I have a column containing the strings 'Operator (1)' and so on until 'Operator (600)' so far.
I want to get them numerically ordered and I've come up with
select colname from table order by
cast(replace(replace(colname,'Operator (',''),')','') as int)
which is very very ugly.
Better suggestions?
It's that, InStr()/SubString(), changing Operator(1) to Operator(001), storing the n in Operator(n) separately, or creating a computed column that hides the ugly string manipulation. What you have seems fine.
If you really have to leave the data in the format you have - and adding a numeric sort order column is the better solution - then consider wrapping the text manipulation up in a user defined function.
select colname from table order by dbo.udfSortOperator(colname)
It's less ugly and gives you some abstraction. There's an additional overhead of the function call but on a table containing low thousands of rows in a not-too-heavily hit database server it's not a major concern. Make notes in the function to optomise later as required.
My answer would be to change the problem. I would add an operatorNumber field to the table if that is possible. Change the update/insert routines to extract the number and store it. That way the string conversion hit is only once per record.
The ordering logic would require the string conversion every time the query is run.
Well, first define the meaning of that column. Is operator a name so you can justify using chars? Or is it a number?
If the field is a name then you will use chars, and then you would want to determine the fixed length. Pad all operator names with zeros on the left. Define naming rules for operators (I.E. No leters. Or the codes you would use in a series like "A001")
An index will sort the physical data in the server. And a properly define text naming will sort them on a query. You would want both.
If the operator is a number, then you got the data type for that column wrong and needs to be changed.
Indexed computed column
If you find yourself ordering on or otherwise querying operator column often, consider creating a computed column for its numeric value and adding an index for it. This will give you a computed/persistent column (which sounds like oxymoron, but isn't).
Related
I want to sort my column numbers at report level in SSRS instead of my query as I have some other columns sorted at query level and doing both sorts at query level don't work well. At the moment I get Columns order like 1, 10,2,3,4,5,6 instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6...10.
Once sorting is done I also want to add 'sales_' to the column name so I see sales_1, sales_2, sales_3 and so on. I understand this could be pretty straightforward but I'm new to SSRS. Thanks in advance.
The sort you are describing (1, 10,2,3,4) is a string sort, you need to convert the data type on that column to a numeric (in this case integer) type so that the sort is correct.
There are two solutions to this, you can add a calculated field to the record set, this can be helpful if you need to use this column multiple times, or you can simply use an expression for the sort order.
Right click on your dataset and select Add Calculated field, a dialog will open with all the column definitions for the query, here you can add your own custom fields.
For a custom field you will need an expression, which was the other options originally, so lets have a look at that component.
Edit the sort definition for the Tablix or group and select the field you want to sort on, to sort the way you would like the value needs to be numeric, we can use the CInt function to convert a value to an integer
NOTE: when using expressions to convert data types, if your data might not be convertible you may need to validate the value before conversion otherwise your
report execution will fail. The error messages are pretty helpful though and the expression dialog shows available functions an examples of usage for each of them.
For your second issue, use an expression in the field where you are displaying the data to concatenate the values, you can use the String.Format function or you can use simple string addition:
Expression Examples:
="sales_" + Fields!ItemValue.Value
="sales_" & Fields!ItemValue.Value
=String.Format("sales_{0}", Fields!ItemValue.Value)
I hope this helps you on your way, welcome to SSRS!
I have a PostgreSQL column of type text that contains data like shown below
(32.85563, -117.25624)(32.855470000000004, -117.25648000000001)(32.85567, -117.25710000000001)(32.85544, -117.2556)
(37.75363, -121.44142000000001)(37.75292, -121.4414)
I want to convert this into another column of type text like shown below
(-117.25624, 32.85563)(-117.25648000000001,32.855470000000004 )(-117.25710000000001,32.85567 )(-117.2556,32.85544 )
(-121.44142000000001,37.75363 )(-121.4414,37.75292 )
As you can see, the values inside the parentheses have switched around. Also note that I have shown two records here to indicate that not all fields have same number of parenthesized figures.
What I've tried
I tried extracting the column to Java and performing my operations there. But due to sheer amount of records I have, I will run out of memory. I also cannot do this method in batched due to time constraints.
What I want
A SQL query or a sequence of SQL queries that will achieve the result that I have mentioned above.
I am using PostgreSQL9.4 with PGAdmin III as the client
this is a type of problem that should not be solved by sql, but you are lucky to use Postgres.
I suggest the following steps in defining your algorithm.
First part will be turning your strings into a structured data, second will transform structured data back to string in a format that you require.
