For Example:
SELECT * FROM Customers
WHERE Country IN ('Germany', 'France', 'UK')
I want to LIMIT 1 for each of the countries in my IN clause so I only see a total of 3 rows: One customer for per country (1 German, 1 France, 1 UK). Is there a simple way to do that?
Normally, a simple GROUP BY would suffice for this type of solution, however as you have specified that you want to include ALL of the columns in the result, then we can use the ROW_NUMBER() window function to provide a value to filter on.
As a general rule it is important to specify the column to sort on (ORDER BY) for all windowing or paged queries to make the result repeatable.
As no schema has been supplied, I have used Name as the field to sort on for the window, please update that (or the question) with any other field you would like, the PK is a good candidate if you have nothing else to go on.
SELECT * FROM
(
SELECT *
, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY Country ORDER BY Name) AS _rn
FROM Customers
WHERE Country IN ('Germany', 'France', 'UK')
)
WHERE _rn = 1
The PARTITION BY forces the ROW_NUMBER to be counted across all records with the same Country value, starting at 1, so in this case we only select the rows that get a row number (aliased as _rn) of 1.
The WHERE clause could have been in the outer query if you really want to, but ROW_NUMBER() can only be specified in the SELECT or ORDER BY clauses of the query, so to use it as a filter criteria we are forced to wrap the results in some way.
Related
I am using postgres alongside sequelize. I have encountered a case where I need to write a coustom query which groups the records are a particular field. I know for the remaning columns that are not used for grouping, I need to use a aggregate function like SUM. But the problem is that for some columns I need to get the one what is the latest one (DESC sorted by created_at). I see no function in sql to do so. Is my only option to write subqueries or is there a better way? Thanks?
For better understanding, If you look at the below picture, I want the group the records with address. So after the query there should only be two records, one with sydney and the other with new york. But when it comes to the distance, I want the result of the query to contain the distance form the row that was most recently created, i.e with the latest created_at.
so the final two query results should be:
sydney 100 2022-09-05 18:14:53.492131+05:45
new york 40 2022-09-05 18:14:46.23328+05:45
select address, distance, created_at
from(
select address, distance, created_at, row_number() over(partition by address order by created_at DESC) as rn
from table) x
where rn = 1
I have table like below. For distinct combination of user ID and Product ID SQL will select product bought from store ID 1 or 2? Is it determinictic?
My code
SELECT (DISTINCT CONCAT(UserID, ProductID)), Date, StoreID FROM X
This isn't valid syntax. You can have
select [column_list] from X
or you can have
select distinct [column_list] from X
The difference is that the first will return one row for every row in the table while the second will return one row for every unique combination of the column values in your column list.
Adding "distinct" to a statement will reliably produce the same results every time unless the underlying data changes, so in this sense, "distinct" is deterministic. However, it is not a function so the term "deterministic" doesn't really apply.
You may actually want a "group by" clause like the following (in which case you have to actually specify how you want the engine to pick values for columns not in your group):
select
concat(UserId, ProductID)
, min(Date)
, max(Store)
from
x
group by
concat(UserId, ProductID)
Results:
results
I'm trying to implement various sorts as described in this article.
I have a typical Sales Measure Group partitioned by fiscal period. If I try to add an order by clause to the query it fails when processing because SSAS wraps the query into a subquery. Is there a way to prevent this from happening? How do I ensure the sort order in a case like this?
Here is the code that is generated for a partition:
SELECT *
FROM
(
SELECT *
FROM [Sales]
WHERE SaleDate between '1/1/2015' and '1/28/2015'
order by SaleDate
)
AS [Sales]
I replaced the field names with * for clarity.
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT * FROM Sales ORDER BY SaleDate
That is not guaranteed to work. The best way to order it is to ensure the clustered index is on the column you want to order by.
I have a table on pgsql with names (having more than 1 mio. rows), but I have also many duplicates. I select 3 fields: id, name, metadata.
