I have a logging table which has three columns. One column is a unique identifier, One Column is called "Name" and the other is "Status".
Values in the Name column can repeat so that you might see Name "Joe" in multiple rows. Name "Joe" might have a row with a status "open", another row with a status "closed", another with "waiting" and maybe one for "hold". I would like to, using a defined precedence in this highest to lowest order:("Closed","Hold","Waiting" and "Open") pull the highest ranking row for each Name and ignore the others. Anyone know a simple way to do this?
BTW, not every Name will have all status representations, so "Joe" might only have a row for "waiting" and "hold", or maybe just "waiting".
I would create a second table named something like "Status_Precedence", with rows like:
Status | Order
---------------
Closed | 1
Hold | 2
Waiting | 3
Open | 4
In your query of the other table, do a join to this table (on Status_Precedence.Status) and then you can ORDER BY Status_Precedence.Order.
If you don't want to create another table, you can assign numeric precedence using a SELECT CASE
Select Name, Status, Case Status
When 'Closed' then 1
When 'Hold' then 2
When 'Waiting' then 3
When 'Open' Then 4
END
as StatusID
From Logging
Order By StatusId -- Order based on Case
A lookup table is also a good solution though.
I ended up using matt b's solution and using this final query to filter out the lower ranked (lower bing higher numbered).
SELECT * from [TABLE] tb
LEFT JOIN Status_Precedence sp ON tb.Status = sp.Status
WHERE sp.Rank = (SELECT MIN(sp2.rank)
FROM[Table] tb2
LEFT JOIN Status_Precedence sp2 ON tb2.Status = sp2.Status
WHERE tb.Status = tb2.Status)
order by tb.[name]
Related
I have a dataset with ID_1 and ID_2 who are individuals and a different STATUS for same ID_1 and ID_2 like this:
And I want to assign the NAME with the same ID_1 and ID_2 for the second STATUS, like this:
SELECT * FROM example WHERE (status = 1 and status = 2)
If we perform a self join (Substitute your tableName in where it says "TableName" below; we join the table to itself. Each is it's own data sets and since we sometimes want the name from the "related" records; a left join is needed. Together based on ID_1, and ID_2; but only when the the status on the second table is 1 greater than the first table so all status 2 join with status 1 for the same ID_1 and ID_2. When the status is 1 then no join occurs.. We then use coalesce to return the the desired name (one from 'B' table if such a join occurred, otherwise the base name from table aliased 'A'.
SELECT A.Index, A.ID_1, A.ID_2, A.Name, coalesce(B.Name, A.Name) as Name_P
FROM TableName A
LEFT JOIN tableName B
on A.ID_1=B.ID_1
and A.ID_2=B.ID_2
and A.Status-1 = B.Status --This is changed from comment having give it more thought...
In theory (as this is untested without complete DDL and test data. This could be provided on one of my dbfiddle sites https://dbfiddle.uk/ for example.)
Index 1-7 would always return Robert for coalesce(B.Name, A.Name) [using A.Name value] because the join would find no status 0 records with ID_1 and ID_2 matching. So B.Name would be Null, and A.Name (Robert) would be returned; thus is the nature of coalesce() in this example.
For index 8-9, B.Name would have a value of Robert so it would be returned. Coalesce() returns the first non-null value in the series coalesce(value1, value2,value3, value...)
But I'm assuming several things here.
status is always separated by 1
status is numeric
there are no status 0
if status 3 exists, you'd want it related to status 2 names.
several other things which you may not have provided sample data for
several other edge cases which may result in an improper result.
We need to understand your data and situation better in order to know how to help you.
For example if index 10 "Fred" Exists with ID_1 111 and ID_2 of 1 and status 3... what should the Name_P be? Justin? Robert? neither? Both?
Now I don't' know if you're doing this to return data in a set, or if you need the Name_P as some sort of "Extra" so for now I'm returning as part of the data set. If you want more: clarify the question by providing sample data expected results and WHY those results. Where it gets challenging is defining limits on the data could you have status 3 and what happens then? or are we just working with status 1 & 2... things we need to understand
Consider the complete DDL & Fiddle with sample data to help us help you so we can test our "attempts" against data you have where you know what the expected results are. The image is ok; but DDL and a minimally complete verifiable example is better.
I am trying to create a table that has columns called user_id and top5_foods (binary column). I currently have two tables, one has all of the user_ids and the foods associated with those user_ids and one table that only contains the top5 foods according to a type of calculation to select the top5 foods.
The table that I am trying to create if to have the column of the user_id and if at least one of their favorite foods is in the top_5_food table, put the value of the top5_foods as 1 and if not, 0.
