I have a table with order_id, Customer_Id and Order_date. I can calculate first time order, as it is an easy 'min' on the date, but for some reason I can't find a way to get the second order date per customer in SQL.
Order_id|Customer_Id|Order_date
Ideal result:
Customer_Id|First_order_date|Second_order_date
I am using Postgres and have beginners level of SQL.
Happy to get any suggestions.
Many thanks for your help,
Misael
What I have tried
Tried using 'row_number() over(partition by customer_id', but I can't seem to make it work. I believe I need to declare what a second purchase means and use a common table expression.
Related
So I have complicated query, to simplify let it be like
SELECT
t.*,
SUM(a.hours) AS spent_hours
FROM (
SELECT
person.id,
person.name,
person.age,
SUM(contacts.id) AS contact_count
FROM
person
JOIN contacts ON contacts.person_id = person.id
) AS t
JOIN activities AS a ON a.person_id = t.id
GROUP BY t.id
Such query works fine in MySQL, but Postgres needs to know that GROUP BY field is unique, and despite it actually is, in this case I need to GROUP BY all returned fields from returned t table.
I can do that, but I don't believe that will work efficiently with big data.
I can't JOIN with activities directly in first query, as person can have several contacts which will lead query counting hours of activity several time for every joined contact.
Is there a Postgres way to make this query work? Maybe force to treat Postgres t.id as unique or some other solution that will make same in Postgres way?
This query will not work on both database system, there is an aggregate function in the inner query but you are not grouping it(unless you use window functions). Of course there is a special case for MySQL, you can use it with disabling "sql_mode=only_full_group_by". So, MySQL allows this usage because of it' s database engine parameter, but you cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
I knew MySQL allowed indeterminate grouping, but I honestly never knew how it implemented it... it always seemed imprecise to me, conceptually.
So depending on what that means (I'm too lazy to look it up), you might need one of two possible solutions, or maybe a third.
If you intent is to see all rows (perform the aggregate function but not consolidate/group rows), then you want a windowing function, invoked by partition by. Here is a really dumbed down version in your query:
.
SELECT
t.*,
SUM (a.hours) over (partition by t.id) AS spent_hours
FROM t
JOIN activities AS a ON a.person_id = t.id
This means you want all records in table t, not one record per t.id. But each row will also contain a sum of the hours for all values that value of id.
For example the sum column would look like this:
Name Hours Sum Hours
----- ----- ---------
Smith 20 120
Jones 30 30
Smith 100 120
Whereas a group by would have had Smith once and could not have displayed the hours column in detail.
If you really did only want one row per t.id, then Postgres will require you to tell it how to determine which row. In the example above for Smith, do you want to see the 20 or the 100?
There is another possibility, but I think I'll let you reply first. My gut tells me option 1 is what you're after and you want the analytic function.
I currently have tables that are partitioned out by year & month for our sales transactions. For example, we have sales tables that would look something like this:
factdailysales_201501
factdailysales_201502
factdailysales_201503 etc ...
Generally, I've always performed dynamic SQL to capture a Start Date, End Date, find out what partitions those are, and then loop through each of those partitions ... but its starting to become such a hassle and I've learned that this is probably not the best way to do it in terms of just maintenance, trouble shooting, and performance.
I decided to build a view that would UNION ALL of my sales partitions together. However, I don't want selecting from the view to have to scan all of the partitions on execution, it would take away the whole purpose of partitioning tables out. Because of this, I added check constraints on date to each of my sales tables. This way when I selected from the view, it would know which tables to access from instead of scanning every table.
Here are the following examples below:
SELECT SUM([retail])
FROM Sales_Orig
WHERE [Date] >= '2015-03-01'
This query has the execution plan of only pulling from the partitions that I need.
My problem that i'm facing right now is that most of the time when my team will be writing stored procedures, they would more than likely write their queries where a date variable is passed into the where statement.
DECLARE #SD DATE = '2015-03-01'
SELECT SUM([retail])
FROM Sales_Orig
WHERE [Date] >= #SD
However, when a variable is being passed in, the execution plan now scans ALL of the partitions in the view, causing the performance to take wayyy longer than when I hard coded in the date
I suppose I could do dynamic SQL again and insert the date string into the SELECT statement, but it would bring me back to the beginning of trying to get rid of dynamic SQL in the first place for this simple sales query.
So my question is, am I setting this up wrong? Am I on the right track? It seems that the view can't take in a variable for the check constraint and ends up scanning every table. Is there another approach anyone would recommend? Maybe my original solution of just looping through partitions via dynamic SQL is the best way to do it?
** EDIT **
http://sqlsunday.com/2014/08/31/partitioned-views/
This article is actually where I initially saw the idea! It seems when using that exact same solution, I'm still experiencing the same struggle!
