I'm a little confused with my data, postgres returns wrong value with a simple count(*)
I use a :
select count(*) from DimUsers
it returns : 74280
this one :
select count(*) from DimUsers group by user_type
Returns :
72134,12288, 89850
this one :
select * from DimUser
displays a table of 1674280 rows
And my full database is estimated by pgadmin to 1674280 rows.
I can't see what is wrong with it, this happened to anyone before?
I recently encountered a similar problem. However I found that pgAdmin 3 was in fact returning the correct count value, except the column size for the count column was not auto-sized correctly to fit the data and thus it seemed like it was only returning the last 5 digits of the count. Increasing the size of the count column by using the column resize on the header row allows you to see the full number, but unfortunately you have to do this for every query you run.
As noted by rachekalmir the issue is pgAdmin 3. You can overcome this by giving "count" a longer column name. then you will see the full number.
select count(*) as mybiggggcount from DimUsers
Related
I'm trying to use SELECT id FROM table TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM_ROWS(1) for selecting 1 random row, but I always get first row, so it's not random.
But I realized that I get this problem only with the newly created table, because same query for the old table gives correct random results. I already tried to reindex table with this problem, but unfortunately it didn't help.
So, how can I get correct random output using TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM_ROWS(1)?
I am getting this error in the pg production mode, but its working fine in sqlite3 development mode.
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid in ManagementController#index
PG::Error: ERROR: column "estates.id" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
LINE 1: SELECT "estates".* FROM "estates" WHERE "estates"."Mgmt" = ...
^
: SELECT "estates".* FROM "estates" WHERE "estates"."Mgmt" = 'Mazzey' GROUP BY user_id
#myestate = Estate.where(:Mgmt => current_user.Company).group(:user_id).all
If user_id is the PRIMARY KEY then you need to upgrade PostgreSQL; newer versions will correctly handle grouping by the primary key.
If user_id is neither unique nor the primary key for the 'estates' relation in question, then this query doesn't make much sense, since PostgreSQL has no way to know which value to return for each column of estates where multiple rows share the same user_id. You must use an aggregate function that expresses what you want, like min, max, avg, string_agg, array_agg, etc or add the column(s) of interest to the GROUP BY.
Alternately you can rephrase the query to use DISTINCT ON and an ORDER BY if you really do want to pick a somewhat arbitrary row, though I really doubt it's possible to express that via ActiveRecord.
Some databases - including SQLite and MySQL - will just pick an arbitrary row. This is considered incorrect and unsafe by the PostgreSQL team, so PostgreSQL follows the SQL standard and considers such queries to be errors.
If you have:
col1 col2
fred 42
bob 9
fred 44
fred 99
and you do:
SELECT col1, col2 FROM mytable GROUP BY col1;
then it's obvious that you should get the row:
bob 9
but what about the result for fred? There is no single correct answer to pick, so the database will refuse to execute such unsafe queries. If you wanted the greatest col2 for any col1 you'd use the max aggregate:
SELECT col1, max(col2) AS max_col2 FROM mytable GROUP BY col1;
I recently moved from MySQL to PostgreSQL and encountered the same issue. Just for reference, the best approach I've found is to use DISTINCT ON as suggested in this SO answer:
Elegant PostgreSQL Group by for Ruby on Rails / ActiveRecord
This will let you get one record for each unique value in your chosen column that matches the other query conditions:
MyModel.where(:some_col => value).select("DISTINCT ON (unique_col) *")
I prefer DISTINCT ON because I can still get all the other column values in the row. DISTINCT alone will only return the value of that specific column.
After often receiving the error myself I realised that Rails (I am using rails 4) automatically adds an 'order by id' at the end of your grouping query. This often results in the error above. So make sure you append your own .order(:group_by_column) at the end of your Rails query. Hence you will have something like this:
#problems = Problem.select('problems.username, sum(problems.weight) as weight_sum').group('problems.username').order('problems.username')
#myestate1 = Estate.where(:Mgmt => current_user.Company)
#myestate = #myestate1.select("DISTINCT(user_id)")
this is what I did.
I have two tables on a Sql Server 2008.
ownership with 3 fields and case with another 3 fields I need to join both on the ID field (bigint).
For testing purposes I'm only using one field from each table. This field is bigint and has values from 1 to 170 (for now).
