Related
I would expect [version] to be larger than 1 in #X below, but it rather seems as if ROW_NUMBER is reevaluated on its way into #X. Is this the intended behavior and is there any way to prevent it?
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #T;
CREATE TABLE #T (id INT, v CHAR(1));
INSERT INTO #T VALUES (1, 'a'), (1, 'b'), (2, 'a'), (2, 'b'), (2, 'c');
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #X;
SELECT TOP 0 *, 1 AS [version] INTO #X FROM #T;
DELETE t OUTPUT deleted.* INTO #X FROM (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY id ORDER BY v) AS [version] FROM #T
) t WHERE t.[version] > 1;
SELECT * FROM #X;
I got a problem regarding missing rows in a table that is giving me a headache.
As base data, I have the following table:
declare #table table
(
id1 int,
id2 int,
ch char(1) not null,
val int
)
insert into #table values (1112, 121, 'A', 12)
insert into #table values (1351, 121, 'A', 13)
insert into #table values (1411, 121, 'B', 81)
insert into #table values (1312, 7, 'C', 107)
insert into #table values (1401, 2, 'A', 107)
insert into #table values (1454, 2, 'D', 107)
insert into #table values (1257, 6, 'A', 1)
insert into #table values (1269, 6, 'B', 12)
insert into #table values (1335, 6, 'C', 12)
insert into #table values (1341, 6, 'D', 5)
insert into #table values (1380, 6, 'A', 3)
The output should be ordered by id2 and follow a fixed sequence of ch, which should repeat until next id2 begins.
Sequence:
'A'
'B'
'C'
'D'
If the sequence or the pattern is interrupted, it should fill the missing rows with null, so that i get this result table:
id1 id2 ch val
----------------------------
1112 121 'A' 12
NULL 121 'B' NULL
NULL 121 'C' NULL
NULL 121 'D' NULL
1351 121 'A' 13
1411 121 'B' 81
NULL 121 'C' NULL
NULL 121 'D' NULL
NULL 7 'A' NULL
NULL 7 'B' NULL
1312 7 'C' 107
NULL 7 'D' NULL
1401 2 'A' 107
NULL 2 'B' NULL
NULL 2 'C' NULL
1454 2 'D' 107
and so on...
What I'm looking for is a way to do this without iterations.
I hope someone can help!
Thanks in advance!
A solution might be this:
declare #table table ( id1 int, id2 int, ch char(1) not null, val int )
insert into #table values (1112, 121, 'A', 12)
,(1351, 121, 'A', 13),(1411, 121, 'B', 81),(1312, 7, 'C', 107),(1401, 2, 'A', 107)
,(1454, 2, 'D', 107),(1257, 6, 'A', 1),(1269, 6, 'B', 12),(1335, 6, 'C', 12)
,(1341, 6, 'D', 5),(1380, 6, 'A', 3)
;with foo as
(select
*
,row_number() over (partition by id2 order by id1) rwn
,ascii(isnull(lag(ch,1) over (partition by id2 order by id1),'A'))-ascii('A') prev
,count(*) over (partition by id2,ch) nr
,ascii(ch)-ascii('A') cur
from #table
)
,bar as
(
select
*,case when cur<=prev and rwn>1 then 4 else 0 end + cur-prev step
from foo
)
,foobar as
(
select *,sum(step) over (partition by id2 order by id1 rows unbounded preceding) rownum
from bar
)
,iterations as
(
select id2,max(nr) nr from foo
group by id2
)
,blanks as
(
select
id2,ch chnr,char(ch+ascii('A') )ch,ROW_NUMBER() over (partition by id2 order by c.nr,ch)-1 rownum,c.nr
from iterations a
inner join (values (1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(10)) c(nr)
on c.nr<=a.nr
cross join (values (0),(1),(2),(3)) b(ch)
)
select
b.id1,a.id2,a.ch,b.val
from blanks a
left join foobar b
on a.id2=b.id2 and a.rownum=b.rownum
order by a.id2,a.rownum
I first make the query "foo" which looks at the row number and gets the previous value for ch for each id2.
"bar" then finds how many missing values there are between the rows. For instance If the previous was an A and the current is a c then there are 2. If the previous was an A and the current is an A, then there are 4!
"foobar" then adds the steps, thus numbering the original rows, where they should be in the final output.
