I have a lookup table for institution id, name, address and another table for course details.
In each course record there will be two columns pointing primary and secondary institution ids.
My select query should look like ->
Select course_id,
name,
primary_Institution_id,
Primary_Institution_name,
primary_Institution_address,
Secondary _Institution_id,
Secondary _Institution_name,
Secondary_Institution_address
from [JOIN MAY BE]
where course_id in ('1223','34234','43432')
How to achieve this? I have no control over the tables and I can only select from them and cannot modify their structure.
If you are trying to ask how to do the join, it might look something like this
Select c.course_id,
c.name,
c.primary_Institution_id,
i.name as primary_Institution_name,
i.address as primary_Institution_address
c.secondary_Institution_id
k.name as Secondary _Institution_name,
k.address as Secondary_Institution_address
from courses as c
join institutions as i
on i.id = c.primary_Institution_id
left
join institutions as k
on i.id = c.secondary_Institution_id
where course_id in ('1223','34234','43432')
This assumes that the first institution id is mandatory (never null) so the join is implied as an inner join, but that perhaps the second might be optional (null allowed) so it uses a left join, in case there is nothing to match to.
Related
This might be partly a design question (new to PostgreSQL) as well.
I have three tables - Users, Groups and User_Group. User_Group represents a combination of 1 user_id being linked to 0..X Group IDs.
The tables are as simple as you think (for now, building out this thing):
User: ID, Name, ....
Group: ID, Name, ...
User_Group: UserID, GroupID int[], ...
So right now, the GroupID field in User_Group is an Integer array. UserID 1 has a value of {1,2,10,19,28} for example.
Goal:
In my UI, I need to represent that list as the group names (ie: {Group1, Group2, Group10, Group19, Group28}).
So, because I am new to PostgreSQL, I'm researching and a couple ideas pop into my mind - unnest, ANY and array replacement. All scream performance issues to me, but I might be wrong (this is the design question, is it smart to store array?)
My query right now:
select
u.*,
g.group_ids
from users u
left join user_group g
on u.id = g.user_id
Piece I'm trying to figure out how to push into:
select ug.group_id
from (select unnest(group_ids) group_id FROM user_group) as ug
left join groups g
on g.id = ug.group_id
This will just result in (obviously) an additional row for each group ID the person is associated with.
Which is the best way to do this?
( Personally I would have a column on Users table as Groups (int array) but your choice is fine too).
It would look like (I used table and field names off the top of my head, slightly modified than yours):
select u.*, g.Name as GroupName
from users u
left join usergroups ug on ug.UserId = u.UserId
left join groups g on g.groupId = ANY( ug.groups );
Update: I might have misunderstood your need. Maybe you meant this:
select u.*,
(select string_agg(g.name,',')
from groups g
inner join usergroups ug on ug.groupId = g.GroupId
where ug.UserId = u.UserID and
g.groupId = ANY( ug.groups )) as Groups
from users u;
There, you have a one-to-many relationship:
User (1)->(*) Groups
This kind of relation doesn't need an intermediary table for the link definition. The one-to-many relation use to have a foreign key in the child table (in this case is Groups).
The result will be:
User: id, name
Group: id, name, user_id
And you can add a constraint to the database as: ALTER TABLE user ADD CONSTRAINT fk_user FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES group;
Postgres allows you to create a table using inheritance. We have a design where we have 1400 tables that inherit from one main table. These tables are for each of our vendor's inventory.
When I want to query stock for a vendor, I just query the main table. When running Explain, the explanation says that it is going through all 1400 indexes and quite a few of the inherited tables. This causes the query to run very slowly. If I query only the vendor's stock table, I cut the query time to less than 50% of the time by querying the main table.
