postgreSQL and joining on alias - postgresql

I have a query that, in very simplified form, looks like this:
SELECT aa, bb, xx
FROM (VALUES ('a1', 'b1'), ('a2', 'b2')) as T1(aa, bb)
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT xx FROM (VALUES
('a1', 'y1'), ('x2', 'y2')) as T2(xx, yy)
) as T3 ON T1.aa = T3.xx ;
which executes to produce this:
aa | bb | xx
----+----+--------
a1 | b1 | a1
a2 | b2 | (NULL)
(2 rows)
In real life the column xx is defined using a case statement and alias:
SELECT
...,
(CASE WHEN rgr.age_years < 18 THEN '< 18'
WHEN rgr.age_years < 36 THEN '26-35'
WHEN rgr.age_years < 46 THEN '36-45'
WHEN rgr.age_years < 56 THEN '46-55'
WHEN rgr.age_years < 130 THEN '> 55' END)
as row_name,
...
FROM
(VALUES ('< 18'), ('26-35'), ('36-45'),
('46-55'), ('> 55'))
as prn(possible_row_name)
LEFT JOIN other_table rgr
ON prn.possible_row_name = ??row_name??
Obviously ??row_name?? is an alias and so is not available at the time I specify the join. But I've not found the right formulation.
The point is simply that I'm doing a select on table rgr and I want all the age tranches present, even if no entity satisfies that number.

You can create the column on the fly inside the table expression rgr, as in:
SELECT
...,
rgr.row_name,
...
FROM
(VALUES ('< 18'), ('26-35'), ('36-45'),
('46-55'), ('> 55'))
as prn(possible_row_name)
LEFT JOIN ( -- table expression rgr defined here
select t.*,
CASE WHEN rgr.age_years < 18 THEN '< 18'
WHEN rgr.age_years < 36 THEN '26-35'
WHEN rgr.age_years < 46 THEN '36-45'
WHEN rgr.age_years < 56 THEN '46-55'
WHEN rgr.age_years < 130 THEN '> 55' END
as row_name
from other_table t
) rgr ON prn.possible_row_name = rgr.row_name

Related

Get next rows from selected value in postgresql

I want to get next column values from which I selected.
SELECT * FROM test
WHERE round > (
SELECT round from test
WHERE b1 = '9' AND b2 = '16' and b3 = '21'
)
ORDER BY round
LIMIT 1
I tried this sql code but it returns
more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression error...
SELECT round from test
WHERE b1 = '9' AND b2 = '16' and b3 = '21'
this sql returns multiple rows and I want to get all next rows after this selected rows
if my data is looks like
round b1 b2 b3
1 9 16 21
2 2 13 24
3 9 16 21
4 5 14 22
I want to get
(2,2,13,24)(4,5,14,22)
Can I get help?? Thanks
demo:db<>fiddle
You can use lead() window function which puts the next value to the current record:
SELECT
next_round, next_b1, next_b2, next_b3
FROM (
SELECT
*,
lead(round) OVER w as next_round,
lead(b1) OVER w as next_b1,
lead(b2) OVER w as next_b2,
lead(b3) OVER w as next_b3
FROM t
WINDOW w AS (ORDER BY round)
) s
WHERE b1 = 9 AND b2 = 16 AND b3 = 21
Simplest way is to use (NOT) EXISTS():
SELECT *
FROM test t
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT round from test nx
WHERE nx.b1 = '9' AND nx.b2 = '16' and nx.b3 = '21'
AND nx.round >= t.round
);
This will retrieve all rows if no matching record(s) exist.
You can do it with a self join:
SELECT DISTINCT t1.*
FROM test t1 INNER JOIN test t2
ON t1.round > t2.round AND (t1.b1, t1.b2, t1.b3) <> (t2.b1, t2.b2, t2.b3)
WHERE (t2.b1, t2.b2, t2.b3) = (9, 16, 21)
ORDER BY t1.round
See the demo.
Results:
round
b1
b2
b3
2
2
13
24
4
5
14
22