"iterations" counts the number of times the "ABCD" rows should appear.
"BLANKS" then is all the final rows, that is for each id2, it outputs all the "ABCD" rows that should be in the final output, and numbers them in rownum
Finally I left join "foobar" with "BLANKS" on id2 and rownum. Thus we get the correct number of rows, and the places where there are values in the original is output.
If you can manage to add an extra column in your table, that defines which [id2] are part from the same sequence you can try this:
declare #table table
(
id1 int,
id2 int,
ch char(1) not null,
val int,
category int -- extra column
)
insert into #table values (1112, 121, 'A', 12, 1)
insert into #table values (1351, 121, 'A', 13, 2)
insert into #table values (1411, 121, 'B', 81, 2)
insert into #table values (1312, 7, 'C', 107, 3)
insert into #table values (1401, 2, 'A', 107, 4)
insert into #table values (1454, 2, 'D', 107, 4)
insert into #table values (1257, 6, 'A', 1, 5)
insert into #table values (1269, 6, 'B', 12, 5)
insert into #table values (1335, 6, 'C', 12, 5)
insert into #table values (1341, 6, 'D', 5, 5)
insert into #table values (1380, 6, 'A', 3, 5)
DECLARE #sequence table (seq varchar(1))
INSERT INTO #sequence values ('A'), ('B'), ('C'), ('D')
SELECT b.id1, a.id2, a.seq, b.val, a.category
INTO #T1
FROM (
SELECT *
FROM #table
CROSS JOIN #sequence
) A
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT * FROM #table
) B
ON 1=1
AND a.id1 = b.id1
AND a.id2 = b.id2
AND a.seq = b.ch
AND a.val = b.val
;WITH rem_duplicates AS (
SELECT *, dup = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION by id2, seq, category ORDER BY id1 DESC)
FROM #T1
) DELETE FROM rem_duplicates WHERE dup > 1
SELECT * FROM #T1 ORDER BY id2 DESC, category ASC, seq ASC
DROP TABLE #T1
I'm little confused by your output, try this:
Update
DECLARE #table TABLE
(
row INT IDENTITY(1, 1) ,
id1 INT ,
id2 INT ,
ch CHAR(1) NOT NULL ,
val INT
);
DECLARE #Sequence TABLE ( ch3 CHAR(1) NOT NULL );
INSERT INTO #Sequence
VALUES ( 'A' );
INSERT INTO #Sequence
VALUES ( 'B' );
INSERT INTO #Sequence
VALUES ( 'C' );
INSERT INTO #Sequence
VALUES ( 'D' );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1112, 121, 'A', 12 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1351, 121, 'A', 13 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1411, 121, 'B', 81 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1312, 7, 'C', 107 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1401, 2, 'A', 107 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1454, 2, 'D', 107 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1257, 6, 'A', 1 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1269, 6, 'B', 12 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1335, 6, 'C', 12 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1341, 6, 'D', 5 );
INSERT INTO #table
VALUES ( 1380, 6, 'A', 3 );
SELECT r.id1 ,
fin.id2 ,
ch3 ,
r.val
FROM ( SELECT *
FROM ( SELECT CASE WHEN r.chd - l.chd = 1 THEN 0
ELSE 1
END [gap in sq] ,
l.*
FROM ( SELECT id2 ,
ASCII(ch) chd ,
ch ,
val ,
id1 ,
row
FROM #table
) AS l
LEFT JOIN ( SELECT id2 ,
ASCII(ch) chd ,
row
FROM #table
) AS r ON l.row = r.row - 1
) AS temp ,
#Sequence s
WHERE temp.[gap in sq] = 1
OR ( temp.[gap in sq] = 0
AND s.ch3 = temp.ch
)
) AS fin
LEFT JOIN #table r ON r.id2 = fin.id2
AND r.id1 = fin.id1
AND r.ch = fin.ch3
I want to retrieve data from the table based on a couple of columns, some with data, other with NULL. In the first code example below, the procedure is fine - all the rows are returned. In the second example no rows are returned - because NULL=NULL return FALSE.
The third example is more or less what I have in mind, when the column has NULL values, then this clause has to be "ignored" and only the data in the first two columns are used to return the rows based on these two columns.
