I cant seem to group by multiple data fields and sum a particular grouped column.
I want to group Person to customer and then group customer to price and then sum price. The person with the highest combined sum(price) should be listed in ascending order.
Example:
table customer
-----------
customer | common_id
green 2
blue 2
orange 1
table invoice
----------
person | price | common_id
bob 2330 1
greg 360 2
greg 170 2
SELECT DISTINCT
min(person) As person,min(customer) AS customer, sum(price) as price
FROM invoice a LEFT JOIN customer b ON a.common_id = b.common_id
GROUP BY customer,price
ORDER BY person
The results I desire are:
**BOB:**
Orange, $2230
**GREG:**
green, $360
blue,$170
The colors are the customer, that GREG and Bob handle. Each color has a price.
There are two issues that I can see. One is a bit picky, and one is quite fundamental.
Presentation of data in SQL
SQL returns tabular data sets. It's not able to return sub-sets with headings, looking something a Pivot Table.
The means that this is not possible...
**BOB:**
Orange, $2230
**GREG:**
green, $360
blue, $170
But that this is possible...
Bob, Orange, $2230
Greg, Green, $360
Greg, Blue, $170
Relating data
I can visually see how you relate the data together...
table customer table invoice
-------------- -------------
customer | common_id person | price |common_id
green 2 greg 360 2
blue 2 greg 170 2
orange 1 bob 2330 1
But SQL doesn't have any implied ordering. Things can only be related if an expression can state that they are related. For example, the following is equally possible...
table customer table invoice
-------------- -------------
customer | common_id person | price |common_id
green 2 greg 170 2 \ These two have
blue 2 greg 360 2 / been swapped
orange 1 bob 2330 1
This means that you need rules (and likely additional fields) that explicitly state which customer record matches which invoice record, especially when there are multiples in both with the same common_id.
An example of a rule could be, the lowest price always matches with the first customer alphabetically. But then, what happens if you have three records in customer for common_id = 2, but only two records in invoice for common_id = 2? Or do the number of records always match, and do you enforce that?
Most likely you need an extra piece (or pieces) of information to know which records relate to each other.
you should group by using all your selected fields except sum then maybe the function group_concat (mysql) can help you in concatenating resulting rows of the group clause
Im not sure how you could possibly do this. Greg has 2 colors, AND 2 prices, how do you determine which goes with which?
Greg Blue 170 or Greg Blue 360 ???? or attaching the Green to either price?
I think the colors need to have unique identofiers, seperate from the person unique identofiers.
Just a thought.
Related
I have this working in Excel however it really needs moved into Access as that's where the rest of the database resides.
Its simply one table that contains Unique_ID, Seller and Fruit...
1 Chris Orange
2 Chris Apple
3 Chris Apple
4 Sarah Kiwi
5 Chris Pear
6 Sarah Orange
The end results should be displayed by Seller and then a list of each fruit sold (in the following example Robert has not sold any fruit, I do have a list of all sellers name however this could be ignored in this example as that I believe that will be easy to integrate.) They will only sell a maximum of 20 fruit.
Seller 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Chris Orange Apple Apple Pear
Sarah Kiwi Orange
Robert
At the moment Excel uses Index, Match and Small to return results. Small is simply used on the Unique_ID to find the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ect...smallest entries and is matched to each sellers name to build the above results.
As Access doesn't have a Small function I am at a loss! In reality there are over 100,000 records (minimum) with over 4000 sellers....they are also not fruit :)
TRANSFORM First(Sales.Fruit) AS FirstOfFruit
SELECT Sales.Seller
FROM Sales
GROUP BY Sales.Seller
PIVOT DCount([id],"sales","seller='" & [seller] & "' and id<=" & [id]);
Where the table name is "Sales" and the columns are "ID", "Seller" and "Fruit"
To understand DCount better, use it is a SELECT query instead of a crosstab:
SELECT Sales.ID, Sales.Seller, Sales.Fruit, DCount([id],"sales","seller='" & [seller] & "' and id<=" & [id]) AS N
FROM Sales;
On each row, the last column is the DCount result. The syntax is DCount (field, source, expression) so what it does is count the IDs (field) in the Sales table (source) that match the expression - in other words, has the same seller as that row's record and an ID <= the current row's ID. So for Chris's sales, it numbers them 1 through 4, even though Sarah had a sale in the middle.
