How to properly group SQL results set? - sql

SQL noob, please bear with me!!
I am storing a 3-tuple in a database (x,y, {signal1, signal2,..}).
I have a database with tables coordinates (x,y) and another table called signals (signal, coordinate_id, group) which stores the individual signal values. There can be several signals at the same coordinate.
The group is just an abitrary integer which marks the entries in the signal table as belonging to the same set (provided they belong to the same coordinate). So that any signals with the same 'coordinate_id' and 'group' together form a tuple as shown above.
For example,
Coordinates table Signals table
-------------------- -----------------------------
| id | x | y | | id | signal | coordinate_id | group |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | | 1 | 45 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 5 | | 2 | 95 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 33 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | 65 | 1 | 2 |
| 5 | 57 | 1 | 2 |
| 6 | 63 | 2 | 1 |
This would produce the tuples (1,2 {45,95,33}), (1,2,{65,57}), (2,5, {63}) and so on.
I would like to retrieve the sets of {signal1, signal2,...} for each coordinate. The signals belonging to a set have the same coordinate_id and group, but I do not necessarily know the group value. I only know that if the group value is the same for a particular coordinate_id, then all those with that group form one set.
I tried looking into SQL GROUP BY, but I realized that it is for use with aggregate functions.
Can someone point out how to do this properly in SQL or give tips for improving my database structure.

SQLite supports the GROUP_CONCAT() aggregate function similar to MySQL. It rolls up a set of values in the group and concatenates them together comma-separated.
SELECT c.x, c.y, GROUP_CONCAT(s.signal) AS signal_list
FROM Signals s
JOIN Coordinates ON s.coordinate_id = c.id
GROUP BY s.coordinate_id, s.group
SQLite also permits the mismatch between columns in the select-list and columns in the group-by clause, even though this isn't strictly permitted by ANSI SQL and most implementations.

personally I would write the database as 3 tables:
x_y(x, y, id) coords_groups(pos, group, id) signals(group, signal)
with signals.group->coords_groups.id and coords_groups.pos->x_y.id
as you are trying to represent a sort-of 4 dimensional array.
then, to get from a couple of coordinates (X, Y) an ArrayList of List of Signal you can use this
SELECT temp."group", signals.signal
FROM (
SELECT cg."group", cg.id
FROM x_y JOIN coords_groups AS cg ON x_y.id = cg.pos
WHERE x_y.x=X AND x_y.y=Y )
AS temp JOIN signals ON temp.id=signals."group"
ORDER BY temp."group" ASC
(X Y are in the innermost where)
inside this sort of pseudo-code:
getSignalsGroups(X, Y)
ArrayList<List<Signals>> a
List<Signals> temp
query=sqlLiteExecute(THE_SQL_SNIPPET, x, y)
row=query.fetch() //fetch the first row to set the groupCounter
actualGroup=row.group
temp.add(row.signal)
for(row : query) //foreach row add the signal to the list
if(row.group!=actualGroup) //or reset the list if is a new group
a.add(actualGroup, temp)
actualGroup=row.group; temp= new List
temp.add(row.signal)
return a

Related

SQL pairing adjacent rows

Using postgreSQL (latest). I'm a total noob.
I have a view that always gives me a table of an even number of rows- no duplicates (the letters are analogous to unique keys) and no nulls, let's call it letter_view:
| letter |
|-------------|
| A |
| B |
| C |
| D |
| E |
| F |
| G |
| H |
My view already uses an ORDER BY clause so the table is pre-sorted.
What I'm trying to do is merge every two rows into a single row
with each value from those two rows. So for n rows, I need the result set to have
n / 2 rows with combined adjacent rows.
| l1 | l2 |
|-------|------|
| A | B |
| C | D |
| E | F |
| G | H |
I've tried using lead and I think I'm close but I can't quite get it in the format I need.
My best query attempt looks like this:
SELECT letter AS letter_1, lead(letter, 1) OVER (PARTITION BY 2) AS letter_2 from letter_view;
but I get:
letter_1 | letter_2
----------+----------
A | B
B | C <--- Don't need this
C | D
D | E <--- Don't need this
E | F
F | G <--- Don't need this
G | H
H | <--- Don't need this
(8 rows)
I checked several other answers on SO, and looked through
the PostgreSQL docs and w3C SQL tutorials but I can't find a succinct answer.
What is this technique called and how would I do it?
I'm trying to do this in pure SQL if possible.
I know I could use multiple queries with LIMIT and OFFSET to get the data with multiple selects or potentially by using a cursor but that seems very inefficient for large input sets although I could be totally wrong. Again, total noob.
Any help in the right direction is highly appreciated.
You can use lead() to get the next value . . . but you need a way to filter as well. I would suggest row_number():
select letter_1, letter_2
from (select letter AS letter_1,
lead(letter, 1) OVER (PARTITION BY 2 order by ??) AS letter_2,
row_number() over (partition by 2 order by ??) as seqnum
from letter_view
) lv
where seqnum % 2 = 1;
Notes:
I included the partition clause as you have in the original code. I don't know what "2" refers to.
You should be explicit about the order by. It is not wise to depend on the ordering of some underlying table or view.