SELECT * FROM XYZ
WHERE col1 IN ('a', 'b')
AND col2 IN ('c', 'd')
AND col3 IN ('e', 'f')
SELECT * FROM XYZ
WHERE col1 IN ('a', 'b')
AND col2 IN ('c', 'd')
AND col3 IN (NULL) --???
SELECT * FROM XYZ
WHERE col1 IN ('a', 'b')
AND col2 IN ('c', 'd')
--AND col3 IN (NULL) --IGNORED
Currently I use a dynamic SQL statement, but is very slow.
SET #EventCodeList =
(SELECT REPLACE(tEventCode, ' ', '') FROM tblActivityPerCC_Config WHERE tCostCenter = #CostCenter)
SET #EventCodeStr =
CASE WHEN #EventCodeList IS NULL THEN ' logs.tEventCode LIKE (''%'') '
ELSE ' logs.tEventCode IN (SELECT qValue FROM nsEMV.dbo.fncReturnCommaDelimitedStringAsTable(#EventCodeList))'
END
SET #SQLString = N'
SELECT
ccg.Field1,
logs.Field2
FROM dbo.tblEMV_Logsheet AS logs
INNER JOIN dbo.tblLookup_EMVEquipment AS ccg ON logs.tEquipmentKey = ccg.tEquipmentKey
WHERE tDate BETWEEN ''' + CONVERT(varchar(30), #BMonth) + ''' AND ''' + CONVERT(varchar(30), #EMonth) + '''
AND logs.tAreaCode IN ('XYZ', 'ABC')
AND ' + #EventCodeStr + ' --THE FOLLOWING COLUMNS MAY HAVE NULL VALUES
AND ' + #SourceStr + '
AND ' + #DestinationStr'
Any help would be appreciated.
IN RESPONSE TO Jayvee's SUGGESTION BELOW:
This does not do what was intended or I do something wrong!
CREATE TABLE #temp
(
value varchar(10),
value2 varchar(10)
)
INSERT INTO #temp (value, value2) SELECT '5', '3'
INSERT INTO #temp (value, value2) SELECT NULL, '2'
INSERT INTO #temp (value, value2) SELECT '4', NULL
INSERT INTO #temp (value, value2) SELECT '6', '2'
INSERT INTO #temp (value, value2) SELECT '6', NULL
INSERT INTO #temp (value, value2) SELECT '6', '4'
INSERT INTO #temp (value, value2) SELECT NULL, '1'
INSERT INTO #temp (value, value2) SELECT NULL, '4'
SELECT value as [value],value2 as [value2] FROM #temp
WHERE ISNULL(value,'') IN ('4')
AND ISNULL(value2,'') IN ('4')
DROP TABLE #temp
Try IS NULL
SELECT * FROM XYZ
WHERE col1 IN ('a', 'b')
AND col2 IN ('c', 'd')
AND col3 IS NULL -- Instead of IN (NULL)
for each column test it against your parameter and include the IS NULL test, combine these with parentheses, like this:
SELECT
*
FROM XYZ
WHERE (col1 IN ('a', 'b') OR col1 IS NULL)
AND (col2 IN ('c', 'd') OR col2 IS NULL)
AND (col3 IN (NULL) OR col3 IS NULL)
here col3 IN (NULL) is used to demonstrate a parameter that was not provided
something like this should work:
SELECT * FROM XYZ
WHERE ISNULL(col1,'') IN ('a', 'b','')
AND ISNULL(col2,'') IN ('c', 'd','')
AND ISNULL(col3,'') IN ('')
Say I have a table A and it has 5 columns (Column1, Column2.. Column5), the values in each column is one char size and stored only
as alphabetic as follows
ID Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5
1 A C D A B
2 A D A B A
3 B K Q C Q
4 A K E E B
5 F K F F S
I need a count of each different value stored in column1 to column5, I want the following information
Column1 has A's count=3, B's count=1, F's count=1
Column2 has C's count=1, D's count=1, K's count=3
and so on
What is the correct way and format to return these values?
Thanks
You could try:
SELECT 'Col1' As 'Col', Column1 as 'Value', COUNT(*) as 'Ct'
FROM MyTable
GROUP BY Column1
UNION ALL
SELECT 'Col2', Column2, COUNT(*)
FROM MyTable
GROUP BY Column2
...
You will need to write an additional SELECT to UNION for each column you want to aggregate, but it will return the data you are after.
Can you just execute an individual query for each needed column using a GROUP BY?
