I have a cross tab query and it pulls only the row name if there is data associated with it in the database. For example, if I have three types of musical instruments:
Guitar
Piano
Drums
Other
My results will show up as:
Guitar 1
Drums 2
It doesn't list Piano because there is no ID associated with Piano in the DB. I know I can specify columns in the properties menu, i.e. "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" will put columns in the DB for each, regardless of whether or not there is data to populate them.
I am looking for a similar solution for rows. Any ideas?
Also, I need NULL values to show up as 0.
Here's the actual SQL (forget the instrument example above)
TRANSFORM Count(Research.Patient_ID) AS CountOfPatient_ID
SELECT
Switch(
[Age]<22,"21 and under",
[Age]>=22 And [AGE]<=24,"Between 22 And 24",
[Age]>=25 And [AGE]<=29,"Between 25 And 29",
[Age]>=30 And [AGE]<=34,"30-34",
[Age]>=35 And [AGE]<=39,"35-39",
[Age]>=40 And [AGE]<=44,"40-44",
[Age]>44,"Over 44"
) AS Age_Range
FROM (Research
INNER JOIN (
SELECT ID, DateDiff("yyyy",DOB,Date()) AS AGE FROM Demographics
) AS Demographics ON Research.Patient_ID=Demographics.ID)
INNER JOIN [Letter Status] ON Research.Patient_ID=[Letter Status].Patient_ID
WHERE ((([Letter Status].Letter_Count)=1))
GROUP BY Demographics.AGE, [Letter Status].Letter_Count
PIVOT Research.Site In (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10);
In short, I need all of the rows to show up regardless of whether or not there is a value (for some reason the LEFT JOIN isn't working, so if you can, please use my code to form your answer), and I also need to replace NULL values with 0.
Thanks
I believe this has to do with the way you are joining the instruments table to the IDs table. If you use a left outer join from instruments to IDs, Piano should be included. It would be helpful to see your actual tables and queries though, as your question is kind of vague.
What if you union the select with a hard coded select with one value for each age group.
select 1 as Guitar, 1 as Piano, 1 as Drums, 1 as Other
When you do the transform, each row will have a result that is +1 of the result you want.
foo barTmpCount
-------- ------------
Guitar 2
Piano 1
Drums 3
Other 1
You can then do a
select foo, barTmpCount - 1 as barCount from <query>
and get something like this
foo barCount
-------- ---------
Guitar 1
Piano 0
Drums 2
Other 0
Related
This has been driving me and my team up the wall. I cannot compose a query that will strict match a single record that has a specific permutation of look ups.
We have a single lookup table
room_member_lookup:
room | member
---------------
A | Michael
A | Josh
A | Kyle
B | Kyle
B | Monica
C | Michael
I need to match a room with an exact list of members but everything else I've tried on stack overflow will still match room A even if I ask for a room with ONLY Josh and Kyle
I've tried queries like
SELECT room FROM room_member_lookup
WHERE member IN (Josh, Michael)
GROUP BY room
HAVING COUNT(1) = 2
However this will still return room A even though that has 3 members I need a exact member permutation and that matches the room even not partials.
SELECT room
FROM room_member_lookup a
WHERE member IN ('Monica', 'Kyle')
-- Make sure that the room 'a' has exactly two members
and (select count(*)
from room_member_lookup b
where a.room=b.room)=2
GROUP BY room
-- and both members are in that room
HAVING COUNT(1) = 2
Depending on the SQL dialect, one can build a dynamic table (CTE or select .. union all) to hold the member set (Monica and Kyle, for example), and then look for set equivalence using MINUS/EXCEPT sql operators.
I am trying to work with two tables on BigQuery. From table1 I want to find the accession ID of all records that are "World", and then from each of those accession numbers I want to create a column with every name in a separate row. Unfortunately, when I run this:
Select name
From `table2`
Where acc IN (Select acc
From `table1`
WHERE source = 'World')
Instead of getting something like this:
Acc1
Acc2
Acc3
Jeff
Jeff
Ted
Chris
Ted
Blake
Rob
Jack
Jack
I get something more like this:
row
name
1
Jeff
2
Chris
3
Rob
4
Jack
5
Jeff
6
Jack
7
Ted
8
Blake
Ultimately, I am hoping to download the data and somehow use python or something to take each name and count the number of times it shows up with each other name at a given accession number, and furthermore measure the degree to which each pairing is also found with third names in any given column, i.e. the degree to which they share a cohort. So I need to preserve the groupings which exist with each accession number, but I am struggling to find info on how one might do this.
Could anybody point me in the right direct for this, or otherwise is the way I am going about this wise if that is my end goal?