Oracle Spatial Objects to Vertex List

I am struggling to convert a series of oracle SDOs (polygons specifically) into a more usable format.
I have data that is in this format:
PolygonID | Polygon
1 | SDO Geometry
2 | SDO Geometry
3 | SDO Geometry
And so on...
What i want to get is the following:
PolygonID | Vertex.X | Vertex.Y | Vertex.Order
1 | 1 | 1 | 1
1 | 3 | 5 | 2
1 | 2 | 3 | 3
2 | 1 | 2 | 1
And so on. So I just need to polygon converted into a ordered list of vertices. I can successfully convert a single SDO geometry into a ordered list using the below code but cant link it to its polygon ID.
select x,y
from table (
select sdo_util.getvertices(
SDO
)
from POLYGONS
where ID = 1
)
order by id;
I am a bit lost on how to link that data back to its original polygon ID. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
So I eventually found the solution. See below.
SELECT
c.POLYGONID,
t.X,
t.Y,
t.ID as ORDER
FROM POLYGONS c,
TABLE(SDO_UTIL.GETVERTICES(c.POLYGON)) t
The table function creates a sub-query linked to each polygon ID.

PostgreSQL: Distribute rows evenly and according to frequency

I have trouble with a complex ordering problem. I have following example data:
table "categories"
id | frequency
1 | 0
2 | 4
3 | 0
table "entries"
id | category_id | type
1 | 1 | a
2 | 1 | a
3 | 1 | a
4 | 2 | b
5 | 2 | c
6 | 3 | d
I want to put entries rows in an order so that category_id,
and type are distributed evenly.
More precisely, I want to order entries in a way that:
category_ids that refer to a category that has frequency=0 are
distributed evenly - so that a row is followed by a different category_id
whenever possible. e.g. category_ids of rows: 1,2,1,3,1,2.
Rows with category_ids of categories with frequency<>0 should
be inserted from ca. the beginning with a minimum of frequency rows between them
(the gaps should vary). In my example these are rows with category_id=2.
So the result could start with row id #1, then #4, then a minimum of 4 rows of other
categories, then #5.
in the end result rows with same type should not be next to each other.
Example result:
id | category_id | type
1 | 1 | a
4 | 2 | b
2 | 1 | a
6 | 3 | d
.. some other row ..
.. some other row ..
.. some other row ..
5 | 2 | c
entries are like a stream of things the user gets (one at a time).
The whole ordering should give users some variation. It's just there to not
present them similar entries all the time, so it doesn't have to be perfect.
The query also does not have to give the same result on each call - using
random() is totally fine.
frequencies are there to give entries of certain categories a higher
priority so that they are not distributed across the whole range, but are placed more
at the beginning of the result list. Even if there are a lot of these entries, they
should not completely crowd out the frequency=0 entries at the beginning, through.
I'm no sure how to start this. I think I can use window functions and
ntile() to distribute rows by category_id and type.
But I have no idea how to insert the non-0-category-entries afterwards.

Find spectators that have seen the same shows (match multiple rows for each)