We have a join on another table that pulls identifiers for the vendor's partner vendors and we also want to query their stock. Example:
SELECT
(select m2.company from sup.members m2 where m2.id = u.id) as company,
u.id,
u.item,
DATE_PART('day', CURRENT_TIMESTAMP - u.datein::timestamp) AS daysinstock,
u.grade as condition,
u.stockno AS stocknumber,
u.ic,
CASE WHEN u.rprice > 0 THEN
u.rprice
ELSE
NULL
END AS price,
u.qty
FROM pub.net u
LEFT JOIN sup.members m1
ON m1.id = u.id OR u.id = any(regexp_split_to_array(m1.partnerslist,','))
WHERE u.ic in ('01036') -- part to query
AND m1.id = 'N40' -- vendor to query
The n40_stock table has stock for the vendor with id = N40 and N40's partner vendors (partnerslist) are G01, G06, G21, K17, N49, V02, M16 so I would also want
to query the g01_stock, g06_stock, g21_stock, k17_stock, n49_stock, v02_stock, and m16_stock tables.
I know about the ONLY clause but is there away to modify this query to get the data from ONLY the specific inherited tables?
Edit
This decreases the time to under 800ms, but I'd like it less:
WITH cte as (
SELECT partnerslist as a FROM sup.members WHERE id = 'N40'
)
SELECT
(select m2.company from sup.members m2 where m2.id = u.id) as company,
u.id,
u.item,
DATE_PART('day', CURRENT_TIMESTAMP - u.datein::timestamp) AS daysinstock,
u.grade as condition,
u.stockno AS stocknumber,
u.ic,
CASE WHEN u.rprice > 0 THEN
u.rprice
ELSE
NULL
END AS price,
u.qty
FROM pub.net u
WHERE u.ic in ('01036') -- part to query
AND u.id = any(regexp_split_to_array('N40,'||(select a from cte), ','))
I cannot retrieve the company from sup.members in the cte because I need the one from the u.id, which is different when the partner changes in the where clause.
Inherited table lookups are based on the actual WHERE clause, which maps to the CHECK table constraint. Simply inheriting tables is not good enough.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/ddl-partitioning.html
Caveat, you can not use a dynamically created variables where the actual value is not implemented in the raw query. This results in a check of all inherited tables.
I have three tables:
Orders:
orderid, valuedid, valuesdesc
Customers:
customerid, cutomdesc
Groups:
groupid, groupdesc
valueid - id of a customer or a group
valuesdesc - must filled with appropriate for inserted valueid description from Customers or Groups depend on what (customer or group) user selected in the client.
So, when client send an insert query for Orders it consists orderid for new order and valuedid. And on a client side I know what user selected: group or customer.
What I need: if a new row inserted in Orders, corresponding valuesdesc for valuedid from Customers or Groups inserted in valuesdesc column.
I have an idea to insert with new order record valuesdesc which would contain key - fake value to pick the right dictionary (customers or groups), but how to create that trigger I unfortunately don't know for now.
First, I must say this is a very uncommon design. When you are inserting a record into Orders, you use valuesdesc to hint at the table that valueid references. But as soon as valuesdesc gets filled by the trigger, valueid essentially loses any meaning. That is, you haven't reveal us you've got any other way to tell a reference to Customers from a reference to Groups. So, you could just as well drop valueid altogether and use valuesdesc to pass both the 'dictionary' hint and the reference within that table.
Other than that, because valueid can reference more than one table, you cannot use a foreign key constraint on it.
Anyway, in your present design you could try this:
CREATE TRIGGER Orders_UpdateValuesdesc
ON Orders
FOR INSERT
AS
UPDATE o
SET valuesdesc = COALESCE(c.customdesc, g.groupdesc)
FROM Orders o
INNER JOIN inserted ON o.orderid = i.orderid
LEFT JOIN Customers c ON i.valuesdesc = 'Customers'
AND i.valueid = c.customerid
LEFT JOIN Groups g ON i.valuesdesc = 'Groups'
AND i.valueid = g.customerid
The strings 'Customers' and 'Groups' are meant as the dictionary specifiers. You replace them with the actual values.
The trigger uses LEFT JOIN to join both Customers and Groups, then fills Orders.valuesdesc with either customdesc or groupdesc, depending on which one is not null.
Here's my problem. Suppose I have a table called persons containing, among other things, fields for the person's name and national identification number, with the latter being optional. There can be multiple rows for each actual person.