Something like the following:
user_id top5_foods
----------------------
34223 1
43225 0
34323 1
I have tried to use the CASE command but it just duplicated the user_ids and mark 1 or 0 whenever it finds a food that is in the top_5_foods table. But I don't want it to duplicate. Could you please help ?
Thank you very much
If I understand correctly, a left join and aggregation:
select uf.user_id,
(count(t.food_id) > 0) as top5_foods
from user_foods uf left join
top5_foods t
on uf.food_id = t.food_id
group by uf.user_id;
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;
This is staight forward I believe:
I have a table with 30,000 rows. When I SELECT DISTINCT 'location' FROM myTable it returns 21,000 rows, about what I'd expect, but it only returns that one column.
What I want is to move those to a new table, but the whole row for each match.
My best guess is something like SELECT * from (SELECT DISTINCT 'location' FROM myTable) or something like that, but it says I have a vague syntax error.
Is there a good way to grab the rest of each DISTINCT row and move it to a new table all in one go?
SELECT * FROM myTable GROUP BY `location`
or if you want to move to another table
CREATE TABLE foo AS SELECT * FROM myTable GROUP BY `location`
Distinct means for the entire row returned. So you can simply use
SELECT DISTINCT * FROM myTable GROUP BY 'location'
Using Distinct on a single column doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's say I have the following simple set
-id- -location-
1 store
2 store
3 home
if there were some sort of query that returned all columns, but just distinct on location, which row would be returned? 1 or 2? Should it just pick one at random? Because of this, DISTINCT works for all columns in the result set returned.
Well, first you need to decide what you really want returned.
The problem is that, presumably, for some of the location values in your table there are different values in the other columns even when the location value is the same:
Location OtherCol StillOtherCol
Place1 1 Fred
Place1 89 Fred
Place1 1 Joe
In that case, which of the three rows do you want to select? When you talk about a DISTINCT Location, you're condensing those three rows of different data into a single row, there's no meaning to moving the original rows from the original table into a new table since those original rows no longer exist in your DISTINCT result set. (If all the other columns are always the same for a given Location, your problem is easier: Just SELECT DISTINCT * FROM YourTable).
If you don't care which values come from the other columns you can use a (bad, IMHO) MySQL extension to SQL and do:
SELECT * FROM YourTable GROUP BY Location
which will give a result set with one row per location and values for the other columns derived from the original data in an undefined fashion.
Multiple rows with identical values in all columns don't have any sense. OK - the question might be a way to correct exactly that situation.
Considering this table, with id being the PK:
kram=# select * from foba;
id | no | name
----+----+---------------
2 | 1 | a
3 | 1 | b
4 | 2 | c
5 | 2 | a,b,c,d,e,f,g
you may extract a sample for every single no (:=location) by grouping over that column, and selecting the row with minimum PK (for example):
SELECT * FROM foba WHERE id IN (SELECT min (id) FROM foba GROUP BY no);
id | no | name
----+----+------
2 | 1 | a
4 | 2 | c
Here is the SQL table:
KEY | NAME | VALUE
---------------------
13b | Jeffrey | 23.5
F48 | Jonas | 18.2
2G8 | Debby | 21.1
Now, if I type:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE VALUE = 23.5
I will get the first row.
What I need to accomplish is to get the first and the next two rows below. Is there a way to do it?
Columns are not sorted and WHERE condition doesn't participate in the selection of the rows, except for the first one. I just need the two additional rows below the returned one - the ones that were entered after the one which has been returned by the SELECT query.
Without a date column or an auto-increment column, you can't reliably determine the order the records were entered.
The physical order with which rows are stored in the table is non-deterministic.
You need to define an order to the results to do this. There is no guaranteed order to the data otherwise.
If by "the next 2 rows after" you mean "the next 2 records that were inserted into the table AFTER that particular row", you will need to use an auto incrementing field or a "date create" timestamp field to do this.
If each row has an ID column that is unique and auto incrementing, you could do something like:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE id > (SELECT id FROM table WHERE value = 23.5)
If I understand correctly, you're looking for something like:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE value <> 23.5
You can obviously write a program to do that but i am assuming you want a query. What about using a Union. You would also have to create a new column called value_id or something in those lines which is incremented sequentially (probably use a sequence). The idea is that value_id will be incremented for every insert and using that you can write a where clause to return the remaining two values you want.
For example:
Select * from table where value = 23.5
Union
Select * from table where value_id > 2 limit 2;
Limit 2 because you already got the first value in the first query
You need an order if you want to be able to think in terms of "before" and "after".
Assuming you have one you can use ROW_NUMBER() (see more here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186734.aspx) and do something like:
With MyTable
(select row_number() over (order by key) as n, key, name, value
from table)
select key, name, value
from MyTable
where n >= (select n from MyTable where value = 23.5)