So I work with Postgres SQL, and I have a jsonb column with the following structure:
{
"Store1":[
{
"price":5.99,
"seller":"seller"
},
{
"price":56.43,
"seller":"seller"
}
],
"Store2":[
{
"price":45.65,
"seller":"seller"
},
{
"price":44.66,
"seller":"seller"
}
]
}
I have a jsonb like this for every product in the database. I want to run an SQL query that will answer the following question:
For each product, is one of the prices in this JSON is bigger/equal/smaller than X?
Basically filter the product to include only the ones who have at least one price that satisfies a mathematical condition.
How can I do it efficiently? What's the best way in Postgres to iterate a JSON like this, with a relatively complex inner structure?
Also, if I could control the way the data is structured (to an extent, I can), what changes can I do to make this query more efficient?
Thanks!
Use a json path expression:
WHERE col ## '$.*[*].price < 20'
or
WHERE col #? '$.*[*] ? (#.price < 20)'
If you need to compare to another column or make the query parameterised, you can either build the jsonpath dynamically
WHERE col ## format('$.*[*].price < %s', $1)::jsonpath
WHERE col #? format('$.*[*] ? (#.price < %s)', $1)::jsonpath
or you can use the respective function and pass variables as an object:
WHERE jsonb_path_match(col, '$.*[*].price < $limit', jsonb_build_object('limit', $1))
WHERE jsonb_path_exists(col, format('$.*[*] ? (#.price < $limit)', jsonb_build_object('limit', $1))
I admit I had to check my cheat sheet to figure out the right combination of operator and expression. Takeaways:
if a comparison operator needs to work with multiple values, it generally functions as an ANY
## does not work with ? (# …) filter expressions since they don't return a boolean,
#? does not work with predicates since they always return a value (even if it's false)
What changes can I do to make this query more efficient?
As #jjanes commented on my other answer, the jsonpath match col ## '$.*[*].price < $limit' isn't going to be fast and needs to do full table scan, at least for < and >. To make a useful index, a different approach is required. An index can only have a single value to compare with, not any number. For that, we need to change the condition from EXISTS(SELECT prices_of(col) WHERE price < $limit) to (SELECT MIN(prices_of(col))) < $limit.
With this idea it is possible to build an expression index on the result of a custom immutable function:
CREATE FUNCTION min_price(data jsonb) RETURNS float
LANGUAGE SQL
IMMUTABLE
RETURNS NULL ON NULL INPUT
RETURN (
SELECT min((offer ->> 'price')::float)
FROM jsonb_each(data) AS entries(name, store),
LATERAL jsonb_array_elements(store) AS elements(offer)
);
CREATE INDEX example_min_data_price_idx ON example (min_price(data));
which you can use as
SELECT * FROM example WHERE min_price(data) < 20;
Looking for rows with a price larger than a certain number requires a separate index on max_price(data). If you want to use the index in a JOIN with more conditions, consider making it a multi-column index.
Looking for row with a price equalling a certain number can be optimised by indexing the jsonb column and using a jsonpath:
CREATE INDEX example_data_idx ON example USING GIN (data jsonb_ops);
SELECT * FROM example WHERE data ## '$.*[*].price == 20';
SELECT * FROM example WHERE data #? '$.*[*] ? (#.price == 20)';
Unfortunately you can't use jsonb_path_ops here since that doesn't support the wildcard.
This seems like it would be straightforward to do but I just can not figure it out. I have a query that returns an ARRAY of strings in one of the columns. I want that array to only contain unique strings. Here is my query:
SELECT
f."_id",
ARRAY[public.getdomain(f."linkUrl"), public.getdomain(f."sourceUrl")] AS file_domains,
public.getuniqdomains(s."originUrls", s."testUrls") AS source_domains
FROM
files f
LEFT JOIN
sources s
ON
s."_id" = f."sourceId"
Here's an example of a row from my return table
_id
file_domains
source_domains
2574873
{cityofmontclair.org,cityofmontclair.org}
{cityofmontclair.org}
I need file_domains to only contain unique values, IE a 'set' instead of a 'list'. Like this:
_id
file_domains
source_domains
2574873
{cityofmontclair.org}
{cityofmontclair.org}
Use a CASE expression:
CASE WHEN public.getdomain(f."linkUrl") = public.getdomain(f."sourceUrl")
THEN ARRAY[public.getdomain(f."linkUrl")]
ELSE ARRAY[public.getdomain(f."linkUrl"), public.getdomain(f."sourceUrl")]
END
Our system uses postgres for its database.
