I have a question here that looks a little like some of the ones that I found in search, but with solutions for slightly different problems and, importantly, ones that don't work in SQL 2000.
I have a very large table with a lot of redundant data that I am trying to reduce down to just the useful entries. It's a history table, and the way it works, if two entries are essentially duplicates and consecutive when sorted by date, the latter can be deleted. The data from the earlier entry will be used when historical data is requested from a date between the effective date of that entry and the next non-duplicate entry.
The data looks something like this:
id user_id effective_date important_value useless_value
1 1 1/3/2007 3 0
2 1 1/4/2007 3 1
3 1 1/6/2007 NULL 1
4 1 2/1/2007 3 0
5 2 1/5/2007 12 1
6 3 1/1/1899 7 0
With this sample set, we would consider two consecutive rows duplicates if the user_id and the important_value are the same. From this sample set, we would only delete row with id=2, preserving the information from 1-3-2007, showing that the important_value changed on 1-6-2007, and then showing the relevant change again on 2-1-2007.
My current approach is awkward and time-consuming, and I know there must be a better way. I wrote a script that uses a cursor to iterate through the user_id values (since that breaks the huge table up into manageable pieces), and creates a temp table of just the rows for that user. Then to get consecutive entries, it takes the temp table, joins it to itself on the condition that there are no other entries in the temp table with a date between the two dates. In the pseudocode below, UDF_SameOrNull is a function that returns 1 if the two values passed in are the same or if they are both NULL.
WHILE (##fetch_status <> -1)
BEGIN
SELECT * FROM History INTO #history WHERE user_id = #UserId
--return entries to delete
SELECT h2.id
INTO #delete_history_ids
FROM #history h1
JOIN #history h2 ON
h1.effective_date < h2.effective_date
AND dbo.UDF_SameOrNull(h1.important_value, h2.important_value)=1
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM #history hx WHERE hx.effective_date > h1.effective_date and hx.effective_date < h2.effective_date)
DELETE h1
FROM History h1
JOIN #delete_history_ids dh ON
h1.id = dh.id
FETCH NEXT FROM UserCursor INTO #UserId
END
It also loops over the same set of duplicates until there are none, since taking out rows creates new consecutive pairs that are potentially dupes. I left that out for simplicity.
Unfortunately, I must use SQL Server 2000 for this task and I am pretty sure that it does not support ROW_NUMBER() for a more elegant way to find consecutive entries.
Thanks for reading. I apologize for any unnecessary backstory or errors in the pseudocode.
OK, I think I figured this one out, excellent question!
First, I made the assumption that the effective_date column will not be duplicated for a user_id. I think it can be modified to work if that is not the case - so let me know if we need to account for that.
The process basically takes the table of values and self-joins on equal user_id and important_value and prior effective_date. Then, we do 1 more self-join on user_id that effectively checks to see if the 2 joined records above are sequential by verifying that there is no effective_date record that occurs between those 2 records.
It's just a select statement for now - it should select all records that are to be deleted. So if you verify that it is returning the correct data, simply change the select * to delete tcheck.
Let me know if you have questions.
select
*
from
History tcheck
inner join History tprev
on tprev.[user_id] = tcheck.[user_id]
and tprev.important_value = tcheck.important_value
and tprev.effective_date < tcheck.effective_date
left join History checkbtwn
on tcheck.[user_id] = checkbtwn.[user_id]
and checkbtwn.effective_date < tcheck.effective_date
and checkbtwn.effective_date > tprev.effective_date
where
checkbtwn.[user_id] is null
OK guys, I did some thinking last night and I think I found the answer. I hope this helps someone else who has to match consecutive pairs in data and for some reason is also stuck in SQL Server 2000.
I was inspired by the other results that say to use ROW_NUMBER(), and I used a very similar approach, but with an identity column.
--create table with identity column
CREATE TABLE #history (
id int,
user_id int,
effective_date datetime,
important_value int,
useless_value int,
idx int IDENTITY(1,1)
)
--insert rows ordered by effective_date and now indexed in order
INSERT INTO #history
SELECT * FROM History
WHERE user_id = #user_id
ORDER BY effective_date
--get pairs where consecutive values match
SELECT *
FROM #history h1
JOIN #history h2 ON
h1.idx+1 = h2.idx
WHERE h1.important_value = h2.important_value
With this approach, I still have to iterate over the results until it returns nothing, but I can't think of any way around that and this approach is miles ahead of my last one.
