Tables have this structure: groupTable > lineGroupJoinTable > linesTable (name are obfuscated names)
I have the following query which returns this error:
Subquery returned more than 1 value. This is not permitted when the
subquery follows =, !=, <, <= , >, >= or when the subquery is used as
an expression.
The thing is that I expect that since the subquery is group, I should not get this error. I'm probably missing something.
UPDATE dbo.groupTable
SET fieldToUpdate = CASE WHEN fieldToUpdate IS NULL THEN NULL ELSE
(
SELECT sumTable.fieldToSum FROM
dbo.groupTable gt
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT lgjt.groupdId1, lgjt.groupdId2, SUM(lt.fieldToSum) as fieldToSum
FROM lineGroupJoinTable lgjt
INNER JOIN linesTable lt
ON
lt.fieldToSum IS NOT NULL AND lt.fieldToSum > 0 AND
lgjt.lineId1 = lt.lineId1 AND lgjt.lineId2 = lt.lineId2
GROUP BY lgjt.groupdId1, lgjt.groupdId2
) sumTable
ON sumTable.groupdId1 = gt.groupdId1 AND sumTable.groupdId2 = gt.groupdId2
)
END
This variation was also try following a suggestion but return the same error:
UPDATE dbo.groupTable
SET fieldToUpdate = CASE WHEN fieldToUpdate IS NULL THEN NULL ELSE
(
SELECT SUM(sumTable.fieldToSum) FROM
dbo.groupTable gt
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT lgjt.groupdId1, lgjt.groupdId2, SUM(lt.fieldToSum) as fieldToSum
FROM lineGroupJoinTable lgjt
INNER JOIN linesTable lt
ON
lt.fieldToSum IS NOT NULL AND lt.fieldToSum > 0 AND
lgjt.lineId1 = lt.lineId1 AND lgjt.lineId2 = lt.lineId2
GROUP BY lgjt.groupdId1, lgjt.groupdId2
) sumTable
ON sumTable.groupdId1 = gt.groupdId1 AND sumTable.groupdId2 = gt.groupdId2
GROUP BY gt.groupdId1, gt.groupdId2
)
END
Probably because dbo.groupTable has multiple value for the combination id1 and id2. I suggest to group on the id1 and id2 column and do a SUM, that case you will have only 1 result.
UPDATE dbo.groupTable
SET fieldToUpdate = CASE WHEN fieldToUpdate IS NULL THEN NULL ELSE
(
SELECT SUM(sumTable.fieldToSum) FROM
dbo.groupTable gt
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT lgjt.id1, lgjt.id2, SUM(lt.fieldToSum) as fieldToSum
FROM lineGroupJoinTable lgjt
INNER JOIN linesTable lt
ON
lt.fieldToSum IS NOT NULL AND lt.fieldToSum > 0 AND
lgjt.id3 = lt.id3 AND lgjt.id4 = lt.id4
GROUP BY lgjt.id1, lgjt.id2
) sumTable
ON sumTable.id1 = gt.id1 AND sumTable.id2 = gt.id2
GROUP BY gt.id1, gt.id2
)
END
I have a table with two columns: intGroupID, decAmount
I want to have a query that can basically return the intGroupID as a result if for every positive(+) decAmount, there is an equal and opposite negative(-) decAmount.
So a table of (id=1,amount=1.0),(1,2.0),(1,-1.0),(1,-2.0) would return back the intGroupID of 1, because for each positive number there exists a negative number to match.
What I know so far is that there must be an equal number of decAmounts (so I enforce a count(*) % 2 = 0) and the sum of all rows must = 0.0. However, some cases that get by that logic are:
ID | Amount
1 | 1.0
1 | -1.0
1 | 2.0
1 | -2.0
1 | 3.0
1 | 2.0
1 | -4.0
1 | -1.0
This has a sum of 0.0 and has an even number of rows, but there is not a 1-for-1 relationship of positives to negatives. I need a query that can basically tell me if there is a negative amount for each positive amount, without reusing any of the rows.
I tried counting the distinct absolute values of the numbers and enforcing that it is less than the count of all rows, but it's not catching everything.
