Postgres - using select statement inside CASE WHEN - postgresql

Inside case when condition I am executing select statement & if returns anything then I need to get it's value but I am getting error
ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table "us"
query is..
SELECT u.user_id,
CASE
WHEN
(SELECT us.attr_value
FROM user_setting us
WHERE us.user_id = u.user_id) IS NOT NULL THEN us.attr_value
ELSE
(SELECT gus.attr_value
FROM global_user_setting gus
WHERE gus.attr_key='key')
END
FROM user u
WHERE u.user_id IN (1,
2,3)
Error comes at IS NOT NULL THEN us.attr_value I understood the issue but couldn't find how to get that value outside select statement?

Try:
COALESCE((SELECT us.attr_value
FROM user_setting us
WHERE us.user_id = u.user_id),
(SELECT us.attr_value
FROM global_user_setting gs
WHERE gus.attr_key='key'))
instead. The reason for the problem is, that the binding of the es alias is not visible outside of the sub-select (as it is used in a "scalar" context). The whole subselect is basically a single expression, which will yield a single value.
Another (IMHO better) approach would be to left-join on the enrollment_settings table:
SELECT u.user_id,
COALESCE(us.attr_value, (SELECT gus.attr_value
FROM global_user_setting gs
WHERE gus.attr_key='key'))
FROM user u LEFT JOIN user_settings es ON us.user_id = u.user_id
WHERE u.user_id IN (1, 2, 3)
I assume here, that this join would yield at most a single row per row of user.

Related

Postgres string_agg function not recognized as aggregate function

I am attempting to run this query
SELECT u.*, string_agg(CAST(uar.roleid AS VARCHAR(100)), ',') AS roleids, string_agg(CAST(r.role AS VARCHAR(100)), ',') AS systemroles
FROM idpro.users AS u
INNER JOIN idpro.userapplicationroles AS uar ON u.id = uar.userid
INNER JOIN idpro.roles AS r ON r.id = uar.roleid
GROUP BY u.id, uar.applicationid
HAVING u.organizationid = '77777777-f892-4f4a-8328-c31df32bd6ba'
AND uar.applicationid = 'd88fbf05-c048-4697-8bf3-036f39897183'
AND (u.statusid = '7f9f0b75-44b7-4216-bf2a-03abc47dcff8')
AND uar.roleid IN ('cc9ada1c-fa21-400b-be98-c563ebb65a9c','de087148-4788-43da-89e2-dd7dff097735');
However, I'm getting an error stating that
ERROR: column "uar.roleid" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
LINE 9: AND uar.roleid IN ('cc9ada1c-fa21-400b-be98-c563ebb65a9c','...
string_agg() IS an aggregate function, is it not? My intent, if it isn't obvious, is to return each user record with the roleids and rolenames in comma-delimited lists. If I am doing everything wrong, could you please point me in the right direction?
You are filtering the data, so a WHERE clause would be needed. This tutorial is worth reading.
SELECT u.*,
string_agg(CAST(uar.roleid AS VARCHAR(100)), ',') AS roleids,
string_agg(CAST(r.role AS VARCHAR(100)), ',') AS systemroles
FROM idpro.users AS u
INNER JOIN idpro.userapplicationroles AS uar ON u.id = uar.userid
INNER JOIN idpro.roles AS r ON r.id = uar.roleid
WHERE u.organizationid = '77777777-f892-4f4a-8328-c31df32bd6ba'
AND uar.applicationid = 'd88fbf05-c048-4697-8bf3-036f39897183'
AND (u.statusid = '7f9f0b75-44b7-4216-bf2a-03abc47dcff8')
AND uar.roleid IN ('cc9ada1c-fa21-400b-be98-c563ebb65a9c','de087148-4788-43da-89e2-dd7dff097735');
GROUP BY u.id, uar.applicationid
The HAVING clause is helpful for filtering the aggregated values or the groups.
Since you are grouping by u.id, the table primary key you have access to every column of the u table. You can either use a where clause or a having clause.
For uar.applicationid, it is part of the group by so you can also use either a where or a having.
uar.roleid is not part of the group by clause, so to be usable in the having clause, you would have to consider the aggregated value.
The following example filters out rows whose aggregated length is more than 10 chars.
HAVING length(string_agg(CAST(uar.roleid AS VARCHAR(100)), ',')) > 10
A more common usage, on numerical field, is to filter out if the number of aggregated rows is less than a threshold (having count(*) > 2) or a sum of some kind (having sum(vacation_days) > 21)

TSQL -- Where Statements on Multiple columns in Update

My basic question has to do with updating multiple columns at once from specified values in my query. The reason I want to do this is that I am updating my values from a ginormous table so I only want to query it once in order to reduce run time. Here is an example of an example select statement that returns the value I want for just one of the columns I need to update:
select a.Value
from Table1
left outer join
(
select ID, FilterCol1, FilterCol2, Value
from Table2
) a on a.ID = Table1.ID
where {Condition1a on FilterCol1}
and {Condition2a on FilterCol2}
In order to update multiple columns at once I would like to be able do something like this (but it returns NULL):
Update T1
set T1Value1 = (select a.Value where {Condition1a on FilterCol1}
and {Condition2a on FilterCol2)
,T1Value2 = (select a.Value where {Condition1b on FilterCol1}
and {Condition2b on FilterCol2})
from Table1 T1
left outer join
(
select ID, FilterCol1, FilterCol2, Value
from Table2
) a on a.ID = Table1.ID
Any help figuring this out would be greatly appreciated, let me know if you have any questions or if I made any errors. Thanks!
EDIT: I think I have identified the problem, but I'm not sure of a solution yet. I think seeing the issue requires a little more context: The select from table 2 is actually an unpivot on a wide table. This means that when the left outer join is applied, there will be multiple rows for a given ID. What the case statement that Earl suggested seems to be doing (and I assume this is happening with the where clause as well) is comparing my Conditions to only the first row of the columns from a. Since my conditions are meant to help determine which of the rows from a is chosen, they will always evaluate false for the first row (I know this just from what I know about the data), hence my perpetual NULL values. Does anyone know of a workaround to look at the other rows in a?
UPDATE T1
SET T1Value1 = CASE WHEN (FilterCol1 = Condition1a AND FilterCol2 = Condition2a) THEN a.Value END,
T1Value2 = CASE WHEN (FilterCol1 = Condition1b AND FilterCol2 = Condition2b) THEN a.Value END
FROM Table1 T1
left outer join
(
select ID, FilterCol1, FilterCol2, Value
) a on a.ID = Table1.ID