SELECT Column1, COUNT(Column1) FROM TableName
GROUP BY Column1
You can use unpivot in a derived table (or CTE) and group by column name and value in the outer query.
Try this:
declare #T table
(
ID int,
Column1 char(1),
Column2 char(1),
Column3 char(1),
Column4 char(1),
Column5 char(1)
)
insert into #T values
(1, 'A', 'C', 'D', 'A', 'B'),
(2, 'A', 'D', 'A', 'B', 'A'),
(3, 'B', 'K', 'Q', 'C', 'Q'),
(4, 'A', 'K', 'E', 'E', 'B'),
(5, 'F', 'K', 'F', 'F', 'S')
;with C as
(
select ID, Col, Val
from (
select ID, Column1, Column2, Column3, Column4, Column5
from #T
) as T
unpivot (Val for Col in (Column1, Column2, Column3, Column4, Column5)) as U
)
select Col, Val, count(*) as ValCount
from C
group by Col, Val
order by Col
The union approach is going to server you best. The individual query for each union would look something like this:
Select Distinct Column1, COUNT(Column1)OVER(PARTITION BY Column1) Col1Count, 'Column1' ColumnName
From ColTable
Union All
...
I express the relationship between records and searchtags that can be attached to records like so:
TABLE RECORDS
id
name
TABLE SEARCHTAGS
id
recordid
name
I want to be able to SELECT records based on the searchtags that they have. For example, I want to be able to SELECT all records that have searchtags:
(1 OR 2 OR 5) AND (6 OR 7) AND (10)
Using the above data structure, I am uncertain how to structure the SQL to accomplish this.
Any suggestions?
Thanks!
You may want to try the following:
SELECT r.id, r.name
FROM records r
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM searchtags WHERE recordid = r.id AND id IN (1, 2, 5)) AND
EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM searchtags WHERE recordid = r.id AND id IN (6, 7)) AND
EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM searchtags WHERE recordid = r.id AND id IN (10));
Test case: Note that only records 1 and 4 will satisfy the query criteria.
CREATE TABLE records (id int, name varchar(10));
CREATE TABLE searchtags (id int, recordid int);
INSERT INTO records VALUES (1, 'a');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (2, 'b');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (3, 'c');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (4, 'd');
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 1);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (2, 1);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (6, 1);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 1);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 2);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (2, 2);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (3, 2);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 3);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 3);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (5, 4);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (7, 4);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 4);
Result:
+------+------+
| id | name |
+------+------+
| 1 | a |
| 4 | d |
+------+------+
2 rows in set (0.01 sec)
SELECT
id, name
FROM
records
WHERE
EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM searchtags WHERE recordid = records.id AND id IN (1, 2, 5)
)
AND EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM searchtags WHERE recordid = records.id AND id IN (6, 7)
)
AND EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM searchtags WHERE recordid = records.id AND id IN (10)
)
not sure how to do it in mysql, but in t-sql, you could do something like:
SELECT id, name FROM RECORDS where id in (SELECT recordid from SEARCHTAGS where id in (1,2,5,6,7,10))
I may not be understanding your question entirely... but I gave it my best.
Try:
SELECT R.*
FROM RECORDS R, SEARCHTAGS S
WHERE R.id == S.recordid
AND S.name in (1,2,5,6,7,10);
Don't know if you need S.name or S.id, but this is an example.
select RECORDS.name
from RECORDS join SEARCHTAGS
on RECORDS.id = SEARCHTAGS.recordid
where RECORDS.id in (1,2,...)
I misread the question first time around, and thought it was asking for
(1 AND 2 AND 5) OR (6 AND 7) OR (10)
instead of the correct
(1 OR 2 OR 5) AND (6 OR 7) AND (10)
All the answers so far have concentrated on answering the specific example, rather than addressing the more general question "and suppose I want a different set of criteria next time".
Actual question
I can't do much better than the selected answer for the actual question (Query 1):
SELECT r.id, r.name
FROM Records AS r
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT * FROM SearchTags AS s
WHERE r.id = s.recordid AND s.id IN (1, 2, 5))
AND EXISTS(SELECT * FROM SearchTags AS s
WHERE r.id = s.recordid AND s.id IN (6, 7))
AND EXISTS(SELECT * FROM SearchTags AS s
WHERE r.id = s.recordid AND s.id IN (10));
This could be written as a join to 3 aliases for the SearchTags table.
