I have a table called user_activity in Redshift that has department, user_id, activity_type, activity_id, activity_date.
I'd like to query a daily report of how many days since the last event (of any type). Using CROSS APPLY (SQL Server) or LATERAL JOIN (Postgres 9+), I'd do something like...
SELECT d.date, a.last_activity_date
FROM date_table d
CROSS JOIN (
SELECT DISTINCT user_id FROM activity_table
) u
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT TOP 1 activity_date as last_activity_date
FROM activity_table
WHERE user_id = u.user_id AND activity_date <= d.date
ORDER BY activity_date DESC
) a
For now, I write it similar to the below, but it is a bit slow and I am afraid it'll only get slower.
with user_activity as (
select distinct activity_date, user_id from activity_table
)
select
d.date, u.user_id,
max(u.activity_date) as last_activity_date
from date_table d
inner join user_activity u on u.activity_date <= d.date
where d.date between '2020-01-01' and current_date
group by 1, 2
Can someone suggest a good alternative for my needs or for CROSS APPLY / LATERAL JOIN.
As you are seeing cross joining and inequality joining will slow down as you data grows and are generally not the approach you want in Redshift. This is due to the data size increase that comes with this type of action when applied to large data tables that are typical in Redshift.
You want to use window functions to perform this type of analysis. But you will need to step back and rethink how you will structure the SQL. A MAX(activity_date) window function, partitioned by user_id and ordered by date and with a frame clause of all preceding rows, will find the most recent activity to any activity.
Now this will produce only rows for user_ids and dates that exist in the data table and it looks like you want 1 row for each date for each user_id, right? To do this you need to UNION in a frame of data that has 1 row for each date for each user_id ahead of the window function. You will need NULLs in for the other columns so that the data widths match. You will also want the dates in a separate column from activity_date. Now all dates for all user ids will be in the source and the window function will give you the result you want.
You also ask ‘how is this better than the joins?’ Well in the joins you are replicating all the data records by the number of dates which can get really big. In this approach you just have the original data records plus one row per user_id per date (which is the size of your output) and as the number of records per user_id grows this approach doesn’t.
——— Request to modify asker’s code per comments made to their approach ———
Your code is definitely on the right track as you have removed the massive inequality join of your original. I made 2 comments about it. The first is that I believe you need GROUP BY user_id, date to prevent multiple rows per user_id per date that would result if there are records for the same user_id on a single date with differing activity_types. This is a simple oversight.
The second is to state that I intended for you to use UNION ALL, not LEFT JOIN, in combining the actual data and the user_id/date framework. Your approach works fine but I have found that unioning with very large amounts of data is generally faster than joining but you do need to make sure the columns match up. Either way we end up with a data segment with 3 columns - 2 date columns, one with NULLs for framework rows, and 1 user_id. Your approach is fine and the difference in performance is likely very small unless you have huge tables.
Since you asked for a rewrite, here it is with both changes. (NOTE: my laptop is in the shop so I don’t have ready access to Redshift at the moment and this SQL is untested. If the intent is not clear from this and you need me to debug it will be delayed by a few days. I’m keeping your setup methods and SQL structure.)
with date_table as (
select '2000-01-01'::date as date
union all
select '2000-01-02'::date
union all
select '2000-01-03'::date
union all
select '2000-01-04'::date
union all
select '2000-01-05'::date
union all
select '2000-01-06'::date
),
users as (
select 1 as user_id
union all
select 2
union all
select 3
),
user_activity as (
select 1 as user_id, '2000-01-01'::date as activity_date
union all
select 1 as user_id, '2000-01-04'::date as activity_date
union all
select 3 as user_id, '2000-01-03'::date as activity_date
union all
select 1 as user_id, '2000-01-05'::date as activity_date
union all
select 1 as user_id, '2000-01-06'::date as activity_date
),
user_dates as (
select d.date, u.user_id
from date_table d
cross join users u
),
user_date_activity as (
select cal_date, user_id,
lag(max(activity_date), 1) ignore nulls over (partition by user_id order by date) as last_activity_date
from (
Select user_id, date as cal_date, NULL as activity_date from user_dates
Union all
Select user_id, activity_date as cal_date, activity_date from user_activity
)
Group by user_id, cal_date
)
select * from user_date_activity
order by user_id, cal_date```
This was my query based on Bill's answer.