Thanks!
This is not a direct answer to the question you asked. In general, it is easier to handle multiple rows rather than multiple columns.
So, I would recommend that you put each acc value in a separate row and then list the names as an array:
select t2.acc, array_agg(t2.name order by t2.name) as names
from `table2` t2
where t2.acc in (Select t1.acc
From `table1` t1
where t1.source = 'World'
)
group by t2.acc;
Otherwise, you are going to have a challenge just naming the columns in your result set.
Being new with SQL and SSRS and can do many things already, but I think I must be missing some basics and therefore bang my head on the wall all the time.
A report that is almost working, needs to have more results in it, based on conditions.
My working query so far is like this:
SELECT projects.project_number, project_phases.project_phase_id, project_phases.project_phase_number, project_phases.project_phase_header, project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total, invoicerows.invoicerow_total
FROM projects INNER JOIN
project_phases ON projects.project_id = project_phases.project_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN
project_phase_expensegroups ON project_phases.project_phase_id = project_phase_expensegroups.project_phase_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN
invoicerows ON project_phases.project_phase_id = invoicerows.project_phase_id
WHERE ( projects.project_number = #iProjectNumber )
AND
( project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total >0 )
The parameter is for selectionlist that is used to choose a project to the report.
How to have also records that have
( project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total ) with value 0 but there might be invoices for that project phase?
Tried already to add another condition like this:
WHERE ( projects.project_number = #iProjectNumber )
AND
( project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total > 0 )
OR
( invoicerows.invoicerow_total > 0 )
but while it gives some results - also the one with projectphase_expense_total with value 0, but the report is total mess.
So my question is: what am I doing wrong here?
There is a core problem with your query in that you are left joining to two tables, implying that rows may not exist, but then putting conditions on those tables, which will eliminate NULLs. That means your query is internally inconsistent as is.
The next problem is that you're joining two tables to project_phases that both may have multiple rows. Since these data are not related to each other (as proven by the fact that you have no join condition between project_phase_expensegroups and invoicerows, your query is not going to work correctly. For example, given a list of people, a list of those people's favorite foods, and a list of their favorite colors like so:
People
Person
------
Joe
Mary
FavoriteFoods
Person Food
------ ---------
Joe Broccoli
Joe Bananas
Mary Chocolate
Mary Cake
FavoriteColors
Person Color
------ ----------
Joe Red
Joe Blue
Mary Periwinkle
Mary Fuchsia
When you join these with links between Person <-> Food and Person <-> Color, you'll get a result like this:
Person Food Color
------ --------- ----------
Joe Broccoli Red
Joe Bananas Red
Joe Broccoli Blue
Joe Bananas Blue
Mary Chocolate Periwinkle
Mary Chocolate Fuchsia
Mary Cake Periwinkle
Mary Cake Fuchsia
This is essentially a cross-join, also known as a Cartesian product, between the Foods and the Colors, because they have a many-to-one relationship with each person, but no relationship with each other.
There are a few ways to deal with this in the report.
Create ExpenseGroup and InvoiceRow subreports, that are called from the main report by a combination of project_id and project_phase_id parameters.
Summarize one or the other set of data into a single value. For example, you could sum the invoice rows. Or, you could concatenate the expense groups into a single string separated by commas.
Some notes:
Please, please format your query before posting it in a question. It is almost impossible to read when not formatted. It seems pretty clear that you're using a GUI to create the query, but do us the favor of not having to format it ourselves just to help you
While formatting, please use aliases, Don't use full table names. It just makes the query that much harder to understand.
You need an extra parentheses in your where clause in order to get the logic right.
WHERE ( projects.project_number = #iProjectNumber )
AND (
(project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total > 0)
OR
(invoicerows.invoicerow_total > 0)
)
Also, you're using a column in your WHERE clause from a table that is left joined without checking for NULLs. That basically makes it a (slow) inner join. If you want to include rows that don't match from that table you also need to check for NULL. Any other comparison besides IS NULL will always be false for NULL values. See this page for more information about SQL's three value predicate logic: http://www.firstsql.com/idefend3.htm
To keep your LEFT JOINs working as you intended you would need to do this:
WHERE ( projects.project_number = #iProjectNumber )
AND (
project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total > 0
OR project_phase_expensegroups.project_phase_id IS NULL
OR invoicerows.invoicerow_total > 0
OR invoicerows.project_phase_id IS NULL
)
I found the solution and it was kind easy after all. I changed the only the second LEFT OUTER JOIN to INNER JOIN and left away condition where the query got only results over zero. Also I used SELECT DISTINCT
Now my report is working perfectly.
I have two classes Apartment and AdditionalSpace representing tables as below.