I want to select them randomly with ORDER BY RANDOM() and LIMIT 1000, so I do this is many steps to save some memory in my PHP script.
But how can I do that so it only gives me a list having no duplicates in names.
For example [1,"Michael Fox","2003-03-03,34,M,4545"] will be returned but not [2,"Michael Fox","1989-02-23,M,5633"]. The name field is the most important and must be unique in the list everytime I do the select and it must be random.
I tried with GROUP BY name, bu then it expects me to have id and metadata in the GROUP BY as well or in a aggragate function, but I dont want to have them somehow filtered.
Anyone knows how to fetch many columns but do only a distinct on one column?
To do a distinct on only one (or n) column(s):
select distinct on (name)
name, col1, col2
from names
This will return any of the rows containing the name. If you want to control which of the rows will be returned you need to order:
select distinct on (name)
name, col1, col2
from names
order by name, col1
Will return the first row when ordered by col1.
distinct on:
SELECT DISTINCT ON ( expression [, ...] ) keeps only the first row of each set of rows where the given expressions evaluate to equal. The DISTINCT ON expressions are interpreted using the same rules as for ORDER BY (see above). Note that the “first row” of each set is unpredictable unless ORDER BY is used to ensure that the desired row appears first.
The DISTINCT ON expression(s) must match the leftmost ORDER BY expression(s). The ORDER BY clause will normally contain additional expression(s) that determine the desired precedence of rows within each DISTINCT ON group.
Anyone knows how to fetch many columns but do only a distinct on one column?
You want the DISTINCT ON clause.
You didn't provide sample data or a complete query so I don't have anything to show you. You want to write something like:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (name) fields, id, name, metadata FROM the_table;
This will return an unpredictable (but not "random") set of rows. If you want to make it predictable add an ORDER BY per Clodaldo's answer. If you want to make it truly random, you'll want to ORDER BY random().
To do a distinct on n columns:
select distinct on (col1, col2) col1, col2, col3, col4 from names
SELECT NAME,MAX(ID) as ID,MAX(METADATA) as METADATA
from SOMETABLE
GROUP BY NAME
What would be the most efficient way to calculating the mode across tables with joins in DB2..
I am trying to get the value with the most frequency(count) for a given column(ID - candidate key for joined table) on a given date.
The idea is to get the most common (value) from the table which has different (value)s for some accounts (for the same ID and date). We need to make it unique for use in another table.
You can use common table expressions [CTE's], indicated by WITH, to break the logic down into logical steps. First we'll build the summary rows, then we'll assign a ranking to the rows within each group, then pick out the ones that with the highest count of records.
Let's say we want to know which flavor of each item sells the most frequently on each date (perhaps assuming a record is quantity one).
WITH s as
(
SELECT itemID, saleDate, flavor, count(*) as tally
FROM sales
GROUP BY itemID, saleDate, flavor
), r as
(
SELECT itemID, saleDate, flavor, tally,
RANK() OVER (PARTITION BY itemID, saleDate ORDER BY tally desc) as pri
FROM s
)
SELECT itemID, saleDate, flavor, tally
FROM r
WHERE pri = 1
Here the names "s" and "r" refer to the result set from their respective CTE's. These names can then be used as to represent a table in another part of the statement.
The pri column will have the RANK() of tally value on the summary row from the first section "s" within the window of itemID and saleDate. Tally is descending, because we want the largest value first, which will get a RANK() of 1. Then in the main SELECT we simply pick those summary records which were first in their partition.
By using RANK() or DENSE_RANK() we could get back multiple flavors for an itemID, saleDate, if they are tied for first place. This could be eliminated by replacing RANK() with ROW_NUMBER(), but it would arbitrarily pick one of the tied flavors as a winner, and this may not be correct answer for the problem at hand.
If we had a sales quantity column in the table, we could replace COUNT(*) with SUM(salesqty) and find what had sold the most units.