Related
Problem
I have a situation in which I have two tables in which I would like the entries from table 2 (lets call it table_2) to be matched up with the entries in table 1 (table_1) such that there are no duplicates rows of table_2 used in the match up.
Discussion
Specifically, in this case there are datetime stamps in each table (field is utcdatetime). For each row in table_1, I want to find the row in table_2 in which has the closed utcdatetime to the table 1 utcdatetime such that the table2.utcdatetime is older than the table_1 utcdatetime and within 30 minutes of the table 1 utcdatetime. Here is the catch, I do not want any repeats. If a row in table 2 gets gobbled up in a match on an earlier row in table 1, then I do not want it considered for a match later.
This has currently been implemented in a Python routine, but it is slow to iterate over all of the rows in table 1 as it is large. I thought I was there with a single SQL statement, but I found that my current SQL results in duplicate table 2 rows in the output data.
I would recommend using a nested select to get whatever results you're looking for.
For instance:
select *
from person p
where p.name_first = 'SCCJS'
and not exists (select 'x' from person p2 where p2.person_id != p.person_id
and p.name_first = 'SCCJS' and p.name_last = 'SC')
This might be a basic sql questions, however I was curious to know the answer to this.
I need to fetch top one record from the db. Which query would be more efficient, one with where clause or order by?
Example:
Table
Movie
id name isPlaying endDate isDeleted
Above is a versioned table for storing records for movie.
If the endDate is not null and isDeleted = 1 then the record is old and an updated one already exist in this table.
So to fetch the movie "Gladiator" which is currently playing, I can write a query in two ways:
1.
Select m.isPlaying
From Movie m
where m.name=:name (given)
and m.endDate is null and m.isDeleted=0
2. Select TOP 1 m.isPlaying
From Movie m
where m.name=:name (given)
order by m.id desc --- This will always give me the active record (one which is not deleted)
Which query is faster and the correct way to do it?
Update:
id is the only indexed column and id is the unique key. I am expecting the queries to return me only one result.
Update:
Examples:
Movie
id name isPlaying EndDate isDeleted
3 Gladiator 1 03/1/2017 1
4 Gladiator 1 03/1/2017 1
5 Gladiator 0 null 0
I would go with the where clause:
Select m.isPlaying
From Movie m
where m.id = :id and m.endDate is null and m.isDeleted = 0;
This can take advantage of an index on (id, isDeleted, endDate).
Also, the two are not equivalent. The second might return multiple rows when the first returns 1. Or the second might return one row when the first returns none.
The first option might return more than 1 row. Maybe you know it won't because you know what data you have stored but the SQL engine doesn't, and it will affect it's execution plan.
Considering that you only have 1 index and it's on the ID column, the 2nd query should be faster in theory, since it would do an index scan from the highest ID with a predicate for the given name, stopping at the first match.
The first query will do a full table scan while comparing column name, endDate and isDeleted, since it won't stop at the first result that matches.
Posting your execution plans for both queries might enlighten a few loose cables.
I am working with timestamped records and need to do an inner join based on the timestamp difference. I have been using the DATEDIFF function and it seems to be working well. However, the amount of time between timestamps varies. To clarify, sometimes the record appears in table 2 within the same second as table 1, and sometimes the record in table 2 is up to 15 seconds behind the record in table 1. The records in table 1 are always timestamped before table 2. There is no other common field with which I can join, however there is a register number in each table that I am using to increase accuracy by ensuring that the registers are the same.
My question is: if I increase the timestamp difference to do the inner join (e.g. where the DATEDIFF = 1 or 2 or 3... or 15) will records only be joined once? Or would my table contain duplicate records from table 1 (e.g. where record 1 is joined to record 4 in table 2 where the diff is 4 seconds, and is also joined with record 7 from table 2 where the diff is 11 seconds)?
The reason my statement works now is that no registers have records with less than 6 seconds in between, so even if there are multiple timestamps that would match, the matching of registers eliminates this problem.