with date_table as (
select '2000-01-01'::date as date
union all
select '2000-01-02'::date
union all
select '2000-01-03'::date
union all
select '2000-01-04'::date
union all
select '2000-01-05'::date
union all
select '2000-01-06'::date
),
users as (
select 1 as user_id
union all
select 2
union all
select 3
),
user_activity as (
select 1 as user_id, '2000-01-01'::date as activity_date
union all
select 1 as user_id, '2000-01-04'::date as activity_date
union all
select 3 as user_id, '2000-01-03'::date as activity_date
union all
select 1 as user_id, '2000-01-05'::date as activity_date
union all
select 1 as user_id, '2000-01-06'::date as activity_date
),
user_dates as (
select d.date, u.user_id
from date_table d
cross join users u
),
user_date_activity as (
select ud.date, ud.user_id,
lag(ua.activity_date, 1) ignore nulls over (partition by ud.user_id order by ud.date) as last_activity_date
from user_dates ud
left join user_activity ua on ud.date = ua.activity_date and ud.user_id = ua.user_id
)
select * from user_date_activity
order by user_id, date
Related
I have two tables:
main_products
old_products
They have the same info and schema with only one difference:
main_products has min(date) = 2022-01 and max(date) = 2022-05
and
old_products has min(date) = 2020-01 and max(date) = 2020-12
How can I query to get all records from old_products + all records from main_products to get products from 2020-01 to 2022-05 ?
The product on both tables has and product_id field.
I tried to join both tables on product_id but the output is a table with twice number of columns.
select t1.*, t2.* from t1
inner join t2
one t1.product_id = t2.product_id
I think you are looking for a UNION or UNION ALL:
SELECT *
FROM t1
WHERE ...
UNION ALL
SELECT *
FROM t2
WHERE ...
If the columns in t1 and t2 are the same (same number of columns and same types), this will pull the data from both of them. Use UNION if you want duplicates removed or UNION ALL to include duplicates. (In your case it won't make a functional difference since the tables don't overlap by date, but UNION ALL will be faster.)
In the above example, you can put your condition (to only get 2022-01 to 2022-05) in both WHERE conditions. If you don't like repeating the condition, you can use the UNION ALL query in a subquery with the condition outside:
SELECT *
FROM
(
SELECT *
FROM t1
UNION ALL
SELECT *
FROM t2
) sq
WHERE ...
I just started learning Postgres, and I'm trying to make an aggregation table that has the columns:
user_id
booking_sequence
booking_created_time
booking_paid_time
booking_price_amount
total_spent
All columns are provided, except for the booking_sequence column. I need to make a query that shows the first five flights of each user that has at least x purchases and has spent more than a certain amount of money, then sort it by the amount of money spent by the user, and then sort it by the booking sequence column.
I've tried :
select user_id,
row_number() over(partition by user_id order by user_id) as booking_sequence,
booking_created_time as booking_created_date,
booking_price_amount,
sum(booking_price_amount) as total_booking_price_amount
from fact_flight_sales
group by user_id, booking_created_time, booking_price_amount
having count(user_id) > 5
and total_booking_price_amount > 1000
order by total_booking_price_amount;
I got 0 when I added count(user_id) > 5, and total_booking_price_amount is not found when I add the second condition in the HAVING clause.
Edit:
I managed to make the code function correctly, for those who are curious:
select x.user_id, row_number() over(partition by x.user_id)
as booking_sequence, x.booking_created_time::date as booking_created_date, x.booking_price_amount,
sum(y.booking_price_amount) as total_booking_price_amount from
(
select user_id, booking_created_time, booking_price_amount from fact_flight_sales
group by user_id, booking_created_time, booking_price_amount
) as x
join
(
select user_id, booking_price_amount
from fact_flight_sales group by user_id, booking_price_amount
) as y
on x.user_id = y.user_id
group by x.user_id, x.booking_created_time, x.booking_price_amount
having count(x.user_id) >= 1 and sum(y.booking_price_amount) >250000
order by total_booking_price_amount desc, booking_sequence asc;
Big thanks to Laurenz for the help!
About count(user_id) > 5:
HAVING is calculated before window functions are evaluated, So result rows excluded by the HAVING clause will not be used to calculate the window function.
About total_booking_price_amount in HAVING:
You cannot use aliases from the SELECT list in the HAVING clause. You will have to repeat the expression (or use a subquery).
I have two tables that look like the following:
Orders
------
id
tracking_number
ShippingLogs
------
tracking_number
created_at
stage
I would like to select the IDs of Orders that have ONLY ONE ShippingLog associated with it, and the stage of the ShippingLog must be error. If it has two ShippingLog entries, I don't want it. If it has one ShippingLog bug its stage is shipped, I don't want it.
