In Mysql, I want to select the bottom 2 items from each category
Category Value
1 1.3
1 4.8
1 3.7
1 1.6
2 9.5
2 9.9
2 9.2
2 10.3
3 4
3 8
3 16
Giving me:
Category Value
1 1.3
1 1.6
2 9.5
2 9.2
3 4
3 8
Before I migrated from sqlite3 I had to first select a lowest from each category, then excluding anything that joined to that, I had to again select the lowest from each category. Then anything equal to that new lowest or less in a category won. This would also pick more than 2 in case of a tie, which was annoying... It also had a really long runtime.
My ultimate goal is to count the number of times an individual is in one of the lowest 2 of a category (there is also a name field) and this is the one part I don't know how to do.
Thanks
SELECT c1.category, c1.value
FROM catvals c1
LEFT OUTER JOIN catvals c2
ON (c1.category = c2.category AND c1.value > c2.value)
GROUP BY c1.category, c1.value
HAVING COUNT(*) < 2;
Tested on MySQL 5.1.41 with your test data. Output:
+----------+-------+
| category | value |
+----------+-------+
| 1 | 1.30 |
| 1 | 1.60 |
| 2 | 9.20 |
| 2 | 9.50 |
| 3 | 4.00 |
| 3 | 8.00 |
+----------+-------+
(The extra decimal places are because I declared the value column as NUMERIC(9,2).)
Like other solutions, this produces more than 2 rows per category if there are ties. There are ways to construct the join condition to resolve that, but we'd need to use a primary key or unique key in your table, and we'd also have to know how you intend ties to be resolved.
You could try this:
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT c.*,
(SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM user_category c2
WHERE c2.category = c.category
AND c2.value < c.value) cnt
FROM user_category c ) uc
WHERE cnt < 2
It should give you the desired results, but check if performance is ok.
Here's a solution that handles duplicates properly. Table name is 'zzz' and columns are int and float
select
smallest.category category, min(smallest.value) value
from
zzz smallest
group by smallest.category
union
select
second_smallest.category category, min(second_smallest.value) value
from
zzz second_smallest
where
concat(second_smallest.category,'x',second_smallest.value)
not in ( -- recreate the results from the first half of the union
select concat(c.category,'x',min(c.value))
from zzz c
group by c.category
)
group by second_smallest.category
order by category
Caveats:
If there is only one value for a given category, then only that single entry is returned.
If there was a unique recordID for each row you wouldn't need all the concats to simulate a unique key.
Your mileage may vary,
--Mark
A union should work. I'm not sure of the performance compared to Peter's solution.
SELECT smallest.category, MIN(smallest.value)
FROM categories smallest
GROUP BY smallest.category
UNION
SELECT second_smallest.category, MIN(second_smallest.value)
FROM categories second_smallest
WHERE second_smallest.value > (SELECT MIN(smallest.value) FROM categories smallest WHERE second.category = second_smallest.category)
GROUP BY second_smallest.category
Here is a very generalized solution, that would work for selecting first n rows for each Category. This will work even if there are duplicates in value.
/* creating temporary variables */
mysql> set #cnt = 0;
mysql> set #trk = 0;
/* query */
mysql> select Category, Value
from (select *,
#cnt:=if(#trk = Category, #cnt+1, 0) cnt,
#trk:=Category
from user_categories
order by Category, Value ) c1
where c1.cnt < 2;
Here is the result.
+----------+-------+
| Category | Value |
+----------+-------+
| 1 | 1.3 |
| 1 | 1.6 |
| 2 | 9.2 |
| 2 | 9.5 |
| 3 | 4 |
| 3 | 8 |
+----------+-------+
This is tested on MySQL 5.0.88
Note that initial value of #trk variable should be not the least value of Category field.
Related
I'm trying to get the sum of two columns, but it seems to be adding incorrectly. I have a table Tbl_Booths and another table called Tbl_Extras.
