SELECT ID_worker, Name_worker, salary+500,
FROM Supermarket
WHERE ID_worker IN ("2","4");
The above query works, as it adds 500 to the salary of workers whose ID is either 2 or 4. The problem is that only the workers with the ID 2 and 4 appear. I want all of them to appear even the ones whose salary remains the same. How do I do that?
There are several ways to do this, but the most straightforward is to use a case conditional and completely remove the select's where condition, for example:
select
ID_worker,
Name_worker,
case when ID_worker in ('2','4') then salary+500 else salary end,
from Supermarket
I have a table containing 15 rows and one of the columns contains either Yes or No.
What I am trying to do is add a total column on the end of my Select * query which will put the number of Yes results on each row containing a Yes and the number of No results on each row containing a No.
There are 8 rows with a Yes and 7 with a now. So, I would expect that each row which contains a Yes in that particular field would have the number 8 in the final column, and 7 for each No.
I'm not sure I've explained that particularly well, but here's what I have so far:
SELECT *,
COUNT(Approved) OVER () as 'Count_Approved'
FROM
Approvals
That gives me a total of 15 in each line, so I'm missing something pretty basic here.
Sorry about the formatting too, I'm not sure how to make it look all nice.
Cheers
CJ
You can try counting with a partition on the Approved column:
SELECT *,
COUNT(Approved) OVER (PARTITION BY Approved) AS Count_Approved
FROM
Approvals
ORDER BY
Site_Code;
You never told us what database you are using, but the above is ANSI SQL and should work on most databases.
Not clear what you are looking for but my guess is
select Approved, count(Approved) over (PARTITION BY Approved) [Count] from Approvals
Result :
Approved Count
Now 2
Now 2
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
I have two tables. I want to find the erroneous records in the first table based on the fact that they aren't complete set as determined by the second table. eg:
custID service transID
1 20 1
1 20 2
1 50 2
2 49 1
2 138 1
3 80 1
3 140 1
comboID combinations
1 Y00020Y00050
2 Y00049Y00138
3 Y00020Y00049
4 Y00020Y00080Y00140
So in this example I would want a query to return the first row of the first table because it does not have a matching 49 or 50 or (80 and 140), and the last two rows as well (because there is no 20). The second transaction is fine, and the second customer is fine.
I couldn't figure this out with a query, so I wound up writing a program that loads the services per customer and transid into an array, iterates over them, and ensures that there is at least one matching combination record where all the services in the combination are present in the initially loaded array. Even that came off as hamfisted, but it was less of a nightmare than the awkward outer joining of multiple joins I was trying to accomplish with SQL.
Taking a step back, I think I need to restructure the combinations table into something more accommodating, but I still can't think of what the approach would be.
I do not have DB2 so I have tested on Oracle. However listagg function should be there as well. The table service is the first table and comb the second one. I assume the service numbers to be sorted as in the combinations column.
select service.*
from service
join
(
select S.custid, S.transid
from
(
select custid, transid, listagg(concat('Y000',service)) within group(order by service) as agg
from service
group by custid, transid
) S
where not exists
(
select *
from comb
where S.agg = comb.combinations
)
) NOT_F on NOT_F.custid = service.custid and NOT_F.transid = service.transid
I dare to say that your database design does not conform to the first normal form since the combinations column is not atomic. Think about it.
I have some data like this as shown below:
Acc_Id || Row_No
1 1
2 1
2 2
2 3
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
and I need a query to get the results as shown below:
Acc_Id || Row_No
1 1
2 3
3 4
Please consider that I'm a beginner in SQL.
I assume you want the Count of the row
SELECT Acc_Id, COUNT(*)
FROM Table
GROUP BY Acc_Id
Try this:
select Acc_Id, MAX(Row_No)
from table
group by Acc_Id
As a beginner then this is your first exposure to aggregation and grouping. You may want to look at the documentation on group by now that this problem has motivated your interest in a solutions. Grouping operates by looking at rows with common column values, that you specify, and collapsing them into a single row which represents the group. In your case values in Acc_Id are the names for your groups.
The other answers are both correct in the the final two columns are going to be equivalent with your data.
select Acc_Id, count(*), max(Row_No)
from T
group by Acc_Id;
If you have gaps in the numbering then they won't be the same. You'll have to decide whether you're actually looking for a count of rows of a maximum of a value within a column. At this point you can also consider a number of other aggregate functions that will be useful to you in the future. (Note that the actual values here are pretty much meaningless in this context.)
select Acc_Id, min(Row_No), sum(Row_No), avg(Row_No)
from T
group by Acc_Id;
Hi I know how to use the group by clause for sql. I am not sure how to explain this so Ill draw some charts. Here is my original data:
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
user1 9
user1 3
user2 1
user2 10
user3 97
Here is the output I need
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
Is this even possible?
The normal method for this is to handle it in the presentation layer, not the database layer.
