Error : column access_log.id must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function] when the subquery is used
select
to_char(date_trunc('day',create_time),'DD MON, YYYY') as create_time,
to_char((max(create_time) - min(create_time)),'HH24:mi') as time_spent,
id
from
access_log
group by
user_id, actionlink_id, date_trunc('day',create_time)
access_log.id is unique for each row in that table, so it is very unlikely that you get useful information including that in the query. I believe you intended to do this by user_id instead. However what the error message is telling you the truth, IF you include id in the select clause, it should also occur in the group by clause. read on:
Think of each item in your select clause as falling into 2 types:
aggregating these are the ones with MIN MAX COUNT AVG and similar functions
non-aggregating these are the ones without thse functions, and it is these that determine how rows are formed. Each one of these non-aggregating items should appear in the group by clause. This information in these columns is then used to create the row structure of the final result. For example instead of rows for each time of the day, now rows will be "per day" because you included date_trunc('day',create_time) into the group by clause
select
user_id ---- changed this to user_id
, actionlink_id --- & added this
, to_char(date_trunc('day',create_time),'DD MON, YYYY') as create_time
, to_char((max(create_time) - min(create_time)),'HH24:mi') as time_spent
, MAX(id) as max_id
from
access_log
group by -- all non-aggregating select clause items go here
user_id
, actionlink_id
, date_trunc('day',create_time)
Related
i have a challenge whose consist in filter a query not with a value that is not present in a table but a value that is retrieved by a function.
let's consider a table that contains all sales on database
id, description, category, price, col1 , ..... col n
i have function that retrieve me a table of similar sales from one (based on rules and business logic) . This function performs a query again on all records in the sales table and match validation in some fields.
similar_sales (sale_id integer) - > returns a integer[]
now i need to list all similar sales for each one present in sales table.
select s.id, similar_sales (s.id)
from sales s
but the similar_sales can be null and i am interested only return sales which contains at least one.
select id, similar
from (
select s.id, similar_sales (s.id) as similar
from sales s
) q
where #similar > 1 (Pseudocode)
limit x
i can't do the limit in subquery because i don't know what sales have similar or not.
I just wanted do a subquery for a set of small rows and not all entire table to get query performance gains (pagination strategy)
you can try this :
select id, similar
from sales s
cross join lateral similar_sales (s.id) as similar
where not isempty(similar)
limit x
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.
I'm trying to count the number of unique pool operators for every permit # in a table but am having trouble putting this value in a new column dedicated to that count.
So I have 2 tables: doh_analysis; doh_pools.
Both of these tables have a "permit" column (TEXT), but doh_analysis has about 1000 rows with duplicates in the permit column but occasional unique values in the operator column (TEXT).
I'm trying to fill a column "operator_count" in the table "doh_pools" with a count of unique values in "pooloperator" for each permit #.
So I tried the following code but am getting a syntax error at or near "(":
update doh_pools
set operator_count = select count(distinct doh_analysis.pooloperator)
from doh_analysis
where doh_analysis.permit ilike doh_pools.permit;
When I remove the "select" from before the "count" I get "SQL Error [42803]: ERROR: aggregate functions are not allowed in UPDATE".
I can successfully query a list of distinct permit-pooloperator pairs using:
select distinct permit, pooloperator
from doh_analysis;
And I can query the # of unique pooloperators per permit 1 at a time using:
select count(distinct pooloperator)
from doh_analysis
where permit ilike '52-60-03054';
But I'm struggling to insert a count of unique pairs for each permit # in the operatorcount column.
Is there a way to do this?
There is certainly a better way of doing this but I accomplished my goal by creating 2 intermediary tables and the updating the target table with values from the 2nd intermediate table like so:
select distinct permit, pooloperator
into doh_pairs
from doh_analysis;
select permit, count(distinct pooloperator)
into doh_temp
from doh_pairs
group by permit;
select count(distinct permit)
from doh_temp;
update doh_pools
set operator_count = doh_temp.count
from doh_temp
where doh_pools.permit ilike doh_temp.permit
and doh_pools.permit is not NULL
returning count;
Hello everyone I have to get data from and to date, I tried using between clause which fails to retrieve data what I need. Here is what I need.
