Let's say I've the following schema :
CREATE TABLE author(
id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
name TEXT NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE article(
id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
rating NUMERIC NOT NULL,
author_id INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES author
);
CREATE INDEX ON article(author_id);
I would like to fetch all authors and their top 5 articles if there exists atleast one article of the author with rating > 4.
It was tempting to write this:
SELECT au.id AS author,
json_agg(ar.*) AS articles
FROM
author au
JOIN LATERAL
(SELECT *
FROM article
WHERE author_id = au.id
ORDER BY rating DESC LIMIT 5) ar ON (TRUE)
GROUP BY au.id
HAVING any(ar.rating) > 4;
While any(ar.rating) > 4 looks like a filter expression on each group, any(ar.rating) is not an aggregated value. So, it seems reasonable for Postgres to reject this query. Is it possible to write the query with HAVING?
As an alternative, I write this query to fetch the results :
SELECT au.id AS author,
json_agg(ar.*) AS articles
FROM
(SELECT au.*
FROM author au
WHERE EXISTS
(SELECT 1
FROM article
WHERE rating > 4 AND author_id = au.id)) au
JOIN LATERAL
(SELECT *
FROM article
WHERE author_id = au.id
ORDER BY rating DESC LIMIT 5) ar ON (TRUE)
GROUP BY au.id;
This however doesn't combine both the grouping and checking for the existence of an article with rating > 4 in a single step. Is there a better way to write this query?
If you insist on using ANY you have to use array_agg to aggregate that column into an array.
HAVING
4< ANY(Array_Agg(ar.rating))
But if any is higher than 4 it also means that the maximum is higher that 4 so more readable will be
HAVING
4 < Max(ar.rating)
Related
I am looking to obtain a set of results where I receive a user_id and a collection of books that the user HAS NOT reviewed. I would like the following as the required output:
user_id
Array of books not reviewed
1
{Array of books not reviewed}
2
{Array of books not reviewed}.
Currently there are two tables that this query would require to be pulled from. One contains "reviews" that possesses the user_id of the review, and the book_id that the user HAS reviewed. The book_id is a foreign key to the the "books" table where the total list of books is contained. Therefore for each user_id in the output, I would require the total list of books, excluding the ones that have been reviewed per user.
See the insert statements below for the reviews and books tables:
Reviews tables -
CREATE TABLE reviews (
review_id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
rating INT CHECK (rating BETWEEN 0 AND 10),
review_text TEXT,
book_id INT REFERENCES books(id),
user_id INT
);
Example of a snippet of the table data:
review_id
rating
book_id.
user_id
1
8
2
1
2
6
3
3
Books table -
CREATE TABLE books (
id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
title VARCHAR(100),
price_in_pence INTEGER,
quantity_in_stock INTEGER
);
Example of a snippet of books data:
id
title
price_in_pence
quantity_in_stock
1
bookname
549
12
2
LOTR
799
9
I have tried the following query, however this is not dynamic and only works per user_id entered (identified below using '**'):
SELECT r.user_id,
array( SELECT b.title
FROM books b
WHERE b.id NOT IN (SELECT r.book_id
FROM reviews r
WHERE user_id = '4')
) AS Books_not_reviewed
FROM reviews r
GROUP BY (r.user_id);
Apologies I am somewhat new to SQL. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am using Postgres version 14.1
You can make your query dynamic, if you make the userid as a parameter and use prepared statements.
Also, the below query can give you the list of all books NOT reviewed by each user, you can modify the query to suit your needs.
select u.userid, array( select bookid from books
where bookid not in (select
bookid from reviews r
where r.userid=u.userid) )
from users u
I have two tables, Users and Masters. Users are having User specific settingkey-value. Masters is having master settingkey-value. I want to display key-value from the two tables, where
if users do not have that particular key, need to take it from masters
2 if the users do not exists in the table, need to display all from masters key-value
if users having key-value, have to display users key-value
Example:
Inputs being - UserID and appID = 1.
I tried with left join combination, but not getting desired result if Users do not exists at all in the Users table.
