I am trying to select from one table using the select result from another table. I can run this in two queries but would like to optimize it into just one.
First query.. Select ids where matching other id
select id from lookuptable where paid = '547'
This results in something like this
6316352
6316353
6318409
6318410
6320468
6320469
6320470
6322526
6322527
6324586
6324587
6326648
I would like to then use this result to make another selection. I can do it manually like below. Note, there could be many rows with these values so I've been using a IN statement
select * from "othertable" where id in (6316352,6316353,6318409,6318410,6320468,6320469,6320470,6322526,6322527,6324586,6324587,6326648);
select
ot.*
from
"othertable" as ot
join
lookuptable as lt
on
ot.id = lt.id
where
lt.paid = '547'
The IN operator supports not just value lists but also subqueries, so you can literally write
select * from "othertable" where id in (select id from lookuptable where paid = '547');
I have a subquery like this
with subquery as (select host from table_A where << some condition >>)
and in my main query, I am querying data from another table called table_B, and one of the columns is called destination_host. Now I need to check if the destination_host is in the list returned from my subquery, then I want to output TypeA in my select statement or else TypeB. My select statement looks something like
select name, place, destination_host
from table_B
where <<some condition>>
I want to output a fourth column that is based on a condition check, let's say we call this host_category and if the destination_host value exists in the subquery then I want to add value typeA or else typeB. Please can you help me understand how to write this. I understand that it is hard to provide guidance if you don't have actual data to work with.
I tried using case statements such as this one:
when (destination_host in (select host from subquery)) THEN 'typeA'
when (destination_host not in (select host from subquery)) THEN 'typeB'
end as host_category
but I don't think this is the way to solve this problem.
I would use EXISTS:
WITH subquery AS (...)
SELECT CASE WHEN EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM subquery
WHERE subquery.host = table_b.destination_host)
THEN 'typeA'
ELSE 'typeB'
END
FROM table_b;
With queries like that, you have to take care of NULL values. If table_b.destination_host is NULL, the row will always show up as typeB, because NULL = NULL is not TRUE in SQL.
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.
I'm using Flask-SQLAlchemy with PostgreSQL. I have the following two models:
class Course(db.Model):
id = db.Column(db.Integer, primary_key = True )
course_name =db.Column(db.String(120))
course_description = db.Column(db.Text)
course_reviews = db.relationship('Review', backref ='course', lazy ='dynamic')
class Review(db.Model):
__table_args__ = ( db.UniqueConstraint('course_id', 'user_id'), { } )
id = db.Column(db.Integer, primary_key = True )
review_date = db.Column(db.DateTime)#default=db.func.now()
review_comment = db.Column(db.Text)
rating = db.Column(db.SmallInteger)
course_id = db.Column(db.Integer, db.ForeignKey('course.id') )
user_id = db.Column(db.Integer, db.ForeignKey('user.id') )
I want to select the courses that are most reviewed starting with at least two reviews. The following SQLAlchemy query worked fine with SQlite:
most_rated_courses = db.session.query(models.Review, func.count(models.Review.course_id)).group_by(models.Review.course_id).\
having(func.count(models.Review.course_id) >1) \ .order_by(func.count(models.Review.course_id).desc()).all()
But when I switched to PostgreSQL in production it gives me the following error:
ProgrammingError: (ProgrammingError) column "review.id" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
LINE 1: SELECT review.id AS review_id, review.review_date AS review_...
^
'SELECT review.id AS review_id, review.review_date AS review_review_date, review.review_comment AS review_review_comment, review.rating AS review_rating, review.course_id AS review_course_id, review.user_id AS review_user_id, count(review.course_id) AS count_1 \nFROM review GROUP BY review.course_id \nHAVING count(review.course_id) > %(count_2)s ORDER BY count(review.course_id) DESC' {'count_2': 1}
I tried to fix the query by adding models.Review in the GROUP BY clause but it did not work:
most_rated_courses = db.session.query(models.Review, func.count(models.Review.course_id)).group_by(models.Review.course_id).\
having(func.count(models.Review.course_id) >1) \.order_by(func.count(models.Review.course_id).desc()).all()
Can anyone please help me with this issue. Thanks a lot
SQLite and MySQL both have the behavior that they allow a query that has aggregates (like count()) without applying GROUP BY to all other columns - which in terms of standard SQL is invalid, because if more than one row is present in that aggregated group, it has to pick the first one it sees for return, which is essentially random.
So your query for Review basically returns to you the first "Review" row for each distinct course id - like for course id 3, if you had seven "Review" rows, it's just choosing an essentially random "Review" row within the group of "course_id=3". I gather the answer you really want, "Course", is available here because you can take that semi-randomly selected Review object and just call ".course" on it, giving you the correct Course, but this is a backwards way to go.