From string to data
First, you need to turn your bracketed values into an array, which can be done with string_to_array function.
Now you can turn this array into rows with unnest function, which will return a row per bracketed value.
Finally you need to slit values in each row into two fields.
From data to string
You need to group results of the first query with results wrapped in string_agg function that will combine all numbers in rows into string.
You will need to experiment with brackets to achieve exactly what you want.
PS. I am not providing query here. Once you have some code that you tried, let me know.
Assuming you also have a PK or some unique column, and possibly other columns, you can do as follows:
SELECT id, (...), string_agg(point(pt[1], pt[0])::text, '') AS col_reversed
FROM (
SELECT id, (...), unnest(string_to_array(replace(col, ')(', ');('), ';'))::point AS pt
FROM my_table) sub
GROUP BY id; -- assuming id is PK or no other columns
PostgreSQL has the point type which you can use here. First you need to make sure you can properly divide the long string into individual points (insert ';' between the parentheses), then turn that into an array of individual points in text format, unnest the array into individual rows, and finally cast those rows to the point data type:
unnest(string_to_array(replace(col, ')(', ');('), ';'))::point AS pt
You can then create a new point from the point you just created, but with the coordinates reversed, turn that into a string and aggregate into your desired output:
string_agg(point(pt[1], pt[0])::text, '') AS col_reversed
But you might also move away from the text format and make an array of point values as that will be easier and faster to work with:
array_agg(point(pt[1], pt[0])) AS pt_reversed
As I put in the question, I tried extracting the column to Java and performing my operations there. But due to sheer amount of records I have, I will run out of memory. I also cannot do this method in batched due to time constraints.
I ran out of memory here as I was putting everything in a Hashmap of
< my_primary_key,the_newly_formatted_text >. As the text was very long sometimes and due to the sheer number of records that I had, it wasnt surprising that I got an OOM.
Solution that I used:
As suggested my many folks here, this solution was better solved with a code. I wrote a small script that formatted the text as per my liking and wrote the primary key and the newly formatted text to a file in tsv format. Then I imported the tsv in a new table and updated the original table from the new one.
I'm importing data from one system to another. The former keys off an alphanumeric field whereas the latter requires a numeric integer field. I'd like to find or write a function that I can feed the alphanumeric value to and have it return a number that would be unique to the value passed in.
My first thought was to do a hash, but of course the result of any built in hashes are going to contains letters and plus it's technically possible (however unlikely) that a hash may not be unique.
My first question is whether there is anything built in to sql that I'm overlooking, and short of that I'd like to hear suggestions on the easiest way to implement such a function.
Here is a function which will probably convert from base 10 (integer) to base 36 (alphanumeric) and back again:
https://www.simple-talk.com/sql/t-sql-programming/numeral-systems-and-numbers-conversion-in-sql/
You might find the resultant number is too big to be held in an integer though.
You could concatenate the ascii values of each character of your string and cast the result as a bigint.
If the original data is known to be integers you can use cast:
SELECT CAST(varcharcol AS INT) FROM Table
Suppose you have a DB table like this:
Table t
....
column_a integer
column_b varchar(255)
....
Now, I want to store a string that is composed by a list of names on t.column_b, with the following format (separated by commas):
Word A, Word B, Word C...
The problem is, it might be the case that the string is larger than 255 characters and in my application logic I don't want to blindly trim to 255, but instead store the maximum number of words possible, eliminating the last word that exceeds the size. Also, I want to develop in such a way that if the column changes size, I don't want to change my application. Is it possible to write a SQL query that retrieves the declared size of a column? Or perhaps, I should use another column type?
If relevant, I am using Informix.
Thanks in advance.
Informix truncates blindly at the limit unless your database is MODE ANSI.
The DBI defines metadata attributes for columns and DBD::Informix implements them.
For a statement handle, $sth, you can use:
$sth->{PRECISION}->[0]
to get the precision (length) of the first column in the output.
See perldoc DBI under 'Statement Handle Attributes'.
If you need to know the type information for some column, write a SELECT statement, prepare it, then analyze the statement handle.
Because this is defined by DBI, you will get the same behaviour with any driver (DBD::YourDBMS).
I have a three tables
Results:
TestID
TestCode
Value
Tests:
TestID
TestType
SysCodeID
SystemCodes
SysCodeID
ParentSysCodeID
Description
The question I have is for when the user is entering data into the results table.
The formatting code when the row gets the focus changes the value field to a dropdown combobox if the testCode is of type SystemList. The drop down has a list of all the system codes that have a parentsyscodeID of the test.SysCodeID. When the user chooses a value in the list it translates into a number which goes into the value field.