I have table called hall_info which has following structure
hall_info
id | hall_name |address |contact_no
1 | abc | India |XXXX-XXXX-XX
2 | xyz | India |XXXX-XXXX-XX
Now I have one more table which is events, that contains data about when and which hall is booked on what date, the structure is as follows.
id |hall_info_id |event_date(booked_date)| event_name
1 | 2 | 2015-10-25 | Marriage
2 | 1 | 2015-10-28 | Marriage
3 | 2 | 2015-10-26 | Marriage
So what I need now is I wanna show hall_names that are not booked on selected dates, suppose if user chooses from 2015-10-23 to 2015-10-30 so I wanna list all halls that are not booked on selected dates. In above case both the halls of hall_info_id 1 and 2 ids booked in given range but still I wanna show them because they are free on 23,24,27 and on 29 date.
In second case suppose if user chooses date from 2015-10-25 and 2015-10-26 then only hall_info_id 2 is booked on both the dates 25 and 26 so in this case i wanna show only hall_info_id 1 as hall_info_id 2 is booked.
I tried using inner query and between clause but I am not getting required result to simply i have given only selected fields I have more tables to join so i cant paste my query please help with this. Thanks in advance for all who are trying.
Some changes in Yasen Zhelev's code:
SELECT * FROM hall_info
WHERE id not IN (
SELECT hall_info_id FROM events
WHERE event_date >= '2015-10-23' AND event_date <= '2015-10-30'
GROUP BY hall_info_id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT event_date) > DATE_PART('day', '2015-10-30'::timestamp - '2015-10-23'::timestamp))
I have not tried it but how about checking if the number of bookings per hall is less than the actual days in the selected period.
SELECT * FROM hall_info WHERE id NOT IN
(SELECT hall_info_id FROM events
WHERE event_date >= '2015-10-23' AND event_date <= '2015-10-30'
GROUP BY hall_info_id
HAVING COUNT(id) < DATEDIFF(day, '2015-10-30', '2015-10-23')
);
That will only work if you have one booking per day per hall.
To get the "available dates" for the hall returned, your query needs a row source of all possible dates. For example, if you had a calendar table populated with possible date values, e.g.
CREATE TABLE cal (dt DATE NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY) Engine=InnoDB
;
INSERT INTO cal (dt) VALUES ('2015-10-23')
,('2015-10-24'),('2015-10-25'),('2015-10-26'),('2015-10-27')
,('2015-10-28'),('2015-10-29'),('2015-10-30'),('2015-10-31')
;
The you could use a query that performs a cross join between the calendar table and hall_info... to get every hall on every date... and an anti-join pattern to eliminate rows that are already booked.
The anti-join pattern is an outer join with a restriction in the WHERE clause to eliminate matching rows.
For example:
SELECT cal.dt, h.id, h.hall_name, h.address
FROM cal cal
CROSS
JOIN hall_info h
LEFT
JOIN events e
ON e.hall_id = h.id
AND e.event_date = cal.dt
WHERE e.id IS NULL
AND cal.dt >= '2015-10-23'
AND cal.dt <= '2015-10-30'
The cross join between cal and hall_info gets all halls for all dates (restricted in the WHERE clause to a specified range of dates.)
The outer join to events find matching rows in the events table (matching on hall_id and event_date. The trick is the predicate (condition) in the WHERE clause e.id IS NULL. That throws out any rows that had a match, leaving only rows that don't have a match.
This type of problem is similar to other "sparse data" problems. e.g. How do you return a zero total for sales by a given store on a given date, when there are no rows with that store and date...
In your case, the query needs a source of rows with available date values. That doesn't necessarily have to be a table named calendar. (Other databases give us the ability to dynamically generate a row source; someday, MySQL may have similar features.)
If you want the row source to be dynamic in MySQL, then one approach would be to create a temporary table, and populate it with the dates, run the query referencing the temporary table, and then dropping the temporary table.
Another approach is to use an inline view to return the rows...
SELECT cal.dt, h.id, h.hall_name, h.address
FROM (
SELECT '2015-10-23'+INTERVAL 0 DAY AS dt
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-24'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-25'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-26'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-27'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-28'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-29'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-30'
) cal
CROSS
JOIN hall_info h
LEFT
JOIN events e
ON e.hall_id = h.id
AND e.event_date = c.dt
WHERE e.id IS NULL
FOLLOWUP: When this question was originally posted, it was tagged with mysql. The SQL in the examples above is for MySQL.