But once you get on a proper database like Postgresql you need to use correct SQL. The data you need from the "review" table is just the course_id and the count, nothing else, so query just for that (first assume we don't actually need to display the counts, that's in a minute):
most_rated_course_ids = session.query(
Review.course_id,
).\
group_by(Review.course_id).\
having(func.count(Review.course_id) > 1).\
order_by(func.count(Review.course_id).desc()).\
all()
but that's not your Course object - you want to take that list of ids and apply it to the course table. We first need to keep our list of course ids as a SQL construct, instead of loading the data - that is, turn it into a derived table by converting the query into a subquery (change the word .all() to .subquery()):
most_rated_course_id_subquery = session.query(
Review.course_id,
).\
group_by(Review.course_id).\
having(func.count(Review.course_id) > 1).\
order_by(func.count(Review.course_id).desc()).\
subquery()
one simple way to link that to Course is to use an IN:
courses = session.query(Course).filter(
Course.id.in_(most_rated_course_id_subquery)).all()
but that's essentially going to throw away the "ORDER BY" you're looking for and also doesn't give us any nice way of actually reporting on those counts along with the course results. We need to have that count along with our Course so that we can report it and also order by it. For this we use a JOIN from the "course" table to our derived table. SQLAlchemy is smart enough to know to join on the "course_id" foreign key if we just call join():
courses = session.query(Course).join(most_rated_course_id_subquery).all()
then to get at the count, we need to add that to the columns returned by our subquery along with a label so we can refer to it:
most_rated_course_id_subquery = session.query(
Review.course_id,
func.count(Review.course_id).label("count")
).\
group_by(Review.course_id).\
having(func.count(Review.course_id) > 1).\
subquery()
courses = session.query(
Course, most_rated_course_id_subquery.c.count
).join(
most_rated_course_id_subquery
).order_by(
most_rated_course_id_subquery.c.count.desc()
).all()
A great article I like to point out to people about GROUP BY and this kind of query is SQL GROUP BY techniques which points out the common need for the "select from A join to (subquery of B with aggregate/GROUP BY)" pattern.
I have this problem and reproduced it with AdventureWorks2008R2 to make it more easy. Basically, I want to filter a parent table for a list of IN values and I thought it would generate this type of query
but it doesn't.
SELECT * FROM SalesOrderDetail where EXISTS( select * from SalesOrderHeader where d.id=h.id and rowguid IN ('asdf', 'fff', 'weee' )
Any ideas how to change the LINQ statement to query Header only once?
(ignore the fact I'm matching on Guids - it will actually be integers; I was just quickly looking for a 1-1 table in EF because that's when the problem occurs and I happened to find these)
var guidsToFind = new Guid[] { Guid.NewGuid(), Guid.NewGuid(), Guid.NewGuid()};
AdventureWorks2008R2Entities context = new AdventureWorks2008R2Entities();
var g = context.People.Where(p => guidsToFind.Contains(p.BusinessEntity.rowguid)).ToList();
That produces the following more expensive query:
SELECT [Extent1].[BusinessEntityID] AS [BusinessEntityID],
[Extent1].[PersonType] AS [PersonType],
[Extent1].[NameStyle] AS [NameStyle],
[Extent1].[Title] AS [Title],
[Extent1].[FirstName] AS [FirstName],
[Extent1].[MiddleName] AS [MiddleName],
[Extent1].[LastName] AS [LastName],
[Extent1].[Suffix] AS [Suffix],
[Extent1].[EmailPromotion] AS [EmailPromotion],
[Extent1].[AdditionalContactInfo] AS [AdditionalContactInfo],
[Extent1].[Demographics] AS [Demographics],
[Extent1].[rowguid] AS [rowguid],
[Extent1].[ModifiedDate] AS [ModifiedDate]
FROM [Person].[Person] AS [Extent1]
INNER JOIN [Person].[BusinessEntity] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[BusinessEntityID] = [Extent2].[BusinessEntityID]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [Person].[BusinessEntity] AS [Extent3] ON [Extent1].[BusinessEntityID] = [Extent3].[BusinessEntityID]
WHERE [Extent2].[rowguid] = cast('b95b63f9-6304-4626-8e70-0bd2b73b6b0f' as uniqueidentifier) OR [Extent3].[rowguid] IN (cast('f917a037-b86b-4911-95f4-4afc17433086' as uniqueidentifier),cast('3188557d-5df9-40b3-90ae-f83deee2be05' as uniqueidentifier))
Really odd. Looks like a LINQ limitation.
I don't have a system to try this on right now but if you first get a list of BusinessEntityId values based on the provided guids and then get the persons like this
var g = context.People.Where(p => businessEntityIdList.Contains(p.BusinessEntityId)).ToList();
there should not be a reason for additional unnecessary joins anymore.
If that works, you can try to combine the to steps into one LINQ expression to see if the separation stays intact.