My Statement is currently working as:
SELECT *
INTO AtriumSequoiaJoin5
FROM Atrium INNER JOIN Sequoia ON Atrium.Reader = Sequoia.theader_pos_name
WHERE (
((DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=0
Or (DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=1
Or (DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=2
Or (DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=3
Or (DateDiff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=4
Or (Datediff(s,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime]))=5)
)
ORDER BY Sequoia.theader_id;
you could CROSS APPLY to the closest record in proximity. That's by no means ideal however, what if there are multiple records written at the same time? You perhaps should give the first table an identity field, then update the next table with scopeidentity
SELECT *
INTO AtriumSequoiaJoin5
FROM Atrium CROSS APPLY
(SELECT TOP 1 * FROM Sequoia WHERE
Atrium.Reader = Sequoia.theader_pos_name
ORDER BY Datediff(millisecond,[Atrium].[Date2],[Sequoia].[theader_tdatetime])) DQ
ORDER BY Sequoia.theader_id;
I am trying to assign ID numbers to records that are being inserted into an SQL Server 2005 database table. Since these records can be deleted, I would like these records to be assigned the first available ID in the table. For example, if I have the table below, I would like the next record to be entered at ID 4 as it is the first available.
| ID | Data |
| 1 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 3 | ... |
| 5 | ... |
The way that I would prefer this to be done is to build up a list of available ID's via an SQL query. From there, I can do all the checks within the code of my application.
So, in summary, I would like an SQL query that retrieves all available ID's between 1 and 99999 from a specific table column.
First build a table of all N IDs.
declare #allPossibleIds table (id integer)
declare #currentId integer
select #currentId = 1
while #currentId < 1000000
begin
insert into #allPossibleIds
select #currentId
select #currentId = #currentId+1
end
Then, left join that table to your real table. You can select MIN if you want, or you could limit your allPossibleIDs to be less than the max table id
select a.id
from #allPossibleIds a
left outer join YourTable t
on a.id = t.Id
where t.id is null
Don't go for identity,
Let me give you an easy option while i work on a proper one.
Store int from 1-999999 in a table say Insert_sequence.
try to write an Sp for insertion,
You can easly identify the min value that is present in your Insert_sequence and not in
your main table, store this value in a variable and insert the row with ID from variable..
Regards
Ashutosh Arya
You could also loop through the keys. And when you hit an empty one Select it and exit Loop.
DECLARE #intStart INT, #loop bit
SET #intStart = 1
SET #loop = 1
WHILE (#loop = 1)
BEGIN
IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT [Key] FROM [Table] Where [Key] = #intStart)
BEGIN
SELECT #intStart as 'FreeKey'
SET #loop = 0
END
SET #intStart = #intStart + 1
END
GO
From there you can use the key as you please. Setting a #intStop to limit the loop field would be no problem.
Why do you need a table from 1..999999 all information you need is in your source table. Here is a query which give you minimal ID to insert in gaps.
It works for all combinations:
(2,3,4,5) - > 1
(1,2,3,5) - > 4
(1,2,3,4) - > 5
SQLFiddle demo
select min(t1.id)+1 from
(
select id from t
union
select 0
)
t1
left join t as t2 on t1.id=t2.id-1
where t2.id is null
Many people use an auto-incrementing integer or long value for the Primary Key of their tables, and it is often called ID or MyEntityID or something similar. This column, since it's just an auto-incrementing integer, often has nothing to do with the data being stored itself.
These types of "primary keys" are called surrogate keys. They have no meaning. Many people like these types of IDs to be sequential because it is "aesthetically pleasing", but this is a waste of time and resources. The database could care less about which IDs are being used and which are not.
I would highly suggest you forget trying to do this and just leave the ID column auto-increment. You should also create an index on your table that is made up of those (subset of) columns that can uniquely identify each record in the table (and even consider using this index as your primary key index). In rare cases where you would need to use all columns to accomplish that, that is where an auto-incrementing primary key ID is extremely useful—because it may not be performant to create an index over all columns in the table. Even so, the database engine could care less about this ID (e.g. which ones are in use, are not in use, etc.).