From this result, it's easy to take a Crosstab query that makes a table with seller in the row and N in the column - putting the sales in order for each seller the way you wanted to see them. The "First" function finds the first fruit for the combination of seller and N for each row and column of the result. You could just as easily use "Max" or "Min" here - any text function. Of course, there is only one record matching the seller row and the N column, but Crosstab queries require a function to evaluate and cannot use "Group by" for the field selected as a Value.
My 1st answer combines these steps - the select and the crosstab queries - in one query.
Hope this helps.
I'm trying to solve this query where i need to find the the top balance at each base. Balance is in one table and bases are in another table.
This is the existing query i have that returns all the results but i need to find a way to limit it to 1 top result per baseID.
SELECT o.names.name t.accounts.bidd.baseID, MAX(t.accounts.balance)
FROM order o, table(c.accounts) t
WHERE t.accounts.acctype = 'verified'
GROUP BY o.names.name, t.accounts.bidd.baseID;
accounts is a nested table.
this is the output
Name accounts.BIDD.baseID MAX(T.accounts.BALANCE)
--------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------
Jerard 010 1251.21
john 012 3122.2
susan 012 3022.2
fin 012 3022.2
dan 010 1751.21
What i want the result to display is calculate the highest balance for each baseID and only display one record for that baseID.
So the output would look only display john for baseID 012 because he has the highest.
Any pointers in the right direction would be fantastic.
I think the problem is cause of the "Name" column. since you have three names mapped to one base id(12), it is considering all three records as unique ones and grouping them individually and not together.
Try to ignore the "Name" column in select query and in the "Group-by" clause.
SELECT t.accounts.bidd.baseID, MAX(t.accounts.balance)
FROM order o, table(c.accounts) t
WHERE t.accounts.acctype = 'verified'
GROUP BY t.accounts.bidd.baseID;
In a unique table, I have multiple lines with the same reference information (ID). For the same day, customers had drink and the Appreciation is either 1 (yes) or 0 (no).
Table
ID DAY Drink Appreciation
1 1 Coffee 1
1 1 Tea 0
1 1 Soda 1
2 1 Coffee 1
2 1 Tea 1
3 1 Coffee 0
3 1 Tea 0
3 1 Iced Tea 1
I first tried to see who appreciated a certain drink, which is obviously very simple
Select ID, max(appreciation)
from table
where (day=1 and drink='coffee' and appreciation=1)
or (day=1 and drink='tea' and appreciation=1)
Since I am not even interested in the drink, I used max to remove duplicates and keep only the lane with the highest appreciation.
But what I want to do now is to see who in fact appreciated every drink they had. Again, I am not interested in every lane in the end, but only the ID and the appreciation. How can I modify my where to have it done on every single ID? Adding the ID in the condition is also not and option. I tried switching or for and, but it doesn't return any value. How could I do this?
This should do the trick:
SELECT ID
FROM table
WHERE DRINK IN ('coffee','tea') -- or whatever else filter you want.
group by ID
HAVING MIN(appreciation) > 0
What it does is:
It looks for the minimum appreciation and see to it that that is bigger than 0 for all lines in the group. And the group is the ID, as defined in the group by clause.
as you can see i'm using the having clause, because you can't have aggregate functions in the where section.
Of course you can join other tables into the query as you like. Just be carefull not to add some unwanted filter by joining, which might reduce your dataset in this query.
I have a large table with sales data, useful data below:
RowID Date Customer Salesperson Product_Type Manufacturer Quantity Value
1 01-06-2004 James Ian Taps Tap Ltd 200 £850
2 02-06-2004 Apple Fran Hats Hats Inc 30 £350
3 04-06-2004 James Lawrence Pencils ABC Ltd 2000 £980
...
Many rows later...
...
185352 03-09-2012 Apple Ian Washers Tap Ltd 600 £80
I need to calculate a large set of targets from table containing values different types, target table is under my control and so far is like:
TargetID Year Month Salesperson Target_Type Quantity
1 2012 7 Ian 1 6000
2 2012 8 James 2 2000
3 2012 9 Ian 2 6500
At present I am working out target types using a view of the first table which has a lot of extra columns:
SELECT YEAR(Date)
, MONTH(Date)
, Salesperson
, Quantity
, CASE WHEN Manufacturer IN ('Tap Ltd','Hats Inc') AND Product_Type = 'Hats' THEN True ELSE False END AS IsType1
, CASE WHEN Manufacturer = 'Hats Inc' AND Product_Type IN ('Hats','Coats') THEN True ELSE False END AS IsType2
...
...