We have queries that can select rows from a database table where an array field in the table contains a specific value, e.g.:
Find which employee manages the employee with ID 123.
staff_managed_ids is a postgres array field containing an array of the employees that THIS employee manages.
This query works as expected:
select *
from employees
where 123=any(staff_managed_ids)
We now need to query where an array field contains a postgres NULL. We tried the following query, but it doesn't work:
select *
from employees
where NULL=any(staff_managed_ids)
We know the staff_managed_ids array field contains NULLs from other queries.
Are we using NULL wrongly?
NULL can not be compared using =. The only operators that work with that are IS NULL and IS NOT NULL.
To check for nulls, you need to unnest the elements:
select e.*
from employees e
where exists (select *
from unnest(e.staff_managed_ids) as x(staff_id)
where x.staff_id is null);
if all your id values are positive, you could write something like this:
select *
from employees
where (-1 < all(staff_managed_ids)) is null;
how this works is that -1 should be less than all values, however comparison with null will make the whole array comparison expression null.
Full Query:
{[tier;company;ccy; startdate; enddate] select Deal_Time, Deal_Date from DEALONLINE_REMOVED where ?[company = `All; 1b; COMPANY = company], ?[tier = `All;; TIER = tier], Deal_Date within(startdate;enddate), Status = `Completed, ?[ccy = `All;1b;CCY_Pair = ccy]}
Particular Query:
where ?[company = `All; 1b; COMPANY = company], ?[tier = `All; 1b; TIER = tier],
What this query is trying to do is to get the viewstate of a dropdown.
If there dropdown selection is "All", that where clause i.e. company or tier is invalidated, and all companies or tiers are shown.
I am unsure if the query above is correct as I am getting weird charts when displaying them on KDB dashboard.
What I would recommend is to restructure your function to make use of the where clause using functional qSQL.
In your case, you need to be able to filter based on certain input, if its "All" then don't filter else filter on that input. Something like this could work.
/Define sample table
DEALONLINE_REMOVED:([]Deal_time:10#.z.p;Deal_Date:10?.z.d;Company:10?`MSFT`AAPL`GOOGL;TIER:10?`1`2`3)
/New function which joins to where clause
{[company;tier]
wc:();
if[not company=`All;wc:wc,enlist (=;`Company;enlist company)];
if[not tier=`All;wc:wc,enlist (=;`TIER;enlist tier)];
?[DEALONLINE_REMOVED;wc;0b;()]
}[`MSFT;`2]
If you replace the input with `All you will see that everything is returned.