Also consider that an integer-based ID has a maximum total of 4.2 BILLION IDs. It is quite unlikely that you'll exhaust the supply of integer-based IDs in any short amount of time, which further bolsters the argument for why this sort of thing is a waste of time and resources.
i have loanTable that contain two field loan_id and status
loan_id status
==============
1 0
2 9
1 6
5 3
4 5
1 4 <-- How do I select this??
4 6
In this Situation i need to show the last Status of loan_id 1 i.e is status 4. Can please help me in this query.
Since the 'last' row for ID 1 is neither the minimum nor the maximum, you are living in a state of mild confusion. Rows in a table have no order. So, you should be providing another column, possibly the date/time when each row is inserted, to provide the sequencing of the data. Another option could be a separate, automatically incremented column which records the sequence in which the rows are inserted. Then the query can be written.
If the extra column is called status_id, then you could write:
SELECT L1.*
FROM LoanTable AS L1
WHERE L1.Status_ID = (SELECT MAX(Status_ID)
FROM LoanTable AS L2
WHERE L2.Loan_ID = 1);
(The table aliases L1 and L2 could be omitted without confusing the DBMS or experienced SQL programmers.)
As it stands, there is no reliable way of knowing which is the last row, so your query is unanswerable.
Does your table happen to have a primary id or a timestamp? If not then what you want is not really possible.
If yes then:
SELECT TOP 1 status
FROM loanTable
WHERE loan_id = 1
ORDER BY primaryId DESC
-- or
-- ORDER BY yourTimestamp DESC
I assume that with "last status" you mean the record that was inserted most recently? AFAIK there is no way to make such a query unless you add timestamp into your table where you store the date and time when the record was added. RDBMS don't keep any internal order of the records.
But if last = last inserted, that's not possible for current schema, until a PK addition:
select top 1 status, loan_id
from loanTable
where loan_id = 1
order by id desc -- PK
Use a data reader. When it exits the while loop it will be on the last row. As the other posters stated unless you put a sort on the query, the row order could change. Even if there is a clustered index on the table it might not return the rows in that order (without a sort on the clustered index).
SqlDataReader rdr = SQLcmd.ExecuteReader();
while (rdr.Read())
{
}
string lastVal = rdr[0].ToString()
rdr.Close();
You could also use a ROW_NUMBER() but that requires a sort and you cannot use ROW_NUMBER() directly in the Where. But you can fool it by creating a derived table. The rdr solution above is faster.
In oracle database this is very simple.
select * from (select * from loanTable order by rownum desc) where rownum=1
Hi if this has not been solved yet.
To get the last record for any field from a table the easiest way would be to add an ID to each record say pID. Also say that in your table you would like to hhet the last record for each 'Name', run the simple query
SELECT Name, MAX(pID) as LastID
INTO [TableName]
FROM [YourTableName]
GROUP BY [Name]/[Any other field you would like your last records to appear by]
You should now have a table containing the Names in one column and the last available ID for that Name.
Now you can use a join to get the other details from your primary table, say this is some price or date then run the following:
SELECT a.*,b.Price/b.date/b.[Whatever other field you want]
FROM [TableName] a LEFT JOIN [YourTableName]
ON a.Name = b.Name and a.LastID = b.pID
This should then give you the last records for each Name, for the first record run the same queries as above just replace the Max by Min above.
This should be easy to follow and should run quicker as well
If you don't have any identifying columns you could use to get the insert order. You can always do it like this. But it's hacky, and not very pretty.
select
t.row1,
t.row2,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY t.[count]) AS rownum from (
select
tab.row1,
tab.row2,
1 as [count]
from table tab) t
So basically you get the 'natural order' if you can call it that, and add some column with all the same data. This can be used to sort by the 'natural order', giving you an opportunity to place a row number column on the next query.
Personally, if the system you are using hasn't got a time stamp/identity column, and the current users are using the 'natural order', I would quickly add a column and use this query to create some sort of time stamp/incremental key. Rather than risking having some automation mechanism change the 'natural order', breaking the data needed.
I think this code may help you:
WITH cte_Loans
AS
(
SELECT LoanID
,[Status]
,ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT 1)) AS RN
FROM LoanTable
)
SELECT LoanID
,[Status]
FROM LoanTable L1
WHERE RN = ( SELECT max(RN)
FROM LoanTable L2
WHERE L2.LoanID = L1.LoanID)