+----+------+-------+---------+---------+
| id | order| value | type | account |
+----+------+-------+---------+---------+
| 1 | 1 | a | 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 | b | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 3 | c | 4 | 1 |
| 1 | 4 | d | 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 5 | e | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 5 | f | 6 | 1 |
| 2 | 6 | g | 1 | 1 |
+----+------+-------+---------+---------+
I need get a select of all fields of this table but only getting 1 row for each combination of id+type (I don't care the value of the type). But I tried some approach without result.
At the moment that I make an DISTINCT I cant include rest of the fields to make it available in a subquery. If I add ROWNUM in the subquery all rows will be different making this not working.
Some ideas?
My better query at the moment is this:
SELECT ID, TYPE, VALUE, ACCOUNT
FROM MYTABLE
WHERE ROWID IN (SELECT DISTINCT MAX(ROWID)
FROM MYTABLE
GROUP BY ID, TYPE);
It seems you need to select one (random) row for each distinct combination of id and type. If so, you could do that efficiently using the row_number analytic function. Something like this:
select id, type, value, account
from (
select id, type, value, account,
row_number() over (partition by id, type order by null) as rn
from your_table
)
where rn = 1
;
order by null means random ordering of rows within each group (partition) by (id, type); this means that the ordering step, which is usually time-consuming, will be trivial in this case. Also, Oracle optimizes such queries (for the filter rn = 1).
Or, in versions 12.1 and higher, you can get the same with the match_recognize clause:
select id, type, value, account
from my_table
match_recognize (
partition by id, type
all rows per match
pattern (^r)
define r as null is null
);
This partitions the rows by id and type, it doesn't order them (which means random ordering), and selects just the "first" row from each partition. Note that some analytic functions, including row_number(), require an order by clause (even when we don't care about the ordering) - order by null is customary, but it can't be left out completely. By contrast, in match_recognize you can leave out the order by clause (the default is "random order"). On the other hand, you can't leave out the define clause, even if it imposes no conditions whatsoever. Why Oracle doesn't use a default for that clause too, only Oracle knows.
For example, I have a table of:
id | code | name | type | deviceType
---+------+------+------+-----------
1 | 23 | xyz | 0 | web
2 | 23 | xyz | 0 | mobile
3 | 24 | xyzc | 0 | web
4 | 25 | xyzc | 0 | web
I want the result to be:
id | code | name | type | deviceType
---+------+------+------+-----------
1 | 23 | xyz | 0 | web&mobile
2 | 24 | xyzc | 0 | web
3 | 25 | xyzc | 0 | web
How do I do this in SQL Server using UPDATE and DELETE statements?
Any help is greatly appreciated!
I might actually suggest just leaving the original data intact, and instead creating a view here:
CREATE VIEW yourView AS
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY MIN(id)) AS id,
code, name, type,
STRING_AGG(deviceType, '&') WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY id) AS deviceType
FROM yourTable
GROUP BY code, name, type;
Demo
One main reason for not actually doing the update is that every time new data comes in, you might possibly have to run that update, over and over. Instead, just keeping the original data and running the view occasionally might perform better here.
Note that I assume that you are using SQL Server 2017 or later. If not, then STRING_AGG would have to be replaced with an uglier approach, but you should consider upgrading in this case.
To do what you want, you would need two separate statements.
This updates the "first" row of each group with all the device types in the group:
update t
set t.devicetype = t1.devicetype
from mytable t
inner join (
select min(id) as id, string_agg(devicetype, '&') within group(order by id) as devicetype
from mytable
group by code, name, type
having count(*) > 1
) t1 on t1.id = t.id
This deletes everything but the first row per group:
with t as (
select row_number() over(partition by code, name, type order by id) rn
from mytable
)
delete from t where rn > 1
Demo on DB Fiddle
I have performing some queries using PostgreSQL SELECT DISTINCT ON syntax. I would like to have the query return the total number of rows alongside with every result row.
Assume I have a table my_table like the following:
CREATE TABLE my_table(
id int,
my_field text,
id_reference bigint
);
I then have a couple of values:
id | my_field | id_reference
----+----------+--------------
1 | a | 1
1 | b | 2
2 | a | 3
2 | c | 4
3 | x | 5
Basically my_table contains some versioned data. The id_reference is a reference to a global version of the database. Every change to the database will increase the global version number and changes will always add new rows to the tables (instead of updating/deleting values) and they will insert the new version number.
My goal is to perform a query that will only retrieve the latest values in the table, alongside with the total number of rows.
For example, in the above case I would like to retrieve the following output:
| total | id | my_field | id_reference |
+-------+----+----------+--------------+
| 3 | 1 | b | 2 |
+-------+----+----------+--------------+
| 3 | 2 | c | 4 |
+-------+----+----------+--------------+
| 3 | 3 | x | 5 |
+-------+----+----------+--------------+
My attemp is the following:
select distinct on (id)
count(*) over () as total,
*
from my_table
order by id, id_reference desc
This returns almost the correct output, except that total is the number of rows in my_table instead of being the number of rows of the resulting query:
total | id | my_field | id_reference
-------+----+----------+--------------
5 | 1 | b | 2
5 | 2 | c | 4
5 | 3 | x | 5
(3 rows)
As you can see it has 5 instead of the expected 3.
I can fix this by using a subquery and count as an aggregate function:
with my_values as (
select distinct on (id)
*
from my_table
order by id, id_reference desc
)
select count(*) over (), * from my_values
Which produces my expected output.
My question: is there a way to avoid using this subquery and have something similar to count(*) over () return the result I want?
You are looking at my_table 3 ways:
to find the latest id_reference for each id
to find my_field for the latest id_reference for each id
to count the distinct number of ids in the table
I therefore prefer this solution:
select
c.id_count as total,
a.id,
a.my_field,
b.max_id_reference
from
my_table a
join
(
select
id,
max(id_reference) as max_id_reference
from
my_table
group by
id
) b
on
a.id = b.id and
a.id_reference = b.max_id_reference
join
(
select
count(distinct id) as id_count
from
my_table
) c
on true;
This is a bit longer (especially the long thin way I write SQL) but it makes it clear what is happening. If you come back to it in a few months time (somebody usually does) then it will take less time to understand what is going on.
The "on true" at the end is a deliberate cartesian product because there can only ever be exactly one result from the subquery "c" and you do want a cartesian product with that.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with subqueries.
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.
I have the following table in my database:
user_id | p1 | p2 | p3
1 | x | y | z
2 | x | x | x
3 | y | y | z
I need to find the row(s) that contains the most common value between that same row.
i.e., the first row has no common value, the second contain three common values and the third one contains two common values.
Then, the output in this case should be
user_id | p1 | p2 | p3
2 | x | x | x
Any ideas?
(It would be nice if the solution did not require a vendor-specific feature, but anything will help).
For a non vendor specific solution You could do
SELECT *
FROM YourTable
ORDER BY
CASE WHEN p1=p2 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END +
CASE WHEN p1=p3 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END +
CASE WHEN p2=p3 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END DESC
And then LIMIT, TOP, ROW_NUMBER or whatever dependant upon RDBMS to just get the top row.
But if you have a specific RDBMS in mind there may be other ways that are more maintainable for larger number of columns (e.g. for SQL Server 2008)
SELECT TOP 1 *
FROM YourTable
ORDER BY
(SELECT COUNT (DISTINCT p) FROM (VALUES(p1),(p2),(p3)) T(p))
Also how do you want ties handled?