I am currently working with Postgresql and I am facing a problem.
I have two tables "question" and "question_detail" in which there are codes. In "question_detail" are the codes including subcode so e.g. TB01Q07, TB01Q07a, TB01Q08_SQ002. Now I wanted to use the command LIKE to see if the table "question" also contains these records. But in "question.code" there are only codes without the following underscore. This is a table that was given to me, I find this somehow very stupid.
The problem is that when I search with LIKE the value TB01Q07a is listed twice. This is also understandable to me, since searching for TB01Q07% also returns the value TB01Q07a.
Does anyone know of a way to search only for TB01Q07a without it resulting in TB01Q07% as TB01Q07a?
Command
SELECT qd.code, qd.label, q.type
FROM public.question q,
public.question_detail qd
where CASE
WHEN qd.code = q.code THEN qd.code = q.code
ELSE qd.code like CONCAT(q.code,'%')
END;
question
| code | type |
| ---------|-------- |
| TB01Q07 | comment |
| TB01Q07a | comment |
| TB01Q08 | option |
**question_detail**
```none
| code | label |
| -------------- | ------|
| TB01Q07 | AB01 |
| TB01Q07a | AB02 |
| TB01Q08_SQL002 | AB03 |
I ran the SQL and wanted the TB01Q07a value to appear only once and not be listed twice.
I think I have found a solution with distinct on.
SELECT distinct on (qd.code) q.id_question,qd.code, q.question, q.question_type
FROM public.question q, public.question_detail qd
where qd.code like CONCAT(q.code,'%');
like('TB01Q07%') matches both TB01Q07 and TB01Q07a, so you get two rows for TB01Q07 and one row for TB01Q07a.
You need to be more precise and include the underscore. Also make sure it's escaped, _ means any one character in a like.
There is no need for a case, use or. Avoid using multiple from statements, use an explicit join with an explicit on. This is clearer and gives you more control over the join.
select qd.*, q.*
from public.question q
join public.question_detail qd
on qd.code = q.code OR qd.code like q.code || '\_%'
Demonstration.
Note: this problem doesn't exist if you use foreign keys. Assign unique IDs to question and reference them in question_detail. This is faster, shields you from changes to the question code, and ensures the referred to question exists.
Related
In the Selenium IDE Firefox add-on I'm trying to create an If statement that will execute a one way if my variable contains a certain text and will execute another way if it contains other text. The issue I'm having is I need it to check just one or two words in a long text so I can't use ==. What I've been trying to do is:
Command | Target | Value
Store Value | id = stuff | Test
If | ${Test}.contains('text') |
But this hasn't been working. Any help with this is greatly appreciated!
I use this contraction for such cases.
Command | Target | Value
Store Value | id = stuff | Test
execute script | var t = ${Test}; return t.contains('text'); | tmp
If | ${tmp}=='true' |
Consider the following dataset:
<uses-configuration
android:reqFiveWayNav=["true" | "false"]
android:reqHardKeyboard=["true" | "false"]
android:reqKeyboardType=["undefined" | "nokeys" | "qwerty" | "twelvekey"]
android:reqNavigation=["undefined" | "nonav" | "dpad" | "trackball" | "wheel"]
android:reqTouchScreen=["undefined" | "notouch" | "stylus" | "finger"] />
I am trying to select all the values after android:
In order to do this, i am using (a\w+:)(\w+) which does exactly what i want. I know that I can use the search and replace and use$2 to select the second group, but I dont want to replace anythin. I want to select anything the second group matches with alt+enter key press.
Is this possible?
What you really need is a lookaround. I don't believe that vscode supports lookbehinds (see issues: lookbehind support coming). But it does support lookaheads so :
(\w+)(?=\=\[.*\])
should work for you as long as your desired values are followed by "[.*]" and nothing undesired has that pattern. The lookahead part will not be selected by vscode. And then Alt-Enter selects all the matches.
If lookbehind was supported, maybe soon, this would work:
\b(?<=a\w+:)(\w+)\b
Just a note that indeed lookbehinds were implemented in vscode since the question and answer so the lookbehind solution \b(?<=a\w+:)(\w+)\b does work now.
Currently trying to format a table using github markdown. Would like to have something like:
| col1 | col2
-- | ---- | ----
r1 | r2 | r3
However markdown is forcing me to place text in the first column for the table to render. Any thoughts on how I could maintain an empty first column header?
So as this question can be marked as solved, I'll put JB Nizet comment below:
You could just use . That would add a non-breaking space (which is not strictly empty, but is at least invisible). Or you can start your heading row with a | (not sure it's supposed to work, but it does).