In the Tbl_Booths:
BoothId | ExhId | BoothPrice
1 | 1 | 400
2 | 1 | 500
3 | 2 | 400
4 | 3 | 600
So totalBoothPrice for ExhId = 1 is 900
Tbl_Extras:
ExtraId | ExhId | Item | ItemCost
1 | 1 | PowerSupply | 400
2 | 2 | PowerSupply | 400
3 | 1 | Lights | 600
4 | 3 | PowerSupply | 400
5 | 4 | Lights | 400
So totalItemCost for ExhId = 1 is 1000
I need to find a way to get the sum of totalBoothPrice + totalItemCost
The value should of course be 900 + 1000 = 1900
I'm a total beginner to SQL so please have patience :-)
Thank you in advance for any input you can give me, since I'm going made here !
It is used in a Caspio database system.
You can use union all to combine the two tables and then aggregate:
select exhid, sum(price)
from ((select exhid, boothprice as price
from tbl_booths
) union all
(select exhid, itemcost as price
from tbl_extras
)
) e
group by exhid;
This returns the sum for all exhid values. If you want to filter them, then you can use a where clause in either the outer query or both subqueries.
Here is a db<>fiddle.
Booth totals:
select exhid, sum(boothprice) as total_booth_price
from tbl_booths
group by exhid;
Extra totals:
select exhid, sum(itemcost) as total_item_cost
from tbl_extras
group by exhid;
Joined:
select
exhid,
b.total_booth_price,
e.total_item_cost,
b.total_booth_price + e.total_item_cost as total
from
(
select exhid, sum(boothprice) as total_booth_price
from tbl_booths
group by exhid
) b
join
(
select exhid, sum(itemcost) as total_item_cost
from tbl_extras
group by exhid
) e using (exhid)
order by exhid;
This only shows exhids that have both booth and extras, though. If one can be missing use a left outer join. If one or the other can be missing, you'd want a full outer join, which MySQL doesn't support.
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 have a Family table:
SELECT * FROM Family;
id | Surname | Oldest | Oldest_Age
---+----------+--------+-------
1 | Byre | NULL | NULL
2 | Summers | NULL | NULL
3 | White | NULL | NULL
4 | Anders | NULL | NULL
The Family.Oldest column is not yet populated. There is another table of Children:
SELECT * FROM Children;
id | Name | Age | Family_FK
---+----------+------+--------
1 | Jake | 8 | 1
2 | Martin | 7 | 2
3 | Sarah | 10 | 1
4 | Tracy | 12 | 3
where many children (or no children) can be associated with one family. I would like to populate the Oldest column using an UPDATE ... SET ... statement that sets it to the Name and Oldest_Age of the oldest child in each family. Finding the name of each oldest child is a problem that is solved quite well here: How can I SELECT rows with MAX(Column value), DISTINCT by another column in SQL?
However, I don't know how to use the result of this in an UPDATE statement to update the column of an associated table using the h2 database.
The following is ANSI-SQL syntax that solves this problem:
update family
set oldest = (select name
from children c
where c.family_fk = f.id
order by age desc
fetch first 1 row only
)
In h2, I think you would use limit 1 instead of fetch first 1 row only.
EDIT:
For two columns -- alas -- the solution is two subqueries:
update family
set oldest = (select name
from children c
where c.family_fk = f.id
order by age desc
limit 1
),
oldest_age = (select age
from children c
where c.family_fk = f.id
order by age desc
limit 1
);
Some databases (such as SQL Server, Postgres, and Oracle) support lateral joins that can help with this. Also, row_number() can also help solve this problem. Unfortunately, H2 doesn't support this functionality.
I have an "insert only" database, wherein records aren't physically updated, but rather logically updated by adding a new record, with a CRUD value, carrying a larger sequence. In this case, the "seq" (sequence) column is more in line with what you may consider a primary key, but the "id" is the logical identifier for the record. In the example below,
This is the physical representation of the table:
seq id name | CRUD |
----|-----|--------|------|
1 | 10 | john | C |
2 | 10 | joe | U |
3 | 11 | kent | C |
4 | 12 | katie | C |
5 | 12 | sue | U |
6 | 13 | jill | C |
7 | 14 | bill | C |
This is the logical representation of the table, considering the "most recent" records:
seq id name | CRUD |
----|-----|--------|------|
2 | 10 | joe | U |
3 | 11 | kent | C |
5 | 12 | sue | U |
6 | 13 | jill | C |
7 | 14 | bill | C |
In order to, for instance, retrieve the most recent record for the person with id=12, I would currently do something like this:
SELECT
*
FROM
PEOPLE P
WHERE
P.ID = 12
AND
P.SEQ = (
SELECT
MAX(P1.SEQ)
FROM
PEOPLE P1
WHERE P.ID = 12
)
...and I would receive this row:
seq id name | CRUD |
----|-----|--------|------|
5 | 12 | sue | U |
What I'd rather do is something like this:
WITH
NEW_P
AS
(
--CTE representing all of the most recent records
--i.e. for any given id, the most recent sequence
)
SELECT
*
FROM
NEW_P P2
WHERE
P2.ID = 12
The first SQL example using the the subquery already works for us.