The full functional select for your query would be as follows:
whcl:{[tier;company;ccy;startdate;enddate]
wc:(enlist (within;`Deal_Date;(enlist;startdate;enddate))),(enlist (=;`Status;enlist `Completed)),
$[tier=`All;();enlist (=;`TIER;enlist tier)],
$[company=`All;()enlist (=;`COMPANY;enlist company)],
$[ccy=`All;();enlist (=;`CCY_Pair;enlist ccy)];
?[`DEALONLINE_REMOVED;wc;0b;`Deal_Time`Deal_Date!`Deal_Time`Deal_Date]
}
The first part specifies your date range and status = `Completed in the where clause
wc:(enlist (within;`Deal_Date;(enlist;startdate;enddate))),(enlist (=;`Status;enlist `Completed)),
Next each of these conditionals checks for `All for the TIER, COMPANY and CCY_Pair column filtering. It then joins these on to the where clause when a specific TIER, COMPANY or CCY_Pair are specified. (otherwise an empty list is joined on):
$[tier=`All;();enlist (=;`TIER;enlist tier)],
$[company=`All;();enlist (=;`COMPANY;enlist company)],
$[ccy=`All;();enlist (=;`CCY_Pair;enlist ccy)];
Finally, the select statement is called in its functional form as follows, with wc as the where clause:
?[`DEALONLINE_REMOVED;wc;0b;`Deal_Time`Deal_Date!`Deal_Time`Deal_Date]
I have a 2 tables FIRST
id,rl_no,adm_date,fees
1,123456,14-11-10,100
2,987654,10-11-12,30
3,4343,14-11-17,20
and SECOND
id,rollno,fare,type
1,123456,20,bs
5,634452,1000,bs
3,123456,900,bs
4,123456,700,bs
My requirement is twofold,
1, i first need to get all columns from both tables with common rl_no. So i used:
SELECT a.ID,a.rl_no,a.adm_date,a.fees,b.rollno,b.fare,b.type FROM FIRST a
INNER JOIN
SECOND b ON a.rl_no = b.rollno
The output is like this:
id,rl_no,adm_date,fees,rollno,fare,type
1,123456,14-11-10,100,123456,20,bs
1,123456,10-11-12,100,123456,900,bs
1,123456,14-11-17,100,123456,700,bs
2,Next i wanted to get the sum(fare) of those rollno that were common between the 2 tables and also whose fare >= fees from FIRST table group by rollno and id.
My query is:
SELECT x.ID,x.rl_no,,x.adm_date,x.fees,x.rollno,x.type,sum(x.fare) as "fare" from (SELECT a.ID,a.rl_no,a.adm_date,a.fees,b.rollno,b.fare,b.type FROM FIRST a
INNER JOIN
SECOND b ON a.rl_no = b.rollno) x, FIRST y
WHERE x.rollno = y.rl_no AND x.fare >= y.fees AND x.type IS NOT NULL GROUP BY x.rollno,x.ID ;
But this is throwing in exceptions.
ORA-00979: not a GROUP BY expression
00979. 00000 - "not a GROUP BY expression"
The expected output will be like this:
id,rollno,adm_date,fare,type
1,123456,14-11-10,1620,bs
So could someone care to show an oracle newbie what i'm doing wrong here?
It looks like there's a couple different problems here;
Firstly, you're trying to group by an x.ID column which doesn't exist; it looks like you'll want to add ID to the selected columns in your sub-query.
Secondly, when aggregating with GROUP BY, all selected columns need to be either listed in the GROUP BY statement or aggregated. If you're grouping by rollno and ID, what do you want to have happen to all the extra values for adm_date, fees, and type? Are those always going to be the same for each distinct rollno and ID pair?
If so, simply add them to the GROUP BY statement, ie,
GROUP BY adm_date, fees, type, rollno, ID
If not, you'll need to work out exactly how you want to select which one to be output; If you've got output like your example (adding in an ID column here)
ID,adm_date,fees,rollno,fare,type
1,14-11-10,100,123456,20,bs
1,10-11-12,100,123456,900,bs
1,14-11-17,100,123456,700,bs
Call that result set 'a'. If I run;
SELECT a.ID, a.rollno, SUM(a.fare) as total_fare
FROM a
GROUP BY a.ID, a.rollno
Then the result will be a single row;
ID,rollno,total_fare
1,123456,1620
So, if you also select the adm_date, fees, and type columns, oracle has no idea what you mean to do with them. You're not using them for grouping, and you're not telling oracle how you want to pick which one to use.
You could do something like
SELECT a.ID,
FIRST(a.adm_date) as first_adm_date,
FIRST(a.fees) as first_fees,
a.rollno,
SUM(a.fare) as total_fare,
FIRST(a.type) as first_type
FROM a
GROUP BY a.ID, a.rollno
Which would give the result;
ID,first_adm_date,first_fees,rollno,total_fare,first_type
1,14-11-10,100,123456,1620,bs
I'm not sure if that's what you mean to do though.