Reasons:
The Name field is a property of that data row
If you leave the Name out, how do you know what Location goes with which name?
You are implicitly relying on the order of the data, which in SQL is a very bad practice (since there is no inherent ordering to the returned data)
Any solution will need to involve a cursor or a loop, which is not what SQL is optimized for - it likes working in SETS not on individual rows
Hope this helps
SELECT A.FINAL_NAME, A.LOCATION
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM YOUR_TABLE_7 YT) A
As Jirka correctly pointed out, I was using the Outer select, distinct and raw Name unnecessarily. My mistake was that as I used DISTINCT , I got the resulted sorted like
1 1
2 user2 1
3 user3 97
4 user1 1
5 3
6 9
7 10
I wanted to avoid output like this.
Hence I added the raw id and outer select
However , removing the DISTINCT solves the problem.
Hence only this much is enough
SELECT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM SO_BUFFER_TABLE_7 YT
Thanks Jirka
If you're using straight SQL*Plus to make your report (don't laugh, you can do some pretty cool stuff with it), you can do this with the BREAK command:
SQL> break on name
SQL> WITH q AS (
SELECT 'user1' NAME, 1 LOCATION FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 9 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 3 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 1 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 10 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user3', 97 FROM dual
)
SELECT NAME,LOCATION
FROM q
ORDER BY name;
NAME LOCATION
----- ----------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
6 rows selected.
SQL>
I cannot but agree with the other commenters that this kind of problem does not look like it should ever be solved using SQL, but let us face it anyway.
SELECT
CASE main.name WHERE preceding_id IS NULL THEN main.name ELSE null END,
main.location
FROM mytable main LEFT JOIN mytable preceding
ON main.name = preceding.name AND MIN(preceding.id) < main.id
GROUP BY main.id, main.name, main.location, preceding.name
ORDER BY main.id
The GROUP BY clause is not responsible for the grouping job, at least not directly. In the first approximation, an outer join to the same table (LEFT JOIN below) can be used to determine on which row a particular value occurs for the first time. This is what we are after. This assumes that there are some unique id values that make it possible to arbitrarily order all the records. (The ORDER BY clause does NOT do this; it orders the output, not the input of the whole computation, but it is still necessary to make sure that the output is presented correctly, because the remaining SQL does not imply any particular order of processing.)
As you can see, there is still a GROUP BY clause in the SQL, but with a perhaps unexpected purpose. Its job is to "undo" a side effect of the LEFT JOIN, which is duplication of all main records that have many "preceding" ( = successfully joined) records.
This is quite normal with GROUP BY. The typical effect of a GROUP BY clause is a reduction of the number of records; and impossibility to query or test columns NOT listed in the GROUP BY clause, except through aggregate functions like COUNT, MIN, MAX, or SUM. This is because these columns really represent "groups of values" due to the GROUP BY, not just specific values.
If you are using SQL*Plus, use the BREAK function. In this case, break on NAME.
If you are using another reporting tool, you may be able to compare the "name" field to the previous record and suppress printing when they are equal.
If you use GROUP BY, output rows are sorted according to the GROUP BY columns as if you had an ORDER BY for the same columns. To avoid the overhead of sorting that GROUP BY produces, add ORDER BY NULL:
SELECT a, COUNT(b) FROM test_table GROUP BY a ORDER BY NULL;
Relying on implicit GROUP BY sorting in MySQL 5.6 is deprecated. To achieve a specific sort order of grouped results, it is preferable to use an explicit ORDER BY clause. GROUP BY sorting is a MySQL extension that may change in a future release; for example, to make it possible for the optimizer to order groupings in whatever manner it deems most efficient and to avoid the sorting overhead.
For full information - http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/
SQL GROUP BY STATEMENT
SQL GROUP BY clause is used in collaboration with the SELECT statement to arrange identical data into groups.
Syntax:
1. SELECT column_nm, aggregate_function(column_nm) FROM table_nm WHERE column_nm operator value GROUP BY column_nm;
Example :
To understand the GROUP BY clauserefer the sample database.Below table showing fields from “order” table:
1. |EMPORD_ID|employee1ID|customerID|shippers_ID|
Below table showing fields from “shipper” table:
1. | shippers_ID| shippers_Name |
Below table showing fields from “table_emp1” table:
1. | employee1ID| first1_nm | last1_nm |
Example :
To find the number of orders sent by each shipper.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM orders LEFT JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID = shipper.shippers_ID GROUP BY shippers_Name;
1. | shippers_Name | No_of_orders |
Example :
To use GROUP BY statement on more than one column.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, table_emp1.last1_nm, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM ((orders INNER JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID=shipper.shippers_ID) INNER JOIN table_emp1 ON orders.employee1ID = table_emp1.employee1ID)
2. GROUP BY shippers_Name,last1_nm;
| shippers_Name | last1_nm |No_of_orders |
for more clarification refer my link
http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/