Could you please give me some advise.
step-by-step demo:db<>fiddle
SELECT
COALESCE(m.app_id, u.app_id) as app_id,
COALESCE(m.setting_key, u.setting_key) as setting_key,
COALESCE(u.setting_value, m.setting_value) as setting_value -- 2
FROM
master_table m
FULL OUTER JOIN -- 1
user_table u
ON m.app_id = u.app_id AND m.setting_key = u.setting_key
WHERE COALESCE(m.app_id, u.app_id) = 1 -- 3
AND (u.user_id = 1 OR u.user_id IS NULL)
You need a FULL OUTER JOIN to join also data set that the other table does not contain
COALESCE(a, b) gives you the first non-null value. So, if a (here the user value) is available, it will be returned. Otherwise b (here the master value)
Filter by app_id and user_id; second needs to be filtered by user_id == NULL too, to get all setting_keys. Of course, you could use here COALESCE as well: COALESCE(u.user_id, 1) whereas the last 1 is the specific user_id you're asking
Edit: If User does not exist, give out the Masters values for app_id:
step-by-step demo:db<>fiddle:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (app_id, setting_key) -- 3
*
FROM (
SELECT
COALESCE(user_app_id, master_app_id) AS app_id, -- 2
COALESCE(user_setting_key, master_setting_key) AS setting_key,
COALESCE(user_setting_value, master_setting_value) AS setting_value,
user_id
FROM (
SELECT
app_id as master_app_id,
setting_key as master_setting_key,
setting_value as master_setting_value,
null as user_id,
null as user_app_id,
null as user_setting_key,
null as user_setting_value
FROM
master_table m
UNION -- 1
SELECT
*
FROM
master_table m
FULL OUTER JOIN
user_table u
ON m.app_id = u.app_id AND m.setting_key = u.setting_key
) s
) s
WHERE app_id = 1
AND (user_id = 2 OR user_id IS NULL)
ORDER BY app_id, setting_key, user_id NULLS LAST -- 3
This is a little more complicated. You need a separate data set for user_id == NULL which could be fetched. So, the NULL user represents the unknown user.
You can achieve this by adding the Master table with NULL values using an UNION.
Now you can create the expected columns with the COALESCE() functions as described above.
The third trick is using the DISTINCT ON clause on the app_id and the setting_key columns. When you ordered the NULL columns from the default UNION part in (1) last, then the DISTINCT ON will fetch the user record. However, when the user didn't exist, then the DISTINCT ON will fetch the default Master record.
I need to write a sql code that probably is very simple but I am very new to it.
I need to find all the records from one table that have matching id (but no more than one) from the other table. eg. one table contains records of the employees and the second one with employees' telephone numbers. i need to find all employees with only one telephone no
Sample data would be nice. In absence of:
SELECT
employees.employee_id
FROM
employees
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT distinct on(employee_id) employee_id FROM emp_phone) AS phone
ON
employees.employee_id = phone.employee_id
WHERE
phone.employee_id IS NOT NULL;
You need a join of the 2 tables, group by employee and the condition in the having clause:
SELECT e.employee_id, e.name
FROM employees e INNER JOIN numbers n
ON e.employee_id = n.employee_id
GROUP BY e.employee_id, e.name
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1;
If there can be more than a few numbers per employee in the table with the employees' telephone numbers (calling it tel), then it's cheaper to avoid GROUP BY and HAVING which has to process all rows. Find employees with "unique" numbers using a self-anti-join with NOT EXISTS.
While you don't need more than the employee_id and their unique phone number, you don't even have to involve the employee table at all:
SELECT *
FROM tel t
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT FROM tel
WHERE employee_id = t.employee_id
AND tel_number <> t.tel_number -- or use PK column
);
If you need additional columns from the employee table:
SELECT * -- or any columns you need
FROM (
SELECT employee_id AS id, tel_number -- or any columns you need
FROM tel t
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT FROM tel
WHERE employee_id = t.employee_id
AND tel_number <> t.tel_number -- or use PK column
)
) t
JOIN employee e USING (id);
The column alias in the subquery (employee_id AS id) is just for convenience. Then the outer join condition can be USING (id), and the ID column is only included once in the result, even with SELECT * ...
Simpler with a smart naming convention that uses employee_id for the employee ID everywhere. But it's a widespread anti-pattern to use employee.id instead.
Related:
JOIN table if condition is satisfied, else perform no join
The query below returns 9,817 records. Now, I want to SELECT one more field from another table. See the 2 lines that are commented out, where I've simply selected this additional field and added a JOIN statement to bind this new columns. With these lines added, the query now returns 649,200 records and I can't figure out why! I guess something is wrong with my WHERE criteria in conjunction with the JOIN statement. Please help, thanks.