Now suppose I want to select exactly one row for each actual person. For the purposes of the application, two rows are considered to refer to the same person if a) their ID numbers match, or b) their names match and the ID number of one or both is NULL. SELECT DISTINCT is no good here: I cannot do a DISTINCT ON (name, id) because then two rows with the same name where the ID of one is NULL wouldn't match (which is incorrect, they should be considered the same). I cannot do a DISTINCT ON (name) because then rows with the same name but different IDs would match (again incorrect, they should be considered different). And I cannot do a DISTINCT ON (id) because then all the rows where ID is NULL would be considered the same (obviously incorrect).
Is there any way to redefine the way PostgreSQL compares rows to determine whether or not they're identical? I guess the default behaviour for DISTINCT ON (name, id) would be something like IF a.name = b.name AND a.id = b.id THEN IDENTICAL ELSE DISTINCT. I'd like to redefine it to something like IF a.id = b.id OR (a.name = b.name AND (a.id IS NULL OR b.id IS NULL)) THEN IDENTICAL ELSE DISTINCT.
It's pretty late and I might have missed something obvious, so other suggestions on how to achieve what I want would also be welcome. Anything to enable me to select distinct rows based on more complex criteria than a simple list of columns. Thanks in advance.
With Window Functions
--
-- First, SELECT those names with NULL national IDs not shadowed by the same
-- name with a national ID. Each one is a unique person.
--
SELECT name, id
FROM persons
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM persons p
WHERE p.name = persons.name AND p.id IS NOT NULL)
--
-- Second, collapse each national ID into the "first" row with that ID,
-- whatever the name. Each ID is a unique person.
--
UNION ALL
SELECT name, id
FROM (SELECT name, id, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY id)
FROM persons
WHERE id IS NOT NULL) d
WHERE d.row_number = 1;
Without Window Functions
Replace the above UNION with a GROUP BY the first (MIN()) name for each non-NULL id:
...
UNION ALL
SELECT MIN(name) AS name, id
FROM persons
WHERE id IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY id
It seems like the main problem is the layout of your database. I don't know the details of your specific application, but having multiple rows and null IDs for the same person is usually a bad idea. If possible you may want to consider creating a separate table for any of the information that requires multiple rows, with persons only containing one row per person and a unique identifier for each row.
But, if you can't do that... I don't think just a distinct is going to solve this problem.
What's the problem with:
select distinct name, id
from persons
where id is not null
Do you have some persons that have a name, but not an ID? Or do you need some specific data from the other rows?
Here's another problem: if there are two rows with the same name and null IDs, and multiple people with the same name and different IDs, how do you know which person the null rows match?
(I don't think I have titled this question correctly - but I don't know how to describe it)
Here is what I am trying to do:
Let's say I have a Person table that has a PersonID field. And let's say that a Person can belong to many Groups. So there is a Group table with a GroupID field and a GroupMembership table that is a many-to-many join between the two tables and the GroupMembership table has a PersonID field and a GroupID field. So far, it is a simple many to many join.
Given a list of GroupIDs I would like to be able to write a query that returns all of the people that are in ALL of those groups (not any one of those groups). And the query should be able to handle any number of GroupIDs. I would like to avoid dynamic SQL.
Is there some simple way of doing this that I am missing?
Thanks,
Corey
select person_id, count(*) from groupmembership
where group_id in ([your list of group ids])
group by person_id
having count(*) = [size of your list of group ids]
Edited: thank you dotjoe!
Basically you are looking for Persons for whom there is no group he is not a member of, so
select *
from Person p
where not exists (
select 1
from Group g
where not exists (
select 1
from GroupMembership gm
where gm.PersonID = p.ID
and gm.GroupID = g.ID
)
)
You're basically not going to avoid "dynamic" SQL in the sense of dynamically generating the query at query time. There's no way to hand a list around in SQL (well, there is, table variables, but getting them into the system from C# is either impossible (2005 & below) or else annoying (2008)).
One way that you could do it with multiple queries is to insert your list into a work table (probably a process-keyed table) and join against that table. The only other option would be to use a dynamic query such as the ones specified by Jonathan and hongliang.