Thanks!!
Okay this might work. It's a table-valued function that only access tables according to your #start and #end parameters so only accessing your "partitions" that it needs. I figured you could take this concept and write some dynamic SQL to create all the if statements.
Now of course new tables are added every day so how does that tie in. Well I think the best way would be is that every day you alter the function adding the next sales table. That way querying it is simple. And you could use the same dynamic sql you used to create the function to alter it which should be relatively simple.
Note: I added default values that are the min and max of the data type DATE. That way you could query something like everything from 20140101 and onward or vice versa.
Your tables
SELECT CAST('20150101' AS DATE) datesVal INTO factDailySales_20150101;
SELECT CAST('20150102' AS DATE) datesVal INTO factDailySales_20150102;
SELECT CAST('20150103' AS DATE) datesVal INTO factDailySales_20150103;
The Function
CREATE FUNCTION ufn_factTotalSales (#Start DATE = '17530101', #End DATE = '99991231')
RETURNS #factTotalSales TABLE
(
datesVal DATE
)
AS
BEGIN
IF(CAST('20150101' AS DATE) BETWEEN #Start AND #End)
BEGIN
INSERT INTO #factTotalSales
SELECT datesVal
FROM factDailySales_20150101
END
IF(CAST('20150102' AS DATE) BETWEEN #Start AND #End)
BEGIN
INSERT INTO #factTotalSales
SELECT datesVal
FROM factDailySales_20150102
END
IF(CAST('20150103' AS DATE) BETWEEN #Start AND #End)
BEGIN
INSERT INTO #factTotalSales
SELECT datesVal
FROM factDailySales_20150103
END
RETURN;
END
GO
All tables
SELECT *
FROM ufn_factTotalSales(default,default)
All tables greater than or equal to 20150102
SELECT *
FROM ufn_factTotalSales('20150102',default)
**All tables less than or equal to 20150102
SELECT *
FROM ufn_factTotalSales(default,'20150102')
All tables between specific range
SELECT *
FROM ufn_factTotalSales('20150101','20150102')
Is this the ideal solution? No. The ideal would be to combine all tables into one and having good indexes. I know you said that wouldn't work because of the way other code has been written. Hear me out. Now perhaps this is off the wall, lets say you do combine the tables but obviously there are old scripts looking for specific daily sales tables. Maybe you could create views with the dailySales names that access the factTotalSales. OR You could create synonyms for the factTotalSales that would correspond to each factDailySales.
Maybe you could look into that. It wouldn't be easy, but I think letting SQL Server optimize your queries the way it was designed is a better way of doing it instead of forcing it with dynamic SQL.
Just my two cents. Hope this helps. At the very least, I hope it gave you some ideas.
5 years later: option(recompile).
The planner needs to have access to the constants to eliminate the table entirely from the query plan. With a variable, without a forced recompile, a generic plan is used. (Related: parameter sniffing.)
While this means the query plan is larger as it has to include all tables, it does not mean that all tables are actually scanned: look at the IO stats, as table scan elimination occurs even if such shows in the query plan.
The 'Number Of Executions' in the query plan will be 0 when the tables are not scanned: unfortunately, these branches are still reported as a non-zero percentage cost "Table Scan" node in the query plan & UI, which will appear high proportionally if the query is trivially fast. The displayed percentage cost of these extra "Table Scan" nodes approaches zero as the amount of data returned from the actually used base tables increases.
This same optimization/elimination occurs when the view is not a Partitioned View (eg. base tables are missing partition column in PK), yet the underlying tables have a suitable Check Constraint on the filtered column. It also occurs when the view selects a constant value to establish the partition that is not otherwise stored in the table. With a constant in the query or recompiled plan the tables will be eliminated entirely. With a variable the tables will still not actually be scanned and thus eliminated logically during query execution.
The use of a proper Partitioned View is only really beneficial to allow a direct Insert & Update, with the major caveat that it requires the partition column to be in each table's PK and disallows the use of an identity column (making a Partitioned View largely useless IMOHO). SQL Server handles the optimizations very similarly for other quasi-Partitioned View cases.
(This is on SQL Server 2014; earlier versions might not have optimized the different patterns as efficiently.)
This question is geared for those who have more SQL experience than me.
I am writing a query(that will eventually be a Stored Procedure but this should be irrelevant) where I want to select the count of rows if the most recent entry's is equivalent to the one that was just entered before. And i want to continue to do this until it hits an entry that has a different value. (Poorly explained so I will show the example)
In my table I have a column 'Product_Id' and when this query is run i want it take the product_id and compare it to the previously entered product Id, if its the same I want to add one, and I want it to keep checking the previously entered product_id until it runs into a different product_id
I'm hoping it sounds more complicated than it is, and the query would look something like
Select count(Product_ID)
FROM dbo.myTable
Where Product_Id = previous(Product_Id)
Now, i know that previous isn't a keyword in TSQL, and neither was Last, but I'm hoping of someone who knows a keyword that does what I am asking.
