I'm looking for a design pattern to manage records in a relational database which belong together, e.g. grouping multiple contacts. The group itself does not need to be an entity. A group should have an unlimited count of members.
It should be possible to run a query to get other group members of a given record.
My idea is to manage it in one table:
GROUPINGS
integer group
integer member_id
primary_key (group, member_id)
foreign_key (member_id)
EDIT: Beware that group is not a foreign key. It's just a unique identifier. It should be increased for every member group which is built.
Here is an example content:
GROUPINGS group | member_id
-----------------
1 | 10
1 | 11
1 | 12
2 | 20
2 | 21
3 | 10
3 | 40
This example contains three groups: (10,11,12) and (20,21) and (10,40). You see that 10 is included in two groups.
To query the "neighbors" of member 10 we can use this SQL statement:
SELECT g2.member_id
FROM groupings g1
JOIN groupings g2 ON g1.group = g2.group
AND g1.member_id != g2.member_id
WHERE g1.member_id = 10
=> 11,12,40
What do you think? Perhaps this is a known pattern - are there links to find more about this?
EDIT: Renamed table "groups" to "groupings" and renamed attribute "group_id" to "group" to make it obvious that a record in this table is not a group - it's a link between a group and a member. Group is not an entity.
What you have outlined is a pretty standard solution, a relational table between two entities - Group and Member. I am sure there are alternatives, but this is the solution I would go with.
Looks fine to me - is a normal solution to end at if a member can be part of multiple groups, which presumably they can.
The only suggestion I'd make is with your SQL query - I'd use a JOIN instead, but that's nothing to do with your schema:
SELECT g2.member_id
FROM groups g1
INNER JOIN groups g2 ON g1.group_id = g2.group_id AND g1.member_id <> g2.member_id
WHERE g1.member_id = 10
Related
Good Day,
I have 3 Tables - Ticket, Ticket Batch (Multiple Ticket Rows To One Batch) and Ticket Staff (Multiple Staff Rows To One Ticket) and wish to ultimately UPDATE the ticket_batch table with the COUNT of all staff working on tickets per ticket batch.
The tables with applicable columns look as follows
ticket:
| ticket_number | recon_number |
ticket_batch:
| recon_number |
ticket_staff:
| ticket_number |
So I have written the following SQL query to essentially first if I do get the COUNT:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM ticket_staf
WHERE ticket_staff.ticket_number IN (SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(ticket.ticket_number) FROM ticket WHERE ticket.recon_number = 1);
Which the query just keeps running, but when I execute the queries separately:
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(ticket.ticket_number)
FROM ticket
WHERE ticket.recon_number = 1;
I get 5 ticket numbers within split seconds and if I paste that string in the other portion of the query:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM ticket_staff
WHERE ticket_staff.ticket_number IN (1451,1453,1968,4457,4458);
It returns the correct COUNT.
So ultimately I guess can I not write queries with GROUP_CONCATS into another SELECT WHERE IN? And how should I structure my query?
Thanks for reading :)
I prefer Inner join as follows:
SELECT COUNT(distinct ts.*)
FROM ticket_staff ts
LEFT JOIN ticket t
ON ts.ticket_number = t.ticket_number
WHERE t.recon_number = 1;
GROUP_CONCAT() doesn't look right. I suspect you are confusing a list of values for IN with a string. They are not the same thing.
In general, I would recommend EXISTS over IN anyway:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM ticket_staff ts
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM ticket t
WHERE ts.ticket_number = t.ticket_number AND
t.recon_number = 1
);
For this query, you want an index on ticket(ticket_number, recon_number). However, I am guessing that ticket(ticket_number) is the primary key, which is enough of an index by itself.
I am trying to create a table that has columns called user_id and top5_foods (binary column). I currently have two tables, one has all of the user_ids and the foods associated with those user_ids and one table that only contains the top5 foods according to a type of calculation to select the top5 foods.
The table that I am trying to create if to have the column of the user_id and if at least one of their favorite foods is in the top_5_food table, put the value of the top5_foods as 1 and if not, 0.
Something like the following:
user_id top5_foods
----------------------
34223 1
43225 0
34323 1
I have tried to use the CASE command but it just duplicated the user_ids and mark 1 or 0 whenever it finds a food that is in the top_5_foods table. But I don't want it to duplicate. Could you please help ?
Thank you very much
If I understand correctly, a left join and aggregation:
select uf.user_id,
(count(t.food_id) > 0) as top5_foods
from user_foods uf left join
top5_foods t
on uf.food_id = t.food_id
group by uf.user_id;
I have a single table of activities, some labelled 'Assessment' (type_id of 50) and some 'Counselling' (type_id of 9) with dates of the activities. I need to compare these dates to find how long people wait for counselling after assessment. The table contains rows for many people, and that is the primary key of 'id'. My problem is how to produce a result row with both the assessment details and the counselling details for the same person, so that I can compare the dates. I've tried joining the table to itself, and tried nested subqueries, I just can't fathom it. I'm using Access 2010 btw.
Please forgive my stupidity, but here's an example of joining the table to itself that doesn't work, producing nothing (not surprising):
Table looks like:
ID TYPE_ID ACTIVITY_DATE_TIME
----------------------------------
1 9 20130411
1 v 50 v 20130511
2 9 20130511
3 9 20130511
In the above the last two rows have only had assessment so I want to ignore them, and just work on the situation where there's both assessment and counselling 'type-id'
SELECT
civicrm_activity.id, civicrm_activity.type_id,
civicrm_activity.activity_date_time,
civicrm_activity_1.type_id,
civicrm_activity_1.activity_date_time
FROM
civicrm_activity INNER JOIN civicrm_activity AS civicrm_activity_1
ON civicrm_activity.id = civicrm_activity_1.id
WHERE
civicrm_activity.type_id=9
AND civicrm_activity_1.type_id=50;
I'm actually wondering whether this is in fact not possible to do with SQL? I hope it is possible? Thank you for your patience!