PostgreSQL- get records with unique column combination

I want to select the records that have a unique column combination in postgresql, however it doesn't seem to work with distinct as distinct only removes duplicates.
Example
ID A B
01 1 2
02 1 2
03 1 3
04 2 4
05 1 4
06 2 4
07 2 5
08 1 3
In this example row with ID 05 and 07 have unique combination AB, how can i get these records
SELECT ...
With NOT EXISTS:
select t.* from tablename t
where not exists (
select 1 from tablename
where id <> t.id and a = t.a and b = t.b
)
Or with COUNT() window function:
select t.id, t.a, t.b
from (
select *, count(id) over (partition by a, b) counter
from tablename
) t
where t.counter = 1
Or with aggregation:
select max(id) id, a, b
from tablename
group by a, b
having count(id) = 1
Or with a self LEFT join that excludes the matching rows:
select t.*
from tablename t left join tablename tt
on tt.id <> t.id and tt.a = t.a and tt.b = t.b
where tt.id is null
See the demo.
Results:
| id | a | b |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 05 | 1 | 4 |
| 07 | 2 | 5 |

T-SQL: Combining rows based on another table

I am seeking to alter a table content based on information of another table using a stored procedure. To make my point (and dodge my rusty English skills) I created the following simplification.
I have a table with fragment amounts of the form
SELECT * FROM [dbo].[obtained_fragments] ->
fragment amount
22 42
76 7
101 31
128 4
177 22
212 6
and a table that lists all possible combinations to combine these fragments to other fragments.
SELECT * FROM [dbo].[possible_combinations] ->
fragment consists_of_f1 f1_amount_needed consists_of_f2 f2_amount_needed
1001 128 1 22 3
1004 151 1 101 12
1012 128 1 177 6
1047 212 1 76 4
My aim is to alter the first table so that all possible fragment combinations are performed, leading to
SELECT * FROM [dbo].[obtained_fragments] ->
fragment amount
22 30
76 3
101 31
177 22
212 5
1001 4
1047 1
In words, combined fragments are added to the table based on [dbo].[possible_combinations], and the amount of needed fragments is reduced. Depleted fragments are removed from the table.
How do I achieve this fragment transformation in an easy way? I started writing a while loop, checking if sufficient fragments are available, inside of a for loop, interating through the fragment numbers. However, I am unable to come up with a functional amount check and begin to wonder if this is even possible in T-SQL this way.
The code doesn't have to be super efficient since both tables will always be smaller than 200 rows.
It is important to note that it doesn't matter which combinations are created.
It might come in handy that [f1_amount_needed] always has a value of 1.
UPDATE
Using the solution of iamdave, which works perfectly fine as long I don't touch it, I receive the following error message:
Column name or number of supplied values does not match table definition.
I barely changed anything really. Is there a chance that using existing tables with more than the necessary columns instead of declaring the tables (as iamdave did) makes this difference?
