Okay, I probably could have come up with a better title, but wasn't sure how to word it so let me explain.
Say I have a table with the column 'CODE'. Each record in my table will have either 'A', 'B', or 'C' as it's value in the 'CODE' column. What I would like is to get a count of how many 'A's, 'B's, and 'C's I have.
I know I could accomplish this with 3 different queries, but I'm wondering if there is a way to do it with just 1.
Use:
SELECT t.code,
COUNT(*) AS numInstances
FROM YOUR_TABLE t
GROUP BY t.code
The output will resemble:
code numInstances
--------------------
A 3
B 5
C 1
If a code exists that has not been used, it will not show up. You'd need to LEFT JOIN to the table containing the list of codes in order to see those that don't have any references.
Related
I have various SQL queries, which return me unique / distinct value from DB, (or count them),
like:
SELECT buyer as counterparty
FROM public.order
UNION
SELECT seller as counterparty
FROM public.order
or
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT p
FROM public.order
CROSS JOIN LATERAL (VALUES(seller),(buyer)) AS C(p)
) AS internalQuery
Example structure of my table:
id buyer seller
0 A B
1 B A
2 B D
3 D A
4 A D
Desired result:
3 or A,B,D
I'd like to rewrite them with TypORM query builder, but I can't figure out, how to replace CROSS JOIN LATERAL (VALUES(seller),(buyer)) AS C(p) or UNION in my case. TypeORM is pretty poor with examples and doc coverage in this case.
Does there any option with that?
I have seen various methods like .getCount and .distinct(true) which could help me and easily find the solution for one column.
So I understood, that if I want to find the exact number, instead of doc results, I should use .getCount instead of .getMany
But I can't understand, how to select (and unite) values from multiple columns via typeORM to receive distinct values from multiple columns.
I am working with PostgrSQL, so when I am trying:
const query = repository.createQueryBuilder('order')
.distinctOn(['buyer', 'seller'])
.limit(100)
.getMany()
I receive docs with each distinct value in each field, so instead of 3 I get 6 values (3 distinct by column1, and 3 by column2)
I have a list of 12 strings (strings of numbers) that I need to compare to an existing table in Oracle. However I don't want to create a table just to do the compare; that takes more time than it is worth.
select
column_value as account_number
from
table(sys.odcivarchar2list('27001', '900480', '589358', '130740',
'807958', '579813', '1000100462', '656025',
'11046', '945287', '18193', '897603'))
This provides the correct result.
Now I want to compare that list of 12 against an actual table with account numbers to find the missing values. Normally with two tables I would do a left join table1.account_number = table2.account_number and table two results will have blanks. When I attempt that using the above, all I get are the results where the two records are equal.
select column_value as account_number, k.acct_num
from table(sys.odcivarchar2list('27001',
'900480',
'589358',
'130740',
'807958',
'579813',
'1000100462',
'656025',
'11046',
'945287',
'18193',
'897603'
)) left join
isi_owner.t_known_acct k on column_value = k.acct_num
9 match, but 3 should be included in table1 and blank in table2
Thoughts?
Sean
Sorry for the Title, But didn't know how to explain.
I have a table that have 2 fields A and B.
I want find all rows in the table that have duplicate A (more than one record) but at the same time A will consider as a duplicate only if B is different in both rows.
Example:
FIELD A Field B
10 10
10 10 // This is not duplicate
10 10
10 5 // this is a duplicate
How to to this in a single query
Let's break this down into how you would go about constructing such a query. You don't make it clear whether you're looking for all values of A or all rows but let's assume all values of A initially.
The first step therefore is to create a list of all values of A. This can be done two ways, DISTINCT or GROUP BY. I'm going to use GROUP BY because of what else you want to do:
select a
from your_table
group by a
This returns a single column that is unique on A. Now, how can you change this to give you the unique values? The most obvious thing to use is the HAVING clause, which allows you to restrict on aggregated values. For instance the following will give you all values of A which only appear once in the table
select a
from your_table
group by a
having count(*) = 1
That is the count of all values of A inside the group is 1. You don't want this of course, you want to do this with the column B. You need there to exist more than one value of B in order for the situation you want to identify to be possible (if there's only one value of B then it's impossible). This gets us to
select a
from your_table
group by a
having count(b) > 1
This still isn't enough as you want two different values of B. The above just counts the number of records with the column B. Inside an aggregate function you use the DISTINCT keyword to determine unique values; bringing us to:
select a
from your_table
group by a
having count(distinct b) > 1
To transcribe this into English this means select all unique values of A from YOUR_TABLE that have more than one values of B in the group.
You can use this method, or something similar, to build up your own queries as you create them. Determine what you want to achieve and slowly build up to it.
select FIELD from your_table group by FIELD having count(b) > 1
take in consideration that this will return count of all duplicate
example
if you have values
1
1
2
1
it will return 3 for value 1 not 2
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;
Currently struggling with finding a way to validate 2 tables (efficiently lots of rows for Table A)
I have two tables
Table A
ID
A
B
C
Table matched
ID Number
A 1
A 2
A 9
B 1
B 9
C 2
I am trying to write a SQL Server query that basically checks to make sure for every value in Table A there exists a row for a variable set of values ( 1, 2,9)
The example above is incorrect because t should have for every record in A a corresponding record in Table matched for each value (1,2,9). The end goal is:
Table matched
ID Number
A 1
A 2
A 9
B 1
B 2
B 9
C 1
C 2
C 9
I know its confusing, but in general for every X in ( some set ) there should be a corresponding record in Table matched. I have obviously simplified things.
Please let me know if you all need clarification.
Use:
SELECT a.id
FROM TABLE_A a
JOIN TABLE_B b ON b.id = a.id
WHERE b.number IN (1, 2, 9)
GROUP BY a.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT b.number) = 3
The DISTINCT in the COUNT ensures that duplicates (IE: A having two records in TABLE_B with the value "2") from being falsely considered a correct record. It can be omitted if the number column either has a unique or primary key constraint on it.
The HAVING COUNT(...) must equal the number of values provided in the IN clause.
Create a temp table of values you want. You can do this dynamically if the values 1, 2 and 9 are in some table you can query from.
Then, SELECT FROM tempTable WHERE NOT IN (SELECT * FROM TableMatched)
I had this situation one time. My solution was as follows.
In addition to TableA and TableMatched, there was a table that defined the rows that should exist in TableMatched for each row in TableA. Let’s call it TableMatchedDomain.
The application then accessed TableMatched through a view that controlled the returned rows, like this:
create view TableMatchedView
select a.ID,
d.Number,
m.OtherValues
from TableA a
join TableMatchedDomain d
left join TableMatched m on m.ID = a.ID and m.Number = d.Number
This way, the rows returned were always correct. If there were missing rows from TableMatched, then the Numbers were still returned but with OtherValues as null. If there were extra values in TableMatched, then they were not returned at all, as though they didn't exist. By changing the rows in TableMatchedDomain, this behavior could be controlled very easily. If a value were removed TableMatchedDomain, then it would disappear from the view. If it were added back again in the future, then the corresponding OtherValues would appear again as they were before.
The reason I designed it this way was that I felt that establishing an invarient on the row configuration in TableMatched was too brittle and, even worse, introduced redundancy. So I removed the restriction from groups of rows (in TableMatched) and instead made the entire contents of another table (TableMatchedDomain) define the correct form of the data.