For an assignment I have to write several SQL queries for a database stored in a PostgreSQL server running PostgreSQL 9.3.0. However, I find myself blocked with last query. The database models a reservation system for an opera house. The query is about associating the a spectator the other spectators that assist to the same events every time.
The model looks like this:
Reservations table
id_res | create_date | tickets_presented | id_show | id_spectator | price | category
-------+---------------------+---------------------+---------+--------------+-------+----------
1 | 2015-08-05 17:45:03 | | 1 | 1 | 195 | 1
2 | 2014-03-15 14:51:08 | 2014-11-30 14:17:00 | 11 | 1 | 150 | 2
Spectators table
id_spectator | last_name | first_name | email | create_time | age
---------------+------------+------------+----------------------------------------+---------------------+-----
1 | gonzalez | colin | colin.gonzalez#gmail.com | 2014-03-15 14:21:30 | 22
2 | bequet | camille | bequet.camille#gmail.com | 2014-12-10 15:22:31 | 22
Shows table
id_show | name | kind | presentation_date | start_time | end_time | id_season | capacity_cat1 | capacity_cat2 | capacity_cat3 | price_cat1 | price_cat2 | price_cat3
---------+------------------------+--------+-------------------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------+---------------+---------------+------------+------------+------------
1 | madama butterfly | opera | 2015-09-05 | 19:30:00 | 21:30:00 | 2 | 315 | 630 | 945 | 195 | 150 | 100
2 | don giovanni | opera | 2015-09-12 | 19:30:00 | 21:45:00 | 2 | 315 | 630 | 945 | 195 | 150 | 100
So far I've started by writing a query to get the id of the spectator and the date of the show he's attending to, the query looks like this.
SELECT Reservations.id_spectator, Shows.presentation_date
FROM Reservations
LEFT JOIN Shows ON Reservations.id_show = Shows.id_show;
Could someone help me understand better the problem and hint me towards finding a solution. Thanks in advance.
So the result I'm expecting should be something like this
id_spectator | other_id_spectators
-------------+--------------------
1| 2,3
Meaning that every time spectator with id 1 went to a show, spectators 2 and 3 did too.
Note based on comments: Wanted to make clear that this answer may be of limited use as it was answered in the context of SQL-Server (tag was present at the time)
There is probably a better way to do it, but you could do it with the 'stuff 'function. The only drawback here is that, since your ids are ints, placing a comma between values will involve a work around (would need to be a string). Below is the method I can think of using a work around.
SELECT [id_spectator], [id_show]
, STUFF((SELECT ',' + CAST(A.[id_spectator] as NVARCHAR(10))
FROM reservations A
Where A.[id_show]=B.[id_show] AND a.[id_spectator] != b.[id_spectator] FOR XML PATH('')),1,1,'') As [other_id_spectators]
From reservations B
Group By [id_spectator], [id_show]
This will show you all other spectators that attended the same shows.
Meaning that every time spectator with id 1 went to a show, spectators 2 and 3 did too.
In other words, you want a list of ...
all spectators that have seen all the shows that a given spectator has seen (and possibly more than the given one)
This is a special case of relational division. We have assembled an arsenal of basic techniques here:
How to filter SQL results in a has-many-through relation
It is special because the list of shows each spectator has to have attended is dynamically determined by the given prime spectator.
Assuming that (d_spectator, id_show) is unique in reservations, which has not been clarified.
A UNIQUE constraint on those two columns (in that order) also provides the most important index.
For best performance in query 2 and 3 below also create an index with leading id_show.
1. Brute force
The primitive approach would be to form a sorted array of shows the given user has seen and compare the same array of others:
SELECT 1 AS id_spectator, array_agg(sub.id_spectator) AS id_other_spectators
FROM (
SELECT id_spectator
FROM reservations r
WHERE id_spectator <> 1
GROUP BY 1
HAVING array_agg(id_show ORDER BY id_show)
#> (SELECT array_agg(id_show ORDER BY id_show)
FROM reservations
WHERE id_spectator = 1)
) sub;
But this is potentially very expensive for big tables. The whole table hast to be processes, and in a rather expensive way, too.
2. Smarter
Use a CTE to determine relevant shows, then only consider those
WITH shows AS ( -- all shows of id 1; 1 row per show
SELECT id_spectator, id_show
FROM reservations
WHERE id_spectator = 1 -- your prime spectator here
)
SELECT sub.id_spectator, array_agg(sub.other) AS id_other_spectators
FROM (
SELECT s.id_spectator, r.id_spectator AS other
FROM shows s
JOIN reservations r USING (id_show)
WHERE r.id_spectator <> s.id_spectator
GROUP BY 1,2
HAVING count(*) = (SELECT count(*) FROM shows)
) sub
GROUP BY 1;
#> is the "contains2 operator for arrays - so we get all spectators that have at least seen the same shows.
Faster than 1. because only relevant shows are considered.
3. Real smart
To also exclude spectators that are not going to qualify early from the query, use a recursive CTE:
WITH RECURSIVE shows AS ( -- produces exactly 1 row
SELECT id_spectator, array_agg(id_show) AS shows, count(*) AS ct
FROM reservations
WHERE id_spectator = 1 -- your prime spectator here
GROUP BY 1
)
, cte AS (
SELECT r.id_spectator, 1 AS idx
FROM shows s
JOIN reservations r ON r.id_show = s.shows[1]
WHERE r.id_spectator <> s.id_spectator
UNION ALL
SELECT r.id_spectator, idx + 1
FROM cte c
JOIN reservations r USING (id_spectator)
JOIN shows s ON s.shows[c.idx + 1] = r.id_show
)
SELECT s.id_spectator, array_agg(c.id_spectator) AS id_other_spectators
FROM shows s
JOIN cte c ON c.idx = s.ct -- has an entry for every show
GROUP BY 1;
Note that the first CTE is non-recursive. Only the second part is recursive (iterative really).
This should be fastest for small selections from big tables. Row that don't qualify are excluded early. the two indices I mentioned are essential.
SQL Fiddle demonstrating all three.
It sounds like you have one half of the total question--determining which id_shows a particular id_spectator attended.
What you want to ask yourself is how you can determine which id_spectators attended an id_show, given an id_show. Once you have that, combine the two answers to get the full result.
So the final answer I got, looks like this :
SELECT id_spectator, id_show,(
SELECT string_agg(to_char(A.id_spectator, '999'), ',')
FROM Reservations A
WHERE A.id_show=B.id_show
) AS other_id_spectators
FROM Reservations B
GROUP By id_spectator, id_show
ORDER BY id_spectator ASC;
Which prints something like this:
id_spectator | id_show | other_id_spectators
-------------+---------+---------------------
1 | 1 | 1, 2, 9
1 | 14 | 1, 2
Which suits my needs, however if you have any improvements to offer, please share :) Thanks again everybody!

Access 2007 select first value of query results

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.