DECLARE #t TABLE(Binding_ID int, Exists_of_Binding_ID_2 int, Exists_of_Pieces_2 int, Binding1 int, Binding2 int);
WHILE 1=1
BEGIN
DELETE #t
INSERT INTO #t
SELECT TOP 1
k.Binding_ID
,k.Exists_of_Binding_ID_2
,k.Exists_of_Pieces_2
,g1.mat_Binding_ID AS Binding1
,g2.mat_Binding_ID AS Binding2
FROM [dbo].[vwCombiBinding] AS k
JOIN [leer].[sandbox5] AS g1
ON k.Exists_of_Binding_ID_1 = g1.mat_Binding_ID AND g1.Amount >= 1
JOIN [leer].[sandbox5] AS g2
ON k.Exists_of_Binding_ID_2 = g2.mat_Binding_ID AND g2.Amount >= k.Exists_of_Pieces_2
ORDER BY k.Binding_ID
IF (SELECT COUNT(1) FROM #t) = 1
BEGIN
UPDATE g
SET Amount = g.Amount +1
FROM [leer].[sandbox5] AS g
JOIN #t AS t
ON g.mat_Binding_ID = t.Binding_ID
INSERT INTO [leer].[sandbox5]
SELECT
t.Binding_ID
,1
FROM #t AS t
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM [leer].[sandbox5] AS g WHERE g.mat_Binding_ID = t.Binding_ID);
UPDATE g
SET Amount = g.Amount - 1
FROM [leer].[sandbox5] AS g
JOIN #t AS t
ON g.mat_Binding_ID = t.Binding1
UPDATE g
SET Amount = g.Amount - t.Exists_of_Pieces_2
FROM [leer].[sandbox5] AS g
JOIN #t AS t
ON g.mat_Binding_ID = t.Binding2
END
ELSE
BREAK
END
SELECT * FROM [leer].[sandbox5]
You can do this with a while loop that contains several statements to handle your iterative data updates. As you need to make changes based on a re-assessment of your data each iteration this has to be done in a loop of some kind:
declare #f table(fragment int,amount int);
insert into #f values (22 ,42),(76 ,7 ),(101,31),(128,4 ),(177,22),(212,6 );
declare #c table(fragment int,consists_of_f1 int,f1_amount_needed int,consists_of_f2 int,f2_amount_needed int);
insert into #c values (1001,128,1,22,3),(1004,151,1,101,12),(1012,128,1,177,6),(1047,212,1,76,4);
declare #t table(fragment int,consists_of_f2 int,f2_amount_needed int,fragment1 int,fragment2 int);
while 1 = 1
begin
-- Clear out staging area
delete #t;
-- Populate with the latest possible combination
insert into #t
select top 1 c.fragment
,c.consists_of_f2
,c.f2_amount_needed
,f1.fragment as fragment1
,f2.fragment as fragment2
from #c as c
join #f as f1
on c.consists_of_f1 = f1.fragment
and f1.amount >= 1
join #f as f2
on c.consists_of_f2 = f2.fragment
and f2.amount >= c.f2_amount_needed
order by c.fragment;
-- Update fragments table if a new combination can be made
if (select count(1) from #t) = 1
begin
-- Update if additional fragment
update f
set amount = f.amount + 1
from #f as f
join #t as t
on f.fragment = t.fragment;
-- Insert if a new fragment
insert into #f
select t.fragment
,1
from #t as t
where not exists(select null
from #f as f
where f.fragment = t.fragment
);
-- Update fragment1 amounts
update f
set amount = f.amount - 1
from #f as f
join #t as t
on f.fragment = t.fragment1;
-- Update fragment2 amounts
update f
set amount = f.amount - t.f2_amount_needed
from #f as f
join #t as t
on f.fragment = t.fragment2;
end
else -- If no new combinations possible, break the loop
break
end;
select *
from #f;
Output:
+----------+--------+
| fragment | amount |
+----------+--------+
| 22 | 30 |
| 76 | 3 |
| 101 | 31 |
| 128 | 0 |
| 177 | 22 |
| 212 | 5 |
| 1001 | 4 |
| 1047 | 1 |
+----------+--------+