Alternative question
There are several ways to answer the alternative - I think this is the most nearly neat and extensible. Clearly, the one item (10) is easy (Query 2):
SELECT r.id, r.name
FROM records AS r JOIN searchtags AS t ON r.id = t.recordid
WHERE t.id IN (10) -- or '= 10' but IN is consistent with what follows
The two items (6 or 7) can be done with (Query 3):
SELECT r.id, r.name
FROM records AS r JOIN searchtags AS t ON r.id = t.recordid
WHERE t.id IN (6, 7)
GROUP BY r.id, r.name
HAVING COUNT(*) = 2
The three items (1, 2, 5) can be done with (Query 4):
SELECT r.id, r.name
FROM records AS r JOIN searchtags AS t ON r.id = t.recordid
WHERE t.id IN (1, 2, 5)
GROUP BY r.id, r.name
HAVING COUNT(*) = 3
And the whole collection can be a UNION of the three terms.
Generalizing the solutions
The downside of this solution is that the SQL must be manually crafted for each set of items.
If you want to automate the 'SQL generation', you need the control data - the sets of interesting search tags - in a table:
CREATE TABLE InterestingTags(GroupID INTEGER, TagID INTEGER);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags(1, 1);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags(1, 2);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags(1, 5);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags(2, 6);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags(2, 7);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags(3, 10);
For the query asking for '(1 OR 2 OR 5) AND (...)' (conjunctive normal form), you can write (Query 5):
SELECT r.id, r.name
FROM records AS r JOIN
searchtags AS s ON r.id = s.recordID JOIN
interestingtags AS t ON s.id = t.tagID
GROUP BY r.id, r.name
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT t.GroupID) = (SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT GroupID)
FROM InterestingTags);
This checks that the number of distinct 'interesting groups of tags' for a given record is equal to the total number of 'interesting groups of tags'.
For the query asking for '(1 AND 2 AND 5) OR (...)' (disjunctive normal form), you can write a join with InterestingTags and check that the Record has as many entries as the group of tags (Query 6):
SELECT i.id, i.name
FROM (SELECT q.id, q.name, c.GroupSize,
COUNT(DISTINCT t.GroupID) AS GroupCount
FROM records AS q JOIN
searchtags AS s ON q.id = s.recordID JOIN
interestingtags AS t ON s.id = t.tagID JOIN
(SELECT GroupID, COUNT(*) AS GroupSize
FROM InterestingTags
GROUP BY GroupID) AS c ON c.GroupID = t.GroupID
GROUP BY q.id, q.name, c.GroupSize
) AS i
WHERE i.GroupCount = i.GroupSize;
Test Data
I took the test data from Daniel Vassalo's answer and augmented it with some extra values:
CREATE TABLE records (id int, name varchar(10));
CREATE TABLE searchtags (id int, recordid int);
INSERT INTO records VALUES (1, 'a');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (2, 'b');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (3, 'c');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (4, 'd');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (11, 'A11');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (21, 'B12');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (31, 'C13');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (41, 'D14');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (51, 'E15');
INSERT INTO records VALUES (61, 'F16');
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 1);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (2, 1);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (6, 1);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 1);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 2);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (2, 2);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (3, 2);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 3);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 3);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (5, 4);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (7, 4);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 4);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 11);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (2, 11);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (5, 11);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (6, 21);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (7, 21);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 31);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 41);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (6, 41);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 41);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (2, 51);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (5, 51);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (10, 51);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (7, 61);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (2, 61);
INSERT INTO searchtags VALUES (1, 61);
CREATE TABLE InterestingTags(GroupID INTEGER, TagID INTEGER);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags VALUES(1, 1);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags VALUES(1, 2);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags VALUES(1, 5);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags VALUES(2, 6);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags VALUES(2, 7);
INSERT INTO InterestingTags VALUES(3, 10);
Test results
The outputs that I got were:
Query 1
1 a
4 d
41 D14
Query 2
1 a
3 c
4 d
31 C13
41 D14
51 E15
Query 3
21 B12
Query 4
11 A11
Query 5
1 a
41 D14
4 d
Query 6
4 d
31 C13
3 c
1 a
41 D14
51 E15
Clearly, if I wanted the output in a specific order, I would add an ORDER BY clause to the queries.