The datatype of the Results.Value field is integer. I made it an integer instead of a string because when reporting it is easier to do calculations and sorting if it is a number. There are issues if you are putting integer/decimal value into a string field. As well, when the system was being designed they only wanted numbers in there.
The users now want to put strings into the value field as well as numbers/values from a list and I'm wondering what the best way of doing that would be.
Would it be bad practice to convert the field over to a string and then store both strings and integers in the same field? There are different issues related to this one but i'm not sure if any are a really big deal.
Should I add another column into the table of string datatype and if the test is a string type then put the data the user enters into the different field.
Another option would be to create a 1-1 relationship to another table and if the user types in a string into the value field it adds it into the new table with a key of a number.
Anyone have any interesting ideas?
What about treating Results.Value as if it were a numeric ValueCode that becomes an foreign key referencing another table that contains a ValueCode and a string that matches it.
CREATE TABLE ValueCodes
(
Value INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
Meaning VARCHAR(32) NOT NULL UNIQUE
);
CREATE TABLE Results
(
TestID ...,
TestCode ...,
Value INTEGER NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES ValueCodes
);
You continue storing integers as now, but they are references to a limited set of values in the ValueCodes table. Most of the existing values appear as an integer such as 100 with a string representing the same value "100". New codes can be added as needed.
Are you saying that they want to do free-form text entry? If that's the case, they will ruin the ability to do meaningful reporting on the field, because I can guarantee that they will not consistently enter the strings.
If they are going to be entering one of several preset strings (for example, grades of A, B, C, etc.) then make a lookup table for those strings which maps to numeric values for sorting, evaluating, averaging, etc.
If they really want to be able to start entering in free-form text and you can't dissuade them from it, add another column along the lines of other_entry. Have a predefined value that means "other" to put in your value column. That way, when you're doing reporting you can either roll up all of those random "other" values or you can simply ignore them. Make sure that you add the "other" into your SystemCodes table so that you can keep a foreign key between that and the Results table. If you don't already have one, then you should definitely consider adding one.
Good luck!
The users now want to put strings into
the value field as well as
numbers/values from a list and I'm
wondering what the best way of doing
that would be.
It sounds like the users want to add new 'testCodes'. If that is the case why not just add them to your existing testcode table and keep your existing format.
Would it be bad practice to convert
the field over to a string and then
store both strings and integers in
the same field? There are different
issues related to this one but i'm not
sure if any are a really big deal.
No it's not a big deal. Often PO numbers or Invoice numbers have numbers or a combination of letters and numbers. You are right however about the performance of the database on a number field as opposed to a string, but if you index the string field you end up with the database doing it's scans on numeric indexes anyway.
The problems you may have had with your decimals as strings probably have to do with the floating point data types in which the server essentially estimates the value of the field and only retains accuracy to a certain number of digits. This can lead to a whole host of rounding errors if you are concerned about the digits. You can avoid that issue by using currency fields or the like that have static accuracy of the decimals. lol I learned this the hard way.
Tom H. did a great job addressing everything else.
I think the easiest way to do it would be to convert Results.Value to a "string" (char, varchar, whatever). Yes, this ruins the ability to do numeric sorting (and you won't be able to do a cast or convert on the column any longer since text will be intermingled with integer values), but I think any other method would be too complex to maintain properly. (For example, in the 1-1 case you mentioned, is that integer value the actual value or a foreign key to the string table? Now we need another column to determine that.)
I would create the extra column for string values. It's not true normalization but it's the easiest to implement and to work with.
Using the same field for both numbers and strings would work to as long as you don't plan on doing anything with the numbers like summing or sorting.
The extra table approach while good from a normalization standpoint is probably overly complex.
I'd convert the value field to string and add a column indicating what the datatype should be treated as for post processing and reporting.
Sql Server at least has an IsNumeric function you can use:
ORDER BY IsNumeric(Results.Value) DESC,
CASE WHEN IsNumeric(Results.Value) = 1 THEN Len(Results.Value) ELSE 99 END,
Results.Value
One of two solutions comes to mind. It kind of depends on what you're doing with the numbers. If they just represent a choice of some kind, then pick one. If you need to do math on it (sorting, conversion, etc..) then pick another.
Change the column to be a varchar, and then either put numbers or text in it. Sorting numerically will suck, but hey, it's one column.
Have both a varchar column for the text, and an int column for the number. Use a view to hide the differences, and to control the sorting if necessary. You can coalesce the two columns together if you don't care about whether you're looking at numbers or text.