Edit for Sam
USE DbName;
GO
WITH OrderedCount as
(
select ROW_NUMBER() OVER (Order by dbo.Line_Production.Run_Date DESC) as RowNumber,
Line_Production.Product_ID
From dbo.Line_Production
)
Select RowNumber, COUNT(OrderedCount.Product_ID) as PalletCount
From OrderedCount
WHERE OrderedCount.RowNumber + 1 = RowNumber
and Product_ID = Product_ID
Group by RowNumber
The OrderedCount portion works, and it returns the data back how I want it, I'm now having trouble comparing the Product_ID's for different RowNumbers
my Where Clause is wrong
There's no keyword. That would be a nice magic solution, but it doesn't exist, at least in part because there is no guaranteed ordering (okay, you could have the keyword only if there is an ORDER BY...). I can write you a query, but that'll take time, so for now I'll give you a few steps and I'll come back and see if you still need help in a bit.
Figure out an ORDER BY, otherwise no order is guaranteed. If there is a time entered field, that's a good choice, or an index, that works too.
Learn to use Row_Number.
Compare the table (with Row_Number) to itself where instance1.row - 1 = instance2.row.
If product_id is an identity column, couldn't you just do product_id - 1? In other words, if it's sequential, it's the same as using ROW_NUMBER mentioned in the previous comment.
I have created a database as part of university assignment and I have hit a snag with the question in the title.
More likely I am being asked to find out how many films each company has made. Which suggests to me a group by query. But I have no idea where to begin. It is only a two mark question but the syntax is not clicking in my head.
My schema is:
CREATE TABLE Movie
(movieID CHAR(3) ,
title CHAR(36),
year NUMBER,
company CHAR(50),
totalNoms NUMBER,
awardsWon NUMBER,
DVDPrice NUMBER(5,2),
discountPrice NUMBER(5,2))
There are other tables but at first glance I don't think they are relevant to this question.
I am using sqlplus10
The answer you need comes from three basic SQL concepts, I'll step through them with you. If you need more assistance to create an answer from these hints, let me know and I can try to keep guiding you.
Group By
As you mentioned, SQL offers a GROUP BY function that can help you.
A SQL Query utilizing GROUP BY would look like the following.
SELECT list, fields, aggregate(value)
FROM tablename
--WHERE goes here, if you need to restrict your result set
GROUP BY list, fields
a GROUP BY query can only return fields listed in the group by statement, or aggregate functions acting on each group.
Aggregate Functions
Your homework question also needs an Aggregate function called Count. This is used to count the results returned. A simple query like the following returns the count of all records returned.
SELECT Count(*)
FROM tablename
The two can be combined, allowing you to get the Count of each group in the following way.
SELECT list, fields, count(*)
FROM tablename
GROUP BY list, fields
Column Aliases
Another answer also tried to introduce you to SQL column aliases, but they did not use SQLPLUS syntax.
SELECT Count(*) as count
...
SQLPLUS column alias syntax is shown below.
SELECT Count(*) "count"
...
I'm not going to provide you the SQL, but instead a way to think about it.
What you want to do is select where the company matches and count the total rows returned. That count is the number of films made by the specified company.
Hope that points you in the right direction.
Select company, count(*) AS count
from Movie
group by company
select * group by company won't work in Oracle.
i have image table, which has 2 or more rows with same date.. now im tring to do order by created_date DESC, which works fine and shows rows same position, but when i change the query and try again, it shows different positions.. and no i dont have any other order by field, so im bit confused on why its doing it and how can i fix it.
can you please help on this.
To get reproducible results you need to have columns in your order by clause that together are unique. Do you have an ID column? You can use that to tie-break:
ORDER BY created_date DESC, id
I suspect that this is happening because MySQL is not given any ordering information other than ORDER BY created_date DESC, so it does whatever is most convenient for MySQL depending on its complicated inner workings (caching, indexing, etc.). Assuming you have a unique key id, you could do:
SELECT * FROM table t ORDER BY t.created_date DESC, t.id ASC
Which would give you the same result every time because putting a comma in the arguments following ORDER BY gives it a secondary ordering rule that is executed when the first ordering rule doesn't produce a clear order between two rows.
To have consistent results, you will need to add at least more column to the 'ORDER BY' clause. Since the values in the created_date column are not unique, there is not a defined order. If you wanted that column to be 'unique', you could define it as a timestamp.