Question: How can I leverage a CTE to simplify our predicates when needing to leverage the "most recent" logical view of the table. In essence, I don't want to inline a subquery every single time I want to get at the most recent record. I'd rather define a CTE and leverage that in any subsequent predicate.
P.S. While I'm currently using DB2, I'm looking for a solution that is database agnostic.
This is a clear case for window (or OLAP) functions, which are supported by all modern SQL databases. For example:
WITH
ORD_P
AS
(
SELECT p.*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( PARTITION BY id ORDER BY seq DESC) rn
FROM people p
)
,
NEW_P
AS
(
SELECT * from ORD_P
WHERE rn = 1
)
SELECT
*
FROM
NEW_P P2
WHERE
P2.ID = 12
PS. Not tested. You may need to explicitly list all columns in the CTE clauses.
I guess you already put it together. First find the max seq associated with each id, then use that to join back to the main table:
WITH newp AS (
SELECT id, MAX(seq) AS latestseq
FROM people
GROUP BY id
)
SELECT p.*
FROM people p
JOIN newp n ON (n.latestseq = p.seq)
ORDER BY p.id
What you originally had would work, or moving the CTE into the "from" clause. Maybe you want to use a timestamp field rather than a sequence number for the ordering?
Following up from #Glenn's answer, here is an updated query which meets my original goal and is on par with #mustaccio's answer, but I'm still not sure what the performance (and other) implications of this approach vs the other are.
WITH
LATEST_PERSON_SEQS AS
(
SELECT
ID,
MAX(SEQ) AS LATEST_SEQ
FROM
PERSON
GROUP BY
ID
)
,
LATEST_PERSON AS
(
SELECT
P.*
FROM
PERSON P
JOIN
LATEST_PERSON_SEQS L
ON
(
L.LATEST_SEQ = P.SEQ)
)
SELECT
*
FROM
LATEST_PERSON L2
WHERE
L2.ID = 12
In PostgreSQL 8.3, let's say I have a table called widgets with the following:
id | type | count
--------------------
1 | A | 21
2 | A | 29
3 | C | 4
4 | B | 1
5 | C | 4
6 | C | 3
7 | B | 14
I want to remove duplicates based upon the type column, leaving only those with the highest count column value in the table. The final data would look like this:
id | type | count
--------------------
2 | A | 29
3 | C | 4 /* `id` for this record might be '5' depending on your query */
7 | B | 14
I feel like I'm close, but I can't seem to wrap my head around a query that works to get rid of the duplicate columns.
count is a sql reserve word so it'll have to be escaped somehow. I can't remember the syntax for doing that in Postgres off the top of my head so I just surrounded it with square braces (change it if that isn't correct). In any case, the following should theoretically work (but I didn't actually test it):
delete from widgets where id not in (
select max(w2.id) from widgets as w2 inner join
(select max(w1.[count]) as [count], type from widgets as w1 group by w1.type) as sq
on sq.[count]=w2.[count] and sq.type=w2.type group by w2.[count]
);
There is a slightly simpler answer than Asaph's, with EXISTS SQL operator :
DELETE FROM widgets AS a
WHERE EXISTS
(SELECT * FROM widgets AS b
WHERE (a.type = b.type AND b.count > a.count)
OR (b.id > a.id AND a.type = b.type AND b.count = a.count))
EXISTS operator returns TRUE if the following SQL statement returns at least one record.
According to your requirements, seems to me that this should work:
DELETE
FROM widgets
WHERE type NOT IN
(
SELECT type, MAX(count)
FROM widgets
GROUP BY type
)