This is what I have, and it doesn't work, and I know why (it finds the log with the error, but has no way of knowing if there are others). I just don't really know how to get it the way I need it.
SELECT DISTINCT
orders.id, shipping_logs.created_at, COUNT(shipping_logs.*)
FROM
orders
JOIN
shipping_logs ON orders.tracking_number = shipping_logs.tracking_number
WHERE
shipping_logs.created_at BETWEEN '2021-01-01 23:40:00'::timestamp AND '2021-01-26 23:40:00'::timestamp AND shipping_logs.stage = 'error'
GROUP BY
orders.id, shipping_logs.created_at
HAVING
COUNT(shipping_logs.*) = 1
ORDER BY
orders.id, shipping_logs.created_at DESC;
If you want to retain every column from the join of the two tables given your requirements, then I would suggest using COUNT here as an analytic function:
WITH cte AS (
SELECT o.id, sl.created_at,
COUNT(*) OVER (PARTITION BY o.id) num_logs,
COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE sl.stage <> 'error')
OVER (PARTITION BY o.id) non_error_cnt
FROM orders o
INNER JOIN shipping_logs sl ON sl.tracking_number = o.tracking_number
WHERE sl.created_at BETWEEN '2021-01-01 23:40:00'::timestamp AND
'2021-01-26 23:40:00'::timestamp
)
SELECT id AS order_id, created_at
FROM cte
WHERE num_logs = 1 AND non_error_cnt = 0
ORDER BY id, created_at DESC;
So far I have come up with the below:
WHERE (extract(month FROM orders)) =
(SELECT min(extract(month from orderdate))
FROM orders)
However, that will consequently return zero to many rows, and in my case, many, because many orders exist within that same earliest (minimum) month, i.e. 4th February, 9th February, 15th Feb, ...
I know that a WHERE clause can contain multiple columns, so why wouldn't the below work?
WHERE (extract(day FROM orderdate)), (extract(month FROM orderdate)) =
(SELECT min(extract(day from orderdate)), min(extract(month FROM orderdate))
FROM orders)
I simply get: SQL Error: ORA-00920: invalid relational operator
Any help would be great, thank you!
Sample data:
02-Feb-2012
14-Feb-2012
22-Dec-2012
09-Feb-2013
18-Jul-2013
01-Jan-2014
Output:
02-Feb-2012
14-Feb-2012
Desired output:
02-Feb-2012
I recreated your table and found out you just messed up the brackets a bit. The following works for me:
where
(extract(day from OrderDate),extract(month from OrderDate))
=
(select
min(extract(day from OrderDate)),
min(extract(month from OrderDate))
from orders
)
Use something like this:
with cte1 as (
select
extract(month from OrderDate) date_month,
extract(day from OrderDate) date_day,
OrderNo
from tablename
), cte2 as (
select min(date_month) min_date_month, min(date_day) min_date_day
from cte1
)
select cte1.*
from cte1
where (date_month, date_day) = (select min_date_month, min_date_day from cte2)
A common table expression enables you to restructure your data and then use this data to do your select. The first cte-block (cte1) selects the month and the day for each of your table rows. Cte2 then selects min(month) and min(date). The last select then combines both ctes to select all rows from cte1 that have the desired month and day.
There is probably a shorter solution to that, however I like common table expressions as they are almost all the time better to understand than the "optimal, shortest" query.
If that is really what you want, as bizarre as it seems, then as a different approach you could forget the extracts and the subquery against the table to get the minimums, and use an analytic approach instead:
select orderdate
from (
select o.*,
row_number() over (order by to_char(orderdate, 'MMDD')) as rn
from orders o
)
where rn = 1;
ORDERDATE
---------
01-JAN-14
The row_number() effectively adds a pseudo-column to every row in your original table, based on the month and day in the order date. The rn values are unique, so there will be one row marked as 1, which will be from the earliest day in the earliest month. If you have multiple orders with the same day/month, say 01-Jan-2013 and 01-Jan-2014, then you'll still only get exactly one with rn = 1, but which is picked is indeterminate. You'd need to add further order by conditions to make it deterministic, but I have no idea what you might want.
That is done in the inner query; the outer query then filters so that only the records marked with rn = 1 is returned; so you get exactly one row back from the overall query.
This also avoids the situation where the earliest day number is not in the earliest month number - say if you only had 01-Jan-2014 and 02-Feb-2014; comparing the day and month separately would look for 01-Feb-2014, which doesn't exist.
