I am keep getting 'syntax error at end of input' and don't know why.
What I want to do is divide result of disease by result of total with showing condition_id in disease section.
select disease.condition_id, (disease::float/total::float) as prevalence
from (
select condition_id, count(person_id)
from a.condition
where condition_id=316139
group by condition_id
) as disease
join (
select count(distinct person_id) as total
from a.person
)as total;
Can someone please help me with this?
Thanks!
I don't have an exact fix for your current syntax, but I would phrase this query as a join with an aggregation over the entire tables:
SELECT
COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE c.condition_id = 316139) /
COUNT(DISTINCT p.person_id) AS prevalence
FROM a.person p
LEFT JOIN a.condition c
ON p.person_id = c.person_id;
The main reason for your error is the missing join condition. The join operator requires a join condition (defined using ON).
But given the structure of your query I think you don't actually want a inner join, but a cross join between the two.
Additionally the expression disease::float is trying to cast a complete row to a float value, not a single column. I assume you wanted to alias the count aggregate to something, e.g. count(person_id) as num_persons
Using total::float is also ambiguous as you have a sub-query alias with that name and a column with that name. That is highly confusing, you should avoid that.
select disease.condition_id,
(disease.num_person::float / total.total::float) as prevalence
from (
select condition_id, count(person_id) as num_person
from a.condition
where condition_id = 316139
group by condition_id
) as disease
cross join (
select count(distinct person_id) as total
from a.person
) as total
A total beginner's question: I wanted to run a sub-query with GROUP BY statement, and then find out a row with maximum value in the result. I have built an expression like that below:
SELECT agg.facid, agg.Slots
FROM
(SELECT facid AS facid, SUM(slots) AS Slots FROM cd.bookings
GROUP BY facid
ORDER BY SUM(slots) DESC) AS agg
WHERE agg.Slots = (SELECT MAX(Slots) FROM agg);
In my mind, this should first create a 2-column table with facid and SUM(slots) values, and then by addressing these columns as agg.facid and agg.Slots I should get only the row with max value in "Slots". However, instead I am getting this error:
ERROR: relation "agg" does not exist
LINE 6: WHERE agg.Slots = (SELECT MAX(Slots) FROM agg);
This is probably something very simple, so I am sorry in advance for a silly problem ;)
I am working on PostgreSQL 10, with pgAdmin 4.
Use a Common Table Expression:
WITH agg AS (
SELECT facid AS facid, SUM(slots) AS Slots
FROM cd.bookings
GROUP