How to generate larger sets of lottery numbers efficiently

I am a beginner with SQL and I was looking for more experiences with SQL hence I decided to design a procedure to generate X amount of random lotto picks. The lottery here in my area allows you to pick 5 numbers from 1-47 and 1 "mega" number from 1-27. The trick is the "mega" number could repeat with the 5 numbers previously, i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, mega 1.
I created the following procedure to generate 10 million lottery picks, and it took 12 hours and 57 minutes for the process to finish. While my friends tested the same thing with java and it took seconds. I was wondering if there's any improvements I can make to the code or if there's any mistakes that I've made? I'm new at this hence I am trying to learn better approaches etc, all comments welcome.
USE lotto
DECLARE
#counter INT,
#counter1 INT,
#pm SMALLINT,
#i1 SMALLINT,
#i2 SMALLINT,
#i3 SMALLINT,
#i4 SMALLINT,
#i5 SMALLINT,
#sort int
SET #counter1=0
TRUNCATE TABLE picks
WHILE #counter1<10000000
BEGIN
TRUNCATE TABLE sort
SET #counter = 1
WHILE #counter < 6
BEGIN
INSERT INTO sort (pick)
SELECT CAST(((47+ 1) - 0) * RAND() + 1 AS TINYINT)
IF (SELECT count(distinct pick) FROM sort)<#counter
BEGIN
TRUNCATE TABLE sort
SET #counter=1
END
ELSE IF (SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT pick) FROM sort)=#counter
BEGIN
SET #counter = #counter + 1
END
END
SET #sort = 0
WHILE #sort<5
BEGIN
UPDATE sort
SET sort=#sort
WHERE pick = (SELECT min(pick) FROM sort WHERE sort is null)
SET #sort=#sort + 1
END
SET #i1 = (SELECT pick FROM sort WHERE sort = 0)
SET #i2 = (SELECT pick FROM sort WHERE sort = 1)
SET #i3 = (SELECT pick FROM sort WHERE sort = 2)
SET #i4 = (SELECT pick FROM sort WHERE sort = 3)
SET #i5 = (SELECT pick FROM sort WHERE sort = 4)
SET #pm = (CAST(((27+ 1) - 0) * RAND() + 1 AS TINYINT))
INSERT INTO picks(
First,
Second,
Third,
Fourth,
Fifth,
Mega,
Sequence
)
Values(
#i1,
#i2,
#i3,
#i4,
#i5,
#pm,
#counter1
)
SET #counter1 = #counter1+1
END
I generated 10000 rows in 0 sec. I did it i another way. Hope this will help you
;WITH Nbrs ( n ) AS (
SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 1 + n FROM Nbrs WHERE n < 10000 )
SELECT
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS First,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Second,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Third,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Fourth,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Fifth,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 27 + 1) AS Mega,
Nbrs.n AS Sequence
FROM
Nbrs
OPTION ( MAXRECURSION 0 )
10000 rows 0 sec
100000 rows 1 sec
1000000 rows 13 sec
10000000 rows 02 min 21 sec
Or with cross joins
WITH E00(N) AS (SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1),
E02(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E00 a, E00 b),
E04(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E02 a, E02 b),
E08(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E04 a, E04 b),
E16(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E08 a, E08 b),
E32(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E16 a, E16 b),
Nbrs(N) AS (SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY N) FROM E32)
SELECT
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS First,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Second,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Third,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Fourth,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Fifth,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 27 + 1) AS Mega,
Nbrs.n AS Sequence
FROM Nbrs
WHERE N <= 10000000;
10000 rows 0 sec
100000 rows 1 sec
1000000 rows 14 sec
10000000 rows 03 min 29 sec
I should also mention that the reason I am using
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1)
is that it returns a random number per row. The solution with
CAST(((47+ 1) - 0) * RAND() + 1 AS TINYINT)