SELECT DISTINCT dbo.IMPORT_DOCUMENTS.ITEMID, BEGDOC, BATCHID
--, dbo.CATEGORY_COLLECTION_CATEGORY_RESULTS.CATEGORY_ID
FROM IMPORT_DOCUMENTS
--JOIN dbo.CATEGORY_COLLECTION_CATEGORY_RESULTS ON
dbo.CATEGORY_COLLECTION_CATEGORY_RESULTS.ITEMID = dbo.IMPORT_DOCUMENTS.ITEMID
WHERE (BATCHID LIKE 'IC0%' OR BATCHID LIKE 'LP0%')
AND dbo.IMPORT_DOCUMENTS.ITEMID IN
(SELECT dbo.CATEGORY_COLLECTION_CATEGORY_RESULTS.ITEMID FROM
CATEGORY_COLLECTION_CATEGORY_RESULTS
WHERE SCORE >= .7 AND SCORE <= .75 AND CATEGORY_ID IN(
SELECT CATEGORY_ID FROM CATEGORY_COLLECTION_CATS WHERE COLLECTION_ID IN (11,16))
AND Sample_Id > 0)
AND dbo.IMPORT_DOCUMENTS.ITEMID NOT IN
(SELECT ASSIGNMENT_FOLDER_DOCUMENTS.Item_Id FROM ASSIGNMENT_FOLDER_DOCUMENTS)
One possible reason is because one of your tables contains data at lower level, lower than your join key. For example, there may be multiple records per item id. The same item id is repeated X number of times. I would fix the query like the below. Without data knowledge, Try running the below modified query.... If output is not what you're looking for, convert it into SELECT Within a Select...
Hope this helps....
Try this SQL: SELECT DISTINCT a.ITEMID, a.BEGDOC, a.BATCHID, b.CATEGORY_ID FROM IMPORT_DOCUMENTS a JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT ITEMID FROM CATEGORY_COLLECTION_CATEGORY_RESULTS WHERE SCORE >= .7 AND SCORE <= .75 AND CATEGORY_ID IN (SELECT DISTINCT CATEGORY_ID FROM CATEGORY_COLLECTION_CATS WHERE COLLECTION_ID IN (11,16)) AND Sample_Id > 0) B ON a.ITEMID =b.ITEMID WHERE a.(a.BATCHID LIKE 'IC0%' OR a.BATCHID LIKE 'LP0%') AND a.ITEMID NOT IN (SELECT DIDTINCT Item_Id FROM ASSIGNMENT_FOLDER_DOCUMENTS)
For Postgresql 8.x, I have an answers table containing (id, user_id, question_id, choice) where choice is a string value. I need a query that will return a set of records (all columns returned) for all unique choice values. What I'm looking for is a single representative record for each unique choice. I also want to have an aggregate votes column that is a count() of the number of records matching each unique choice accompanying each record. I want to force choice to lowercase for this comparison to be made (HeLLo and Hello should be considered equal). I can't GROUP BY lower(choice) because I want all columns in the result-set. Grouping by all columns causes all records to return, including all duplicates.
1. Closest I've gotten
select lower(choice), count(choice) as votes from answers where question_id = 21 group by lower(choice) order by votes desc;
The issue with this is it will not return all columns.
lower | votes
-----------------------------------------------+-------
dancing in the moonlight | 8
pumped up kicks | 7
party rock anthem | 6
sexy and i know it | 5
moves like jagger | 4
2. Trying with all columns
select *, count(choice) as votes from answers where question_id = 21 group by lower(choice) order by votes desc;
Because I am not specifying every column from the SELECT in my GROUP BY, this throws an error telling me to do so.
3. Specifying all columns in the GROUP BY
select *, count(choice) as votes from answers where question_id = 21 group by lower(choice), id, user_id, question_id, choice order by votes desc;
This simply dumps the table with votes column as 1 for all records.
How can I get the vote count and unique representative records from 1., but with all columns from the table returned?
Join grouped results back with primary table, then show only one row for each (question,answer) combination.
similar to this:
WITH top5 AS (
select question_id, lower(choice) as choice, count(*) as votes
from answers
where question_id = 21
group by question_id , lower(choice)
order by count(*) desc
limit 5
)
SELECT DISTINCT ON(question_id,choice) *
FROM top5
JOIN answers USING(question_id,lower(choice))
ORDER BY question_id, lower(choice), answers.id;
Here's what I ended up with:
SELECT answers.*, cc.votes as votes FROM answers join (
select max(id) as id, count(id) as votes
from answers
group by trim(lower(choice))
) cc
on answers.id = cc.id ORDER BY votes desc, lower(response) asc