Updating a CTE table fail cause of derived or constant field

I'm using MS-SQL 2012
WITH C1
(
SELECT ID, 0 as Match, Field2, Count(*)
FROM TableX
GROUP BY ID, Fields2
)
UPDATE C1 SET Match = 1
WHERE ID = (SELECT MATCHING_ID FROM AnotherTable WHERE ID = C1.ID)
This TSQL statement gives me the following error:
Update or insert of view or function 'C1' failed because it contains a derived or constant field.
Ideally I would like to create a "fake field" named Match and set its default value to 0. Then with the update I would like to Update ONLY the records that have an existing entry on the "AnotherTable".
Any thoughts what am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advanced.
Try doing a Left Outer Join like
SELECT x.ID, ISNULL(a.Matching_ID, 0) as Match, x.Field2, Count(*)
FROM TableX x
LEFT OUTER JOIN AnotherTable a on x.ID = a.ID
GROUP BY x.ID, ISNULL(a.Matching_ID, 0), x.Fields2
without the need of a C1
If I am understanding correctly, the problem is that you are trying to update the CTE table. If you update the table directly you should be fine.
Does this modified version help?
SELECT t.ID
, CASE WHEN (EXISTS (SELECT MATCHING_ID FROM AnotherTable WHERE ID = t.ID)) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END
,t.Field2
,Count(*)
FROM TableX t
GROUP BY ID, Fields2

Postgres join not respecting outer where clause

In SQL Server, I know for sure that the following query;
SELECT things.*
FROM things
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT thingreadings.thingid, reading
FROM thingreadings
INNER JOIN things on thingreadings.thingid = things.id
ORDER BY reading DESC LIMIT 1) AS readings
ON things.id = readings.thingid
WHERE things.id = '1'
Would join against thingreadings only once the WHERE id = 1 had restricted the record set down. It left joins against just one row. However in order for performance to be acceptable in postgres, I have to add the WHERE id= 1 to the INNER JOIN things on thingreadings.thingid = things.id line too.
This isn't ideal; is it possible to force postgres to know that what I am joining against is only one row without explicitly adding the WHERE clauses everywhere?
An example of this problem can be seen here;
I am trying to recreate the following query in a more efficient way;
SELECT things.id, things.name,
(SELECT thingreadings.id FROM thingreadings WHERE thingid = things.id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1),
(SELECT thingreadings.reading FROM thingreadings WHERE thingid = things.id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1)
FROM things
WHERE id IN (1,2)
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!15/a172c/2
Not really sure why you did all that work. Isn't the inner query enough?
SELECT t.*
FROM thingreadings tr
INNER JOIN things t on tr.thingid = t.id AND t.id = '1'
ORDER BY tr.reading DESC
LIMIT 1;
sqlfiddle demo
When you want to select the latest value for each thingID, you can do:
SELECT t.*,a.reading
FROM things t
INNER JOIN (
SELECT t1.*
FROM thingreadings t1
LEFT JOIN thingreadings t2
ON (t1.thingid = t2.thingid AND t1.reading < t2.reading)
WHERE t2.thingid IS NULL
) a ON a.thingid = t.id
sqlfiddle demo
The derived table gets you the record with the most recent reading, then the JOIN gets you the information from things table for that record.
The where clause in SQL applies to the result set you're requesting, NOT to the join.
What your code is NOT saying: "do this join only for the ID of 1"...
What your code IS saying: "do this join, then pull records out of it where the ID is 1"...
This is why you need the inner where clause. Incidentally, I also think Filipe is right about the unnecessary code.

IS IN (Select statement, 'value', 'value')

I am trying to run the following SQL
DELETE FROM T_ATH_POSHLD WHERE T_ATH_POSHLD.A_INSID IN (SELECT T_ATH_POSHLD.A_INSID FROM T_ATH_POSHLD LEFT JOIN T_ATH_INS ON T_ATH_POSHLD.A_INSID = T_ATH_INS.A_INSID WHERE T_ATH_INS.A_INSCLSCDE1 = 'CASH' AND T_ATH_POSHLD.A_INSID NOT IN (SELECT A_INSID FROM T_ATH_CCY) AND A_ACCID IN (SELECT A_ACCID FROM T_ATH_EXTACC, '1212OEIC', '5667033ZS'))
and in particular, am trying to check whether an ACCID is in a set of values, some coming from a table and two hardcoded. How would I achieve this?
IN (SELECT A_ACCID FROM T_ATH_EXTACC, '1212OEIC', '5667033ZS')
Doesn't work, I get an 'Incorrect Syntax error'.
Thanks
You need to use UNION to add the 2 hardcoded values to the resultset that you are passing to the in clause.
IN (SELECT A_ACCID FROM T_ATH_EXTACC UNION ALL SELECT '1212OEIC' UNION ALL SELECT '5667033ZS')
IN (SELECT '1212OEIC', '5667033ZS', A_ACCID FROM T_ATH_EXTACC )