Apartment table
ID AREA SOLD
---- ------ ----
1 100 1
2 200 0
AdditionalSpace table
ID AREA APARTMENTID
---- ------ -----------
10 10 1
11 10 1
12 10 1
20 20 2
21 20 2
As you can see Apartment's table has a one-to-many relation with AdditionalSpace table, i.e. Apartment.ID=AdditionalSpace.APARTMENTID.
Question:- How to retrieve total area of a sold apartment including its additional space area.
The SQL which I have used so far to retrieve similar result is :-
select sum(apt.area + ads.adsarea) from apartment apt left outer join (select sum(area) as adsarea, apartmentid from additionalspace group by apartmentid) ads on ads.apartmentid=apt.id where apt.sold=1
I am struggling to find a way in order to implement the above scenario via criteria instead of SQL/HQL. Please suggest. Thanks.
I don't think this is possible in criteria. The closest I can see is to simply get the size of the apartment and the sum of the additional areas as two columns in your result, like this:
Criteria criteria = session.createCriteria(Apartment.class,"a");
criteria.createAlias("additionalSpaces", "ads");
criteria.setProjection(Projections.projectionList()
.add(Projections.property("area"))
.add(Projections.groupProperty("a.id"))
.add(Projections.sum("ads.area")));
Alternatively, if you still want to use Hibernate but are happy to write it in HQL, you can do the following:
select ads.apartment.id,max(a.area)+sum(ads.area)
from Apartment a
join a.additionalSpaces ads
group by ads.apartment.id
This works because HQL allows you to write the + to add together the two projections, but I don't know that an analogous method exists on the projections api.
I have aSQLite3 database with three tables. Sample data looks like this:
Original
id aName code
------------------
1 dog DG
2 cat CT
3 bat BT
4 badger BDGR
... ... ...
Translated
id orgID isTranslated langID aName
----------------------------------------------
1 2 1 3 katze
2 1 1 3 hund
3 3 0 3 (NULL)
4 4 1 3 dachs
... ... ... ... ...
Lang
id Langcode
-----------
1 FR
2 CZ
3 DE
4 RU
... ...
I want to select all data from Original and Translated in way that result would consist of all data in Original table, but aName of rows that got translation would be replaced with aName from Translated table, so then I could apply an ORDER BY clause and sort data in the desired way.
All data and table designs are examples just to show the problem. The schema does contain some elements like an isTranslated column or translation and original names in separate tables. These elements are required by application destination/design.
To be more specific this is an example rowset I would like to produce. It's all the data from table Original modified by data from Translated if translation is available for that certain id from Original.
Desired Result
id aName code isTranslated
---------------------------------
1 hund DG 1
2 katze CT 1
3 bat BT 0
4 dachs BDGR 1
... ... ... ...
This is a typcial application for the CASE expression:
SELECT Original.id,
CASE isTranslated
WHEN 1 THEN Translated.aName
ELSE Original.aName
END AS aName,
code,
isTranslated
FROM Original
JOIN Translated ON Original.id = Translated.orgID
WHERE Translated.langID = (SELECT id FROM Lang WHERE Langcode = 'DE')
If not all records in Original have a corresponding record in Translated, use LEFT JOIN instead.
If untranslated names are guaranteed to be NULL, you can just use IFNULL(Translated.aName, Original.aName) instead.
You should probably list the actual results you want, which would help people help you in the future.
In the current case, I'm guessing you want something along these lines:
SELECT Original.id, Original.code, Translated.aName
FROM Original
JOIN Lang
ON Lang.langCode = 'DE'
JOIN Translated
ON Translated.orgId = Original.id
AND Translated.langId = Lang.id
AND Translated.aName IS NOT NULL;
(Check out my example to see if these are the results you want).
In any case, the table set you've got is heading towards a fairly standard 'translation table' setup. However, there are some basic changes I'd make.
Original
Name the table to something specific, like Animal
Don't include a 'default' translation in the table (you can use a view, if necessary).
'code' is fine, although in the case of animals, genus/species probably ought to be used
Lang
'Lanugage' is often a reserved word in RDBMSs, so the name is fine.
Specifically name which 'language code' you're using (and don't abbreviate column names). There's actually (up to) three different ISO codes possible - just grab them all.
(Also, remember that languages have language-specific names, so language also needs it's own 'translation' table)
Translated
Name the table entity-specific, like AnimalNameTranslated, or somesuch.
isTranslated is unnecessary - you can derive it from the existence of the row - don't add a row if the term isn't translated yet.
Put all 'translations' into the table, including the 'default' one. This means all your terms are in one place, so you don't have to go looking elsewhere.