SQL Fiddle (with Thomas Tschernich's anwer thrown in too, giving the same result for this data).
To join the result against your invoice table, you don't need to join to the orders table again - especially not with a cross join, which is skewing your results. You can do the join (at least) two ways:
SELECT
o.orderno,
to_char(o.orderdate, 'DD-MM-YYYY'),
i.invno
FROM
(
SELECT o.*,
row_number() over (order by to_char(orderdate, 'MMDD')) as rn
FROM orders o
) o, invoices i
WHERE i.invno = o.invno
AND rn = 1;
Or:
SELECT
o.orderno,
to_char(o.orderdate, 'DD-MM-YYYY'),
i.invno
FROM
(
SELECT orderno, orderdate, invno
FROM
(
SELECT o.*,
row_number() over (order by to_char(orderdate, 'MMDD')) as rn
FROM orders o
)
WHERE rn = 1
) o, invoices i
WHERE i.invno = o.invno;
The first looks like it does more work but the execution plans are the same.
SQL Fiddle with your pastebin-supplied query that gets two rows back, and these two that get one.
tblUserProfile - I have a table which holds all the Profile Info (too many fields)
tblMonthlyProfiles - Another table which has just the ProfileID in it (the idea is that this table holds 2 profileids which sometimes become monthly profiles (on selection))
Now when I need to show monthly profiles, I simply do a select from this tblMonthlyProfiles and Join with tblUserProfile to get all valid info.
If there are no rows in tblMonthlyProfile, then monthly profile section is not displayed.
Now the requirement is to ALWAYS show Monthly Profiles. If there are no rows in monthlyProfiles, it should pick up 2 random profiles from tblUserProfile. If there is only one row in monthlyProfiles, it should pick up only one random row from tblUserProfile.
What is the best way to do all this in one single query ?
I thought something like this
select top 2 * from tblUserProfile P
LEFT OUTER JOIN tblMonthlyProfiles M
on M.profileid = P.profileid
ORder by NEWID()
But this always gives me 2 random rows from tblProfile. How can I solve this ?
Try something like this:
SELECT TOP 2 Field1, Field2, Field3, FinalOrder FROM
(
select top 2 Field1, Field2, Field3, FinalOrder, '1' As FinalOrder from tblUserProfile P JOIN tblMonthlyProfiles M on M.profileid = P.profileid
UNION
select top 2 Field1, Field2, Field3, FinalOrder, '2' AS FinalOrder from tblUserProfile P LEFT OUTER JOIN tblMonthlyProfiles M on M.profileid = P.profileid ORDER BY NEWID()
)
ORDER BY FinalOrder
The idea being to pick two monthly profiles (if that many exist) and then 2 random profiles (as you correctly did) and then UNION them. You'll have between 2 and 4 records at that point. Grab the top two. FinalOrder column is an easy way to make sure that you try and get the monthly's first.
If you have control of the table structure, you might save yourself some trouble by simply adding a boolean field IsMonthlyProfile to the UserProfile table. Then it's a single table query, order by IsBoolean, NewID()
In SQL 2000+ compliant syntax you could do something like:
Select ...
From (
Select TOP 2 ...
From tblUserProfile As UP
Where Not Exists( Select 1 From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 )
Order By NewId()
) As RandomProfile
Union All
Select MP....
From tblUserProfile As UP
Join tblMonthlyProfile As MP
On MP.ProfileId = UP.ProfileId
Where ( Select Count(*) From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 ) >= 1
Union All
Select ...
From (
Select TOP 1 ...
From tblUserProfile As UP
Where ( Select Count(*) From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 ) = 1
Order By NewId()
) As RandomProfile
Using SQL 2005+ CTE you can do:
With
TwoRandomProfiles As
(
Select TOP 2 ..., ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY UP.ProfileID ) As Num
From tblUserProfile As UP
Order By NewId()
)
Select MP.Col1, ...
From tblUserProfile As UP
Join tblMonthlyProfile As MP
On MP.ProfileId = UP.ProfileId
Where ( Select Count(*) From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 ) >= 1
Union All
Select ...
From TwoRandomProfiles
Where Not Exists( Select 1 From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 )
Union All
Select ...
From TwoRandomProfiles
Where ( Select Count(*) From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 ) = 1
And Num = 1
The CTE has the advantage of only querying for the random profiles once and the use of the ROW_NUMBER() column.
Obviously, in all the UNION statements the number and type of the columns must match.