Sounds to me like you only want to get the ID numbers where you have a TYPE_ID entry of both 9 and 50.
SELECT DISTINCT id FROM civicrm_activity WHERE type_id = '9' AND id IN (SELECT id FROM civicrm_activity WHERE type_id = '50');
This will give you a list of id's that has entries with both type_id 9 and 50. With that list you can now go and get the specifics.
Use this SQL for the time of type_id 9
SELECT activity_date_time FROM civicrm_activity WHERE id = 'id_from_last_sql' AND type_id = '9'
Use this SQL for the time of type_id 50
SELECT activity_date_time FROM civicrm_activity WHERE id = 'id_from_last_sql' AND type_id = '50'
Your query looks OK to me, too. The one problem might be that you use only one table alias. I don't know, but perhaps Access treats the table name "specially" such that, in effect, the WHERE clause says
WHERE
civicrm_activity.type_id=9
AND civicrm_activity.type_id=50;
That would certainly explain zero rows returned!
To fix that, use an alias for each table. I suggest shorter ones,
SELECT A.id, A.type_id, A.activity_date_time,
B.type_id, B.activity_date_time
FROM civicrm_activity as A
JOIN civicrm_activity as B
ON A.id = B.id
WHERE A.type_id=9
AND B.type_id=50;
Edit: this isn't to be a dynamic output, the output view structure is fixed.
I am trying to create a SQL Server view that shows a single fixed column row for each user, and flattens out an associated one to many table into that row.
Although the associated table has a one to many relationship, the output table structure is limited to 4 elememts form that table.
My table structure is like so:
User (Id, FirstName, LastName)
Assessment (Id, Date, Location, User_Id)
Topics (Id, Topic, Assessment_Id)
Where the Assessment is joined to the User by the User_Id (One 2 One), and the Topics are joined to the Assessment by the Assessment_Id.
So, if I have three topics for an assessment, I'd want the view to look something like:
User_Id | FirstName | LastName | Date | Location | Topic1 | Topic2 | Topic3 | Topic4 |
1 | dave | toby | 2/2/11 | In situ | apples | pears | lemons | NULL |
My current SQL looks like this:
SELECT User.Id, User.FirstName, User.LastName, Assessment.Date, Assessment.Location, Topic.Topic
FROM User LEFT OUTER JOIN
Assessment INNER JOIN
Topic ON Assessment.Id = Topic.Assessment_Id ON
User.Id = Assessment.User_Id
But this returns a row for each concern - it doesn't compress them to one line. I've played with a few different joins, but haven't been able to get the behaviour I want.
Is it possible to do this in a view?
What do I need to do to make it happen??
Thanks!
There is no such JOIN. SQL has a fixed column output: so you can't add arbritrary numbers of columns. It doesn't matter if it's a view, direct or in a stored procedure.
There are 2 main options
concatenate the many rows into one column which is a popular questions here on SO. One random solution using XML PATH
use dynamic SQL to add a column per row in a stored procedure.
Note: PIVOT is fixed column output too
Edit: for a maximum of 4 child rows
SELECT
P.col1, P.col2,
C1.col1 AS Topic1,
C2.col1 AS Topic2,
C3.col1 AS Topic2,
C4.col1 AS Topic4
FROM
Parent P
LEFT JOIN
Child C1 ON P.Key = C1.FKey AND C1.ID = 1
LEFT JOIN
Child C2 ON P.Key = C2.FKey AND C2.ID = 2
LEFT JOIN
Child C3 ON P.Key = C3.FKey AND C3.ID = 3
LEFT JOIN
Child C4 ON P.Key = C4.FKey AND C4.ID = 4
You can use PIVOT too but I prefer the simpler self joins.
Take a look at PIVOT table functionality - e.g. http://www.help-sql.info/27/9/610208.html and http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2008/05/22/sql-server-pivot-table-example/
Although you will need to know the AssessmentId's before you can write the PIVOT
Take for example an application which has users, each of which can be in exactly one group. If we want to SELECT the list of groups which have no members, what would be the correct SQL? I keep feeling like I'm just about to grasp the query, and then it disappears again.
Bonus points - given the alternative senario, where it's a many to many pairing, what is the SQL to identify unused groups?
(if you want concrete field names:)
One-To-Many:
Table 'users': | user_id | group_id |
Table 'groups': | group_id |
Many-To-Many:
Table 'users': | user_id |
Table 'groups': | group_id |
Table 'user-group': | user_id | group_id |
Groups that have no members (for the many-many pairing):
SELECT *
FROM groups g
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT 1
FROM users_groups ug
WHERE g.groupid = ug.groupid
);
This Sql will also work in your "first" example as you can substitute "users" for "users_groups" in the sub-query =)
As far as performance is concerned, I know that this query can be quite performant on Sql Server, but I'm not so sure how well MySql likes it..
For the first one, try this:
SELECT * FROM groups
LEFT JOIN users ON (groups.group_id=users.group_id)
WHERE users.user_id IS NULL;
For the second one, try this:
SELECT * FROM groups
LEFT JOIN user-group ON (groups.group_id=user-group.group_id)
WHERE user-group.user_id IS NULL;
SELECT *
FROM groups
WHERE groups.id NOT IN (
SELECT user.group_id
FROM user
)
It will return all group id which not present in user