return the same random number for each row if you select them in one go. To test this run this example:
;WITH Nbrs ( n ) AS (
SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 1 + n FROM Nbrs WHERE n < 5 )
SELECT
CAST(((47+ 1) - 0) * RAND() + 1 AS TINYINT) AS Random,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS RadomCheckSum,
Nbrs.n AS Sequence
FROM Nbrs
Ok. So I did see your comment and I have a solution for that as well. If you really want to order the numbers. The complexity of the algorithm elevates and that also means that the time of the algorithm increases. But i still think it is doable. But not in the same neat way.
--Yeah declaring a temp table for just the random order number
DECLARE #tbl TABLE(value int)
--The same function but with the number of the random numbers
;WITH Nbrs ( n ) AS (
SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 1 + n FROM Nbrs WHERE n < 5 )
INSERT INTO #tbl
(
value
)
SELECT
Nbrs.n AS Sequence
FROM Nbrs
;WITH Nbrs ( n ) AS (
SELECT CAST(1 as BIGINT) UNION ALL
SELECT 1 + n FROM Nbrs WHERE n < 100000 )
SELECT
tblOrderRandomNumbers.[1] AS First,
tblOrderRandomNumbers.[2] AS Second,
tblOrderRandomNumbers.[3] AS Third,
tblOrderRandomNumbers.[4] AS Fourth,
tblOrderRandomNumbers.[5] AS Fifth,
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 27 + 1) AS Mega,
Nbrs.n AS Sequence
FROM
Nbrs
--This cross join. Joins with the declared table
CROSS JOIN
(
SELECT
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
FROM
(
SELECT
Random,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY tblRandom.Random ASC) AS RowNumber
FROM
(
SELECT
(ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 47 + 1) AS Random
FROM
#tbl AS tblNumbers
) AS tblRandom
)AS tblSortedRadom
--A pivot makes the rows to columns. Using the row index over order of the random number
PIVOT
(
AVG(Random)
FOR RowNumber IN ([1], [2], [3], [4],[5])
) as pivottable
) AS tblOrderRandomNumbers
OPTION ( MAXRECURSION 0 )
But still i manage to do it in a little time
10000 Rows : 0 sec
100000 Rows : 4 sec
1000000 Rows : 43 sec
10000000 Rows : 7 min 9 sec
I Hope this help
I wrote this script just out of curiousity. It should do better than your script, but I cant tell for sure.
Beware that I use a declared table, and if you use a real table performance should be better when generating larger amounts of rows.
I generated 10000 rows on about 13 seconds, that counts to about 3.5 hours to generate 10 000 000 rows. Still far worse than the Java-case you described.
set nocount on
go
declare #i int = 1
declare #t table(nr1 int, nr2 int, nr3 int, nr4 int, nr5 int, mega int, seq int)
while #i <= 10000
begin
;with numbers(nr)
as
(
select 1
union all
select nr+1
from numbers
where nr < 47
)
,mega(nr)
as
(
select 1
union all
select nr+1
from mega
where nr < 27
)
,selectednumbers(nr)
as
(
select top 5 nr
from numbers
order by newid()
)
,selectedmega(mega)
as
(
select top 1 nr
from mega
order by newid()
)
,tmp
as
(
select *
,row_number() over(order by nr) as rownr
from selectednumbers
)
insert into #t
select max(nr1) as nr1
,max(nr2) as nr2
,max(nr3) as nr3
,max(nr4) as nr4
,max(nr5) as nr5
,(select mega from selectedmega) as mega
,#i as seq
from (
select case when rownr = 1 then nr else 0 end as nr1
,case when rownr = 2 then nr else 0 end as nr2
,case when rownr = 3 then nr else 0 end as nr3
,case when rownr = 4 then nr else 0 end as nr4
,case when rownr = 5 then nr else 0 end as nr5
from tmp
) x
set #i = #i + 1
end
select * from #t

Replace null with known value with same id

How can I do that in a optimal way?
TABLE
ID FLAG VALUE
----------------------------
1 Y 52
1 N NULL
2 Y 51
3 N 54
OUTPUT
ID FLAG VALUE
----------------------------
1 Y 52
1 N 52
2 Y 51
3 N 54
UPDATE
theTable
SET
value = (SELECT MAX(value) FROM theTable i WHERE i.id = theTable.id)
WHERE
value IS NULL
you can do it in two ways
SELECT Id,
Flag,
MAX(Value) OVER(PARTITION BY Id) CValue
FROM Table_1
or
select X.Id, X.Flag,
case when ISNULL(X.Value,0) = 0 then
(select MAX(A.Value) from Table_1 A where A.Id = X.Id)
else X.Value end
from Table_1 X