The code I have so far:
DECLARE #tblTest TABLE(
intGroupID INT
,decAmount DECIMAL(19,2)
);
INSERT INTO #tblTest (intGroupID ,decAmount)
VALUES (1,-1.0),(1,1.0),(1,2.0),(1,-2.0),(1,3.0),(1,2.0),(1,-4.0),(1,-1.0);
DECLARE #intABSCount INT = 0
,#intFullCount INT = 0;
SELECT #intFullCount = COUNT(*) FROM #tblTest;
SELECT #intABSCount = COUNT(*) FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT ABS(decAmount) AS absCount FROM #tblTest GROUP BY ABS(decAmount)
) AS absCount
SELECT t1.intGroupID
FROM #tblTest AS t1
/* Make Sure Even Number Of Rows */
INNER JOIN
(SELECT COUNT(*) AS intCount FROM #tblTest
)
AS t2 ON t2.intCount % 2 = 0
/* Make Sure Sum = 0.0 */
INNER JOIN
(SELECT SUM(decAmount) AS decSum FROM #tblTest)
AS t3 ON decSum = 0.0
/* Make Sure Count of Absolute Values < Count of Values */
WHERE
#intABSCount < #intFullCount
GROUP BY t1.intGroupID
I think there is probably a better way to check this table, possibly by finding pairs and removing them from the table and seeing if there's anything left in the table once there are no more positive/negative matches, but I'd rather not have to use recursion/cursors.
Create TABLE #tblTest (
intA INT
,decA DECIMAL(19,2)
);
INSERT INTO #tblTest (intA,decA)
VALUES (1,-1.0),(1,1.0),(1,2.0),(1,-2.0),(1,3.0),(1,2.0),(1,-4.0),(1,-1.0), (5,-5.0),(5,5.0) ;
SELECT * FROM #tblTest;
SELECT
intA
, MIN(Result) as IsBalanced
FROM
(
SELECT intA, X,Result =
CASE
WHEN count(*)%2 = 0 THEN 1
ELSE 0
END
FROM
(
---- Start thinking here --- inside-out
SELECT
intA
, x =
CASE
WHEN decA < 0 THEN
-1 * decA
ELSE
decA
END
FROM #tblTest
) t1
Group by intA, X
)t2
GROUP BY intA
Not tested but I think you can get the idea
This returns the id that do not conform
The not is easier to test / debug
select pos.*, neg.*
from
( select id, amount, count(*) as ccount
from tbl
where amount > 0
group by id, amount ) pos
full outer join
( select id, amount, count(*) as ccount
from tbl
where amount < 0
group by id, amount ) neg
on pos.id = neg.id
and pos.amount = -neg.amount
and pos.ccount = neg.ccount
where pos.id is null
or neg.id is null
I think this will return a list of id that do conform
select distinct(id) from tbl
except
select distinct(isnull(pos.id, neg.id))
from
( select id, amount, count(*) as ccount
from tbl
where amount > 0
group by id, amount ) pos
full outer join
( select id, amount, count(*) as ccount
from tbl
where amount < 0
group by id, amount ) neg
on pos.id = neg.id
and pos.amount = -neg.amount
and pos.ccount = neg.ccount
where pos.id is null
or neg.id is null
Boy, I found a simpler way to do this than my previous answers. I hope all my crazy edits are saved for posterity.
This works by grouping all numbers for an id by their absolute value (1, -1 grouped by 1).
The sum of the group determines if there are an equal number of pairs. If it is 0 then it is equal, any other value for the sum means there is an imbalance.
The detection of evenness by the COUNT aggregate is only necessary to detect an even number of zeros. I assumed that 0's could exist and they should occur an even number of times. Remove it if this isn't a concern, as 0 will always pass the first test.
I rewrote the query a bunch of different ways to get the best execution plan. The final result below only has one big heap sort which was unavoidable given the lack of an index.
Query
WITH tt AS (
SELECT intGroupID,
CASE WHEN SUM(decAmount) > 0 OR COUNT(*) % 2 = 1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END unequal
FROM #tblTest
GROUP BY intGroupID, ABS(decAmount)
)
SELECT tt.intGroupID,
CASE WHEN SUM(unequal) != 0 THEN 'not equal' ELSE 'equals' END [pair]
FROM tt
GROUP BY intGroupID;
Tested Values
(1,-1.0),(1,1.0),(1,2),(1,-2), -- should work
(2,-1.0),(2,1.0),(2,2),(2,2), -- fail, two positive twos
(3,1.0),(3,1.0),(3,-1.0), -- fail two 1's , one -1
(4,1),(4,2),(4,-.5),(4,-2.5), -- fail: adds up the same sum, but different values
(5,1),(5,-1),(5,0),(5,0), -- work, test zeros
(6,1),(6,-1),(6,0), -- fail, test zeros
(7,1),(7,-1),(7,-1),(7,1),(7,1) -- fail, 3 x 1
Results
A pairs
_ _____
1 equal
2 not equal
3 not equal
4 not equal
5 equal
6 not equal
7 not equal
The following should return "disbalanced" groups:
;with pos as (
select intGroupID, ABS(decAmount) m
from TableName
where decAmount > 0
), neg as (
select intGroupID, ABS(decAmount) m
from TableName
where decAmount < 0
)
select distinct IsNull(p.intGroupID, n.intGroupID) as intGroupID
from pos p
full join neg n on n.id = p.id and abs(n.m - p.m) < 1e-8
where p.m is NULL or n.m is NULL
to get unpaired elements, select satement can be changed to following:
select IsNull(p.intGroupID, n.intGroupID) as intGroupID, IsNull(p.m, -n.m) as decAmount
from pos p
full join neg n on n.id = p.id and abs(n.m - p.m) < 1e-8
where p.m is NULL or n.m is NULL
Does this help?