My query is:
SELECT DISTINCT
ownership.fCase,
case.id
FROM
ownership LEFT JOIN case ON (case.id=ownership.fCase)
WHERE
ownership.dUser='demo'
This was expected to return 4 rows with the same values on both columns. Problem is that the last row of the right table comes as null for the fCase = 140. This is the only value above 100.
If I run the query without the WHERE clause it show all rows on the left table but the values on the right only apear if below 101 otherwise shows null.
Can someone help me, am I doing something wrong or is this a limitation or a bug?
Case is also a verb so it may be getting confused. Try your table and column names in []. E.G. [case].[id] = [ownership].[fCase]. Are you like double check sure that [case].[id] and [ownership].[fCase] are both bigint. If your current values are 1-170 then why bigint (9,223,372,036,854,775,807)? Does that column accept nulls?
How do you do LIMIT in DB2 for iSeries?
I have a table with more than 50,000 records and I want to return records 0 to 10,000, and records 10,000 to 20,000.
I know in SQL you write LIMIT 0,10000 at the end of the query for 0 to 10,000 and LIMIT 10000,10000 at the end of the query for 10000 to 20,000
So, how is this done in DB2? Whats the code and syntax?
(full query example is appreciated)
Using FETCH FIRST [n] ROWS ONLY:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/dzichelp/v2r2/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db29.doc.perf/db2z_fetchfirstnrows.htm
SELECT LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME, EMPNO, SALARY
FROM EMP
ORDER BY SALARY DESC
FETCH FIRST 20 ROWS ONLY;
To get ranges, you'd have to use ROW_NUMBER() (since v5r4) and use that within the WHERE clause: (stolen from here: http://www.justskins.com/forums/db2-select-how-to-123209.html)
SELECT code, name, address
FROM (
SELECT row_number() OVER ( ORDER BY code ) AS rid, code, name, address
FROM contacts
WHERE name LIKE '%Bob%'
) AS t
WHERE t.rid BETWEEN 20 AND 25;
Developed this method:
You NEED a table that has an unique value that can be ordered.
If you want rows 10,000 to 25,000 and your Table has 40,000 rows, first you need to get the starting point and total rows:
int start = 40000 - 10000;
int total = 25000 - 10000;
And then pass these by code to the query:
SELECT * FROM
(SELECT * FROM schema.mytable
ORDER BY userId DESC fetch first {start} rows only ) AS mini
ORDER BY mini.userId ASC fetch first {total} rows only
Support for OFFSET and LIMIT was recently added to DB2 for i 7.1 and 7.2. You need the following DB PTF group levels to get this support:
SF99702 level 9 for IBM i 7.2
SF99701 level 38 for IBM i 7.1
See here for more information: OFFSET and LIMIT documentation, DB2 for i Enhancement Wiki
Here's the solution I came up with:
select FIELD from TABLE where FIELD > LASTVAL order by FIELD fetch first N rows only;
By initializing LASTVAL to 0 (or '' for a text field), then setting it to the last value in the most recent set of records, this will step through the table in chunks of N records.
#elcool's solution is a smart idea, but you need to know total number of rows (which can even change while you are executing the query!). So I propose a modified version, which unfortunately needs 3 subqueries instead of 2:
select * from (
select * from (
select * from MYLIB.MYTABLE
order by MYID asc
fetch first {last} rows only
) I
order by MYID desc
fetch first {length} rows only
) II
order by MYID asc
where {last} should be replaced with row number of the last record I need and {length} should be replaced with the number of rows I need, calculated as last row - first row + 1.
E.g. if I want rows from 10 to 25 (totally 16 rows), {last} will be 25 and {length} will be 25-10+1=16.
Try this
SELECT * FROM
(
SELECT T.*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER() R FROM TABLE T
)
WHERE R BETWEEN 10000 AND 20000
The LIMIT clause allows you to limit the number of rows returned by the query. The LIMIT clause is an extension of the SELECT statement that has the following syntax:
SELECT select_list
FROM table_name
ORDER BY sort_expression
LIMIT n [OFFSET m];
In this syntax:
n is the number of rows to be returned.
m is the number of rows to skip before returning the n rows.
Another shorter version of LIMIT clause is as follows:
LIMIT m, n;
This syntax means skipping m rows and returning the next n rows from the result set.