I can't find my way around copying a column, or a series of them, from a table.
The only solution I found so far is to copy the whole table and then delete the columns I don't need.
I suppose there must be another easier way for this. Maybe I am just too tired to realize how to do it.
I think the easiest way would be to take advantage of emacs rectangles
To create your rectangle, put your cursor at one of the corners of the rectangle you want to create.
Use C-SPC, or whatever you have set-mark-command set to.
Place your cursor at the diagonal corner of your rectangle.
Use C-x r rr to copy the rectangle to the register named r
Use C-x r ir to insert the rectangle that is being held in the register named r.
Following this process will copy and insert the columns that you want. You may need to repeat this process if the columns are not adjacent.
NOTE
I am using a bolded r to denote that this is technically a name of the register, and not some special input.
If you specifically want to copy the column(s) into another org table (or indeed back into the original table), there's support for that.
See C-hf org-table-copy-region RET
It works much like the regular rectangle commands, so it's not a better interface for selecting the column; but the associated paste command is smart about what it does with the content.
I you are planning to use emacs rectangle command you avoid the use of registers by using the command copy-rectangle-as-kill bound C-xrM-w, execute the command after selecting a region this will copy the rectangle (see this for an example of how marking rectangles works). Then you can paste the copied retangle by doing C-xry.
UPDATE
The page org-mode hacks describes a way to copy columns using org-table formulas. You will need to name the table.
Here is an example of using table formulas to copy columns from another table
Suppose you have following table named FOO, it is necessary to name the table for referring it from table formulas.
#+TBLNAME: FOO
| 0 | 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 4 | 3 |
You want to copy the columns 1 and 3 from table FOO to column 1 and 3 of the following table (lets call it B)
| | 5 | |
| | 6 | |
| | 7 | |
The following formula will do the trick, you will need to copy the formula below the table B and move cursor on the formula and do C-cC-c
#+TBLFM: $1=remote(FOO,###$1)::$2=remote(FOO,###$3)
The table B will be converted to the following
| 0 | 5 | 1 |
| 1 | 6 | 2 |
| 2 | 7 | 3 |
You can read about the syntax of the org table formulas here, basically $N refers to Nth column, #N refers to Nth row. ## and $# can be used instead of N to refer the row and column where the current value goes. remote(table-name, #N$N) refers to the Nth row and Nth column of the table table-name. :: concats multiple formulas.
I too had trouble using the standard rectangle operations. When moving to the next column, all of all of the rows between the point and the mark were highlighted. When I tried copying columns by formula as described above and in the org mode hacks, org threw errors if the column's values were non-numeric with more than one word.
But a good hint about cutting and pasting revealed that the problem is the initial direction of motion of the cursor. Moving first rightward to the next column, then down highlights the correct region. Standard rectangle operations then work correctly.
The "native" way in org mode is already covered in the answer by user2053036; I just wanted to add that in the simpler context, "to copy a column within a table": Let's say you have this table
| hello | world |
| is | good |
And want to repeat column 2 in column 3.
Steps:
Place the cursor after the bottom right | of the table
Open a new column to the right using keys Alt-Shift-<right>
| hello | world | |
| is | good | |
Add the "row copy from" formula (for example by putting cursor to row 1 column 3 and typing =$1 C-c C-c; or just type the TBLFM below the table and jump to step 4)
| hello | world | hello |
| is | good | |
#+TBLFM: $3=$1
Place the cursor on the TBLFM and type C-c C-c
| hello | world | hello |
| is | good | is |
#+TBLFM: $3=$1
That will copy column 1 to column 3.
So I've been using Sphinx with a rails project lately, I want to provide a list of 'would be' exact matches that would match 100% with a give term. For example something like:
+==================+==========================================================+
| ingredient | exact matches |
+==================+==========================================================+
| cheese, cream | 'cream cheese','philadephia cream cheese','cream chese',|
| | 'creamed cheese' |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Cheese, gruyere | 'gruyere','gruyer cheese','gruyeres cheese' |
| | 'gruyere chese' |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Cheese, blue | 'blue cheese','blu cheese' |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------------------+
So basically the functionality I'm looking for would be that Sphinx would try to do its typical matching on all the records, but if the search term matches exactly with one of the strings in an array in that record that result would have a much higher weight. (like 100x, so it would then be the best match)
Is this possible? It seems like other people would have had this problem before... no?
Update
I suppose the best answer might be to just index the exact matches column and provide a really high weight to the terms.
I'm not sure how I can break up the "array" and see if the search term matches exactly though...
Your should try to play with sphinx search modes. Look at match phrase and match extended2.