, CASE WHEN Manufacturer IN ('Tap Ltd','Hats Inc') AND Product_Type = 'Hats' THEN True ELSE False END AS IsType24
, CASE WHEN Manufacturer IN ('Tap Ltd','Hats Inc') AND Product_Type = 'Hats' THEN True ELSE False END AS IsType25
FROM SalesTable
WHERE [some stuff here]
This is horrible to read/debug and I hate it!!
I've tried a few different ways of simplifying this but have been unable to get it to work.
The closest I have come is to have a third table holding the definition of the types with the values for each field and the type number, this can be joined to the tables to give me the full values but I can't work out a way to cope with multiple values for each field.
Finally the question:
Is there a standard way this can be done or an easier/neater method other than one column for each type of target?
I know this is a complex problem so if anything is unclear please let me know.
Edit - What I need to get:
At the very end of the process I need to have targets displayed with actual sales:
Type Year Month Salesperson TargetQty ActualQty
2 2012 8 James 2000 2809
2 2012 9 Ian 6500 6251
Each row of the sales table could potentially satisfy 8 of the types.
Some more points:
I have 5 different columns that need to be defined against the targets (or set to NULL to include any value)
I have between 30 and 40 different types that need to be defined, several of the columns could contain as many as 10 different values
For point 2, if I am using a row for each permutation of values, 2 columns with 10 values each would give me 100 rows for each sales person for each month which is a lot but if this is the only way to define multiple values I will have to do this.
Sorry if this makes no sense!
If I am correct that the "Target_Type" field in the Target Table is based on the Manufacturer and the Product_Type, then you can create a TargetType table that looks like what's below and JOIN on Manufacturer and the Product_Type to get your Target_Type_Value:
ID Product_Type Manufacturer Target_Type_Value
1 Taps Tap Ltd 1
2 Hats Hats Inc 2
3 Coats Hats Inc 2
4 Hats Caps Inc 3
5 Pencils ABC Ltd 6
This should address the "multiple values for each field" problem by having a row for each possibility.
I want to structure a table to mimic column level filters as row level filter just to avoid adding new columns.
Let's say i have following table to store cars' details
-------------------------------------
Type Color Year
-------------------------------------
Mini Silver 2010
Standard Silver 2011
Fullsize White 2011
Luxury Black 2010
Sports Red 2011
Convertible Red 2009
If i want to store Make of these cars as well and for this i have to add an additional column and another column if i have automobiles other than cars.
So the question is how can i structure this table to avoid adding new columns? The structure should require only to add rows to define properties of my records.
[Hint] The structure may have multiple tables, one to store rows/records and other to store columns/properties and then some kind of mapping between them OR entirely new structure.
EDIT
Some of the properties of my data are fixed and some are dynamic. Fixed properties can be mapped to the given sample Car model as Availability, Condition and the dynamic could be anything which a person may ask about an automobile. Now i don't need all columns to be mapped as rows but few and these are dynamic and i don't even know all of them. My apologies that i didn't mention this earlier.
You could use the entity-attribute-value design (EAV).
entity attribute value
1 Type Mini
1 Color Silver
1 Year 2010
1 Make Foobar
2 Type Standard
2 Color Silver
etc...
You may also wish to store the attribute names in a separate table.
However you should consider carefully if you really need this, as there are a few disadvantages. The value column must have a type that can store all the different types of values (e.g. string). It is much more cumbersome to write queries as you will need many joins, and these queries will run more slowly as compared to a traditional database design.
To give you a head start: Think about redesigning to allow multi-colored vehicles like motorbikes:
vehicle
Id Year vehicle_type vehicle_make
-------------------------------------------
1 2010 1 1
2 2011 2 2
color
Id Name
-----------
1 Black
2 White
3 Red
4 Blue
vehicle_color
vehicle_id color_id
-----------------------
1 3
2 1
2 2
vehicle_type
Id Name
-----------
1 Car
2 Motorbike
vehicle_make
Id Name
-----------
1 Porsche
2 BMW
Bonus
Since I'm quite familiar with the car domain, I'll throw in an extension for your vehicle colors: There are tons of color names ("Magentafuzzyorangesunset") invented by manufacturers and you'll want to map them to "real" base color names ("Red, "Blue", "Green", etc.) to enable searching for both.
Your color table then could look like that
Id Name base_color
-----------------------------
1 Midnight 1
2 Snow 2
and you'll add a base_color table
Id Name
-----------
1 Black
2 White