A table may store rows in an unspecified order. If you don’t use the ORDER BY clause with the LIMIT clause, the returned rows are also unspecified. Therefore, it is a good practice to always use the ORDER BY clause with the LIMIT clause.
See Db2 LIMIT for more details.
You should also consider the OPTIMIZE FOR n ROWS clause. More details on all of this in the DB2 LUW documentation in the Guidelines for restricting SELECT statements topic:
The OPTIMIZE FOR clause declares the intent to retrieve only a subset of the result or to give priority to retrieving only the first few rows. The optimizer can then choose access plans that minimize the response time for retrieving the first few rows.
There are 2 solutions to paginate efficiently on a DB2 table :
1 - the technique using the function row_number() and the clause OVER which has been presented on another post ("SELECT row_number() OVER ( ORDER BY ... )"). On some big tables, I noticed sometimes a degradation of performances.
2 - the technique using a scrollable cursor. The implementation depends of the language used. That technique seems more robust on big tables.
I presented the 2 techniques implemented in PHP during a seminar next year. The slide is available on this link :
http://gregphplab.com/serendipity/uploads/slides/DB2_PHP_Best_practices.pdf
Sorry but this document is only in french.
Theres these available options:-
DB2 has several strategies to cope with this problem.
You can use the "scrollable cursor" in feature.
In this case you can open a cursor and, instead of re-issuing a query you can FETCH forward and backward.
This works great if your application can hold state since it doesn't require DB2 to rerun the query every time.
You can use the ROW_NUMBER() OLAP function to number rows and then return the subset you want.
This is ANSI SQL
You can use the ROWNUM pseudo columns which does the same as ROW_NUMBER() but is suitable if you have Oracle skills.
You can use LIMIT and OFFSET if you are more leaning to a mySQL or PostgreSQL dialect.
I have a table in my database and I want for each row in my table to have an unique id and to have the rows named sequently.
For example: I have 10 rows, each has an id - starting from 0, ending at 9. When I remove a row from a table, lets say - row number 5, there occurs a "hole". And afterwards I add more data, but the "hole" is still there.
It is important for me to know exact number of rows and to have at every row data in order to access my table arbitrarily.
There is a way in sqlite to do it? Or do I have to manually manage removing and adding of data?
Thank you in advance,
Ilya.
It may be worth considering whether you really want to do this. Primary keys usually should not change through the lifetime of the row, and you can always find the total number of rows by running:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table_name;
That said, the following trigger should "roll down" every ID number whenever a delete creates a hole:
CREATE TRIGGER sequentialize_ids AFTER DELETE ON table_name FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
UPDATE table_name SET id=id-1 WHERE id > OLD.id;
END;
I tested this on a sample database and it appears to work as advertised. If you have the following table:
id name
1 First
2 Second
3 Third
4 Fourth
And delete where id=2, afterwards the table will be:
id name
1 First
2 Third
3 Fourth
This trigger can take a long time and has very poor scaling properties (it takes longer for each row you delete and each remaining row in the table). On my computer, deleting 15 rows at the beginning of a 1000 row table took 0.26 seconds, but this will certainly be longer on an iPhone.
I strongly suggest that you re-think your design. In my opinion your asking yourself for troubles in the future (e.g. if you create another table and want to have some relations between the tables).
If you want to know the number of rows just use:
SELECT count(*) FROM table_name;
If you want to access rows in the order of id, just define this field using PRIMARY KEY constraint:
CREATE TABLE test (
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
...
);
and get rows using ORDER BY clause with ASC or DESC:
SELECT * FROM table_name ORDER BY id ASC;
Sqlite creates an index for the primary key field, so this query is fast.
I think that you would be interested in reading about LIMIT and OFFSET clauses.
The best source of information is the SQLite documentation.
If you don't want to take Stephen Jennings's very clever but performance-killing approach, just query a little differently. Instead of:
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE id = ?
Do:
SELECT * FROM mytable ORDER BY id LIMIT 1 OFFSET ?
Note that OFFSET is zero-based, so you may need to subtract 1 from the variable you're indexing in with.
If you want to reclaim deleted row ids the VACUUM command or pragma may be what you seek,
http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q12
http://www.sqlite.org/lang_vacuum.html
http://www.sqlite.org/pragma.html#pragma_auto_vacuum