily_sales)) over (partition by id) as efectivenes
from sales
group by id
If you want to ALTER your table so that it contains a fifth column where the result of budget/sales is automatically calculated, all you need to do this add the formula to this auto-generated column. The example I am about to show is based on MySQL.
Open MySQL
Find the table you wish to modify in the Navigator Pane, right-click on it and select "Alter Table"
Add a new row to your table. Make sure you select NN (Not Null) and G (Generated Column) check boxes
In the Default/Expression column, simply enter the expression budget / sales.
Once you run your next query, you should see your column generated and populated with the calculated results. If you simply want the SQL statement to do the same from the console, it will be something like this: ALTER table YOUR_TABLE_NAME add result FLOAT as (budget / sales);
I created a SQL Server database and there is a table "COST OF PRODUCTS" (> 600,000 rows). I have to make a query that shows which products have changed the price. As you can see below: 1,2,3 rows, because 1st is positive and 2nd is negative; 3rd is positive. As I understand, I must create an additional table and check using inner join or use Lag/Lead function.
Who knows what's the better way to do it?
ID | COST | CHANGE
1 | 450 | 1,4
2 | 350 | -0,8
3 | 470 | 1,2
4 | 550 | 1,3
If you just want the data listed with positive first, and then negative you can either do:
SELECT * FROM COST_OF_PRODUCTS
WHERE CHANGE>0
UNION
SELECT * FROM COST_OF_PRODUCTS
WHERE CHANGE<0
Or
SELECT * FROM COST_OF PRODUCTS
ORDER BY CHANGE
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.
I am having some human error entries in my table. Some missing a zero, some has more material than it should be, and so on. So I am trying to scan throughout a table to find some error in an entry groups.
Table goes like this:
| Work Order | Product | Material Qty
---------------------------------
| 1 | Item A | 10
| 2 | Item A | 25
| 3 | Item A | 12
| 4 | Item A | 9
| 5 | Item X | 52
| 6 | Item X | 20
| 7 | Item X | 23
| 8 | Item X | 24
| 9 | Item X | 2
| 10 | Item Z | 20
| 11 | Item Z | 5
---------------------------------
Now, the WO and WO item are not that sequential, I write it as sequential here only for examples.
As you can see, those item A should have number around 10, give or take some. Item X should be around 22, give or take some, meanwhile the query should tag Item Z as all suspicious since there are not enough data to correlate. So I need to isolate WO number 2, 5 and 9, 10 and 11 for people to audit. Any idea how?
I have been trying to create an average of them, and using a percentage to eliminate them. But sometimes, percentage number are too varies. And in case of item Z, there are not enough data to choose which number are normal number, and which number are irregular numbers, and I need to tag both of them for verification, in which case, reducing down to percentage won't help.
Also, if I reduce them to variant percentage against average, its spread are still too wide to tag one of them.
Any ideas? Because I am really stuck this time.
From a statistical basis, you probably want to start with the STDEV standard deviation function.
select *
from
(
select *,
AVG(qty) OVER( Partition by product) av,
STDEV(qty) OVER( Partition by product) sd,
COUNT(*) over (Partition by product) c
from yourtable
) v
where ABS(qty-av)>sd or c<3
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.