In terms of writing a query to return the specified results, the general issue is still the same in PostgreSQL. The general problem is "sparse data".
The SQL query needs a row source for the "missing" date values, but the specification doesn't provide any source for those date values.
The answer above discusses several possible row sources in MySQL: 1) a table, 2) a temporary table, 3) an inline view.
The answer also mentions that some databases (not MySQL) provide other mechanisms that can be used as a row source.
For example, PostgreSQL provides a nifty generate_series function (Reference: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/functions-srf.html.
It should be possible to use the generate_series function as a row source, to supply a set of rows containing the date values needed by the query to produced the specified result.
This answer demonstrates the approach to solving the "sparse data" problem.
If the specification is to return just the list of halls, and not the dates they are available, the queries above can be easily modified to remove the date expression from the SELECT list, and add a GROUP BY clause to collapse the rows into a distinct list of halls.
I've come across a vexing problem with a PostgreSQL query. This works in my local development environment:
SELECT distinct (user_id) user_id, created_at, is_goodday
FROM table
WHERE ((created_at >= '2011-07-01 00:00:00') AND user_id = 95
AND (created_at < '2011-08-01 00:00:00'))
ORDER BY user_id, created_at ASC;
...but gives the following error on my QA server (which is on Heroku):
PGError: ERROR: syntax error at or near "user_id"
LINE 1: SELECT distinct (user_id) user_id, created_at,
^
Why could this be?
Other possibly relevant info:
I have tried single-quoting and double-quoting the field names
It's a Rails 3 app, but I'm using this SQL raw, i.e. no ActiveRecord magic
My local version of Postgres is 9.0.4 on Mac, but I have no idea what version Heroku is using
As per your comment, the standard PostgreSQL version of that query would be:
SELECT user_id, created_at, is_goodday
FROM table
WHERE created_at >= '2011-07-01 00:00:00'
AND created_at < '2011-08-01 00:00:00'
AND user_id = 95
ORDER BY created_at DESC, id DESC
LIMIT 1
You don't need user_id in the ORDER BY because you have user_id = 95, you want created_at DESC in the ORDER BY to put the most recent created_at at the top; then you LIMIT 1 to slice off just the first row in the result set. GROUP BY can be used to enforce uniqueness or if you need to group things for an aggregate function but you don't need it for either one of those here as you can get uniqueness through ORDER BY and LIMIT and you can hide your aggregation inside the ORDER BY (i.e. you don't need MAX because ORDER BY does that for you).
Since you have user_id = 95 in your WHERE, you don't need user_id in the SELECT but you can leave it in if that makes it easier for you in Ruby-land.
It is possible that you could have multiple entries with the same created_at so I added an id DESC to the ORDER BY to force PostgreSQL to choose the one with the highest id. There's nothing wrong with being paranoid when they really are out to get you and bugs definitely are out to get you.
Also, you want DESC in your ORDER BY to get the highest values at the top, ASC puts the lowest values at the top. The more recent timestamps will be the higher ones.
In general, the GROUP BY and SELECT have to match up because:
When GROUP BY is present, it is not valid for the SELECT list expressions to refer to ungrouped columns except within aggregate functions, since there would be more than one possible value to return for an ungrouped column.
But that doesn't matter here because you don't need a GROUP BY at all. I linked to the 8.3 version of the documentation to match the PostgreSQL version you're using.
There are probably various other ways to do this but this one as probably as straight forward and clear as you're going to get.
put a quote in user_id like user_id = '95'. Your query should be
SELECT distinct (user_id) as uid, created_at, is_goodday FROM table WHERE
((created_at >= '2011-07-01 00:00:00') AND user_id = '95' AND (created_at < '2011-08-01 00:00:00')) ORDER BY user_id, created_at ASC;
You're using DISTINCT ON (without writing the ON). Perhaps you should write the ON. Perhaps your postgres server dates from before the feature was implemented (which is pretty old by now).
If all else fails, you can always do that with some GROUP BY...