-- Expected result - group 1 and 3
declare #matches table (groupid int, value decimal(5,2))
insert into #matches select 1, 1.0
insert into #matches select 1, -1.0
insert into #matches select 2, 2.0
insert into #matches select 2, -2.0
insert into #matches select 2, -2.0
insert into #matches select 3, 3.0
insert into #matches select 3, 3.5
insert into #matches select 3, -3.0
insert into #matches select 3, -3.5
insert into #matches select 4, 4.0
insert into #matches select 4, 4.0
insert into #matches select 4, -4.0
-- Get groups where we have matching positive/negatives, with the same number of each
select mat.groupid, min(case when pos.PositiveCount = neg.NegativeCount then 1 else 0 end) as 'Match'
from #matches mat
LEFT JOIN (select groupid, SUM(1) as 'PositiveCount', Value
from #matches where value > 0 group by groupid, value) pos
on pos.groupid = mat.groupid and pos.value = ABS(mat.value)
LEFT JOIN (select groupid, SUM(1) as 'NegativeCount', Value
from #matches where value < 0 group by groupid, value) neg
on neg.groupid = mat.groupid and neg.value = case when mat.value < 0 then mat.value else mat.value * -1 end
group by mat.groupid
-- If at least one pair within a group don't match, reject
having min(case when pos.PositiveCount = neg.NegativeCount then 1 else 0 end) = 1
You can compare your values this way:
declare #t table(id int, amount decimal(4,1))
insert #t values(1,1.0),(1,-1.0),(1,2.0),(1,-2.0),(1,3.0),(1,2.0),(1,-4.0),(1,-1.0),(2,-1.0),(2,1.0)
;with a as
(
select count(*) cnt, id, amount
from #t
group by id, amount
)
select id from #t
except
select b.id from a
full join a b
on a.cnt = b.cnt and a.amount = -b.amount
where a.id is null
For some reason i can't write comments, however Daniels comment is not correct, and my solution does accept (6,1),(6,-1),(6,0) which can be correct. 0 is not specified in the question and since it is a 0 value it can be handled eather way. My answer does NOT accept (3,1.0),(3,1.0),(3,-1.0)
To Blam: No I am not missing
or b.id is null
My solution is like yours, but not exactly identical
I have two variables, one is called PaidThisMonth, and the other is called OwedPast. They are both results of some subqueries in SQL. How can I select the smaller of the two and return it as a value titled PaidForPast?
The MIN function works on columns, not variables.
SQL Server 2012 and 2014 supports IIF(cont,true,false) function. Thus for minimal selection you can use it like
SELECT IIF(first>second, second, first) the_minimal FROM table
While IIF is just a shorthand for writing CASE...WHEN...ELSE, it's easier to write.
The solutions using CASE, IIF, and UDF are adequate, but impractical when extending the problem to the general case using more than 2 comparison values. The generalized
solution in SQL Server 2008+ utilizes a strange application of the VALUES clause:
SELECT
PaidForPast=(SELECT MIN(x) FROM (VALUES (PaidThisMonth),(OwedPast)) AS value(x))
Credit due to this website:
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/jamie_thomson/archive/2012/01/20/use-values-clause-to-get-the-maximum-value-from-some-columns-sql-server-t-sql.aspx
Use Case:
Select Case When #PaidThisMonth < #OwedPast
Then #PaidThisMonth Else #OwedPast End PaidForPast
As Inline table valued UDF
CREATE FUNCTION Minimum
(#Param1 Integer, #Param2 Integer)
Returns Table As
Return(Select Case When #Param1 < #Param2
Then #Param1 Else #Param2 End MinValue)
Usage:
Select MinValue as PaidforPast
From dbo.Minimum(#PaidThisMonth, #OwedPast)
ADDENDUM:
This is probably best for when addressing only two possible values, if there are more than two, consider Craig's answer using Values clause.
For SQL Server 2022+ (or MySQL or PostgreSQL 9.3+), a better way is to use the LEAST and GREATEST functions.
SELECT GREATEST(A.date0, B.date0) AS date0,
LEAST(A.date1, B.date1, B.date2) AS date1
FROM A, B
WHERE B.x = A.x
With:
GREATEST(value [, ...]) : Returns the largest (maximum-valued) argument from values provided
LEAST(value [, ...]) Returns the smallest (minimum-valued) argument from values provided
Documentation links :
MySQL http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/comparison-operators.html
Postgres https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-conditional.html
SQL Server https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/functions/logical-functions-least-transact-sql
I just had a situation where I had to find the max of 4 complex selects within an update.
With this approach you can have as many as you like!
You can also replace the numbers with aditional selects
select max(x)
from (
select 1 as 'x' union
select 4 as 'x' union
select 3 as 'x' union
select 2 as 'x'
) a
More complex usage
#answer = select Max(x)
from (
select #NumberA as 'x' union
select #NumberB as 'x' union
select #NumberC as 'x' union
select (
Select Max(score) from TopScores
) as 'x'
) a
I'm sure a UDF has better performance.
Here is a trick if you want to calculate maximum(field, 0):
SELECT (ABS(field) + field)/2 FROM Table
returns 0 if field is negative, else, return field.
Use a CASE statement.
Example B in this page should be close to what you're trying to do:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181765.aspx
Here's the code from the page:
USE AdventureWorks;
GO
SELECT ProductNumber, Name, 'Price Range' =
CASE
WHEN ListPrice = 0 THEN 'Mfg item - not for resale'
WHEN ListPrice < 50 THEN 'Under $50'
WHEN ListPrice >= 50 and ListPrice < 250 THEN 'Under $250'
WHEN ListPrice >= 250 and ListPrice < 1000 THEN 'Under $1000'
ELSE 'Over $1000'
END
FROM Production.Product
ORDER BY ProductNumber ;
GO
This works for up to 5 dates and handles nulls. Just couldn't get it to work as an Inline function.
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.MinDate(#Date1 datetime = Null,
#Date2 datetime = Null,
#Date3 datetime = Null,
#Date4 datetime = Null,
#Date5 datetime = Null)
RETURNS Datetime AS
BEGIN
--USAGE select dbo.MinDate('20120405',null,null,'20110305',null)
DECLARE #Output datetime;
WITH Datelist_CTE(DT)
AS (
SELECT #Date1 AS DT WHERE #Date1 is not NULL UNION
SELECT #Date2 AS DT WHERE #Date2 is not NULL UNION
SELECT #Date3 AS DT WHERE #Date3 is not NULL UNION
SELECT #Date4 AS DT WHERE #Date4 is not NULL UNION
SELECT #Date5 AS DT WHERE #Date5 is not NULL
)
Select #Output=Min(DT) FROM Datelist_CTE;
RETURN #Output;
END;
Building on the brilliant logic / code from mathematix and scottyc, I submit:
DECLARE #a INT, #b INT, #c INT = 0;
WHILE #c < 100
BEGIN
SET #c += 1;
SET #a = ROUND(RAND()*100,0)-50;
SET #b = ROUND(RAND()*100,0)-50;
SELECT #a AS a, #b AS b,
#a - ( ABS(#a-#b) + (#a-#b) ) / 2 AS MINab,
#a + ( ABS(#b-#a) + (#b-#a) ) / 2 AS MAXab,
CASE WHEN (#a <= #b AND #a = #a - ( ABS(#a-#b) + (#a-#b) ) / 2)
OR (#a >= #b AND #a = #a + ( ABS(#b-#a) + (#b-#a) ) / 2)
THEN 'Success' ELSE 'Failure' END AS Status;
END;
Although the jump from scottyc's MIN function to the MAX function should have been obvious to me, it wasn't, so I've solved for it and included it here: SELECT #a + ( ABS(#b-#a) + (#b-#a) ) / 2. The randomly generated numbers, while not proof, should at least convince skeptics that both formulae are correct.
Use a temp table to insert the range of values, then select the min/max of the temp table from within a stored procedure or UDF. This is a basic construct, so feel free to revise as needed.
For example:
CREATE PROCEDURE GetMinSpeed() AS
BEGIN
CREATE TABLE #speed (Driver NVARCHAR(10), SPEED INT);
'
' Insert any number of data you need to sort and pull from
'
INSERT INTO #speed (N'Petty', 165)
INSERT INTO #speed (N'Earnhardt', 172)
INSERT INTO #speed (N'Patrick', 174)
SELECT MIN(SPEED) FROM #speed
DROP TABLE #speed
END
Select MIN(T.V) FROM (Select 1 as V UNION Select 2 as V) T
SELECT (WHEN first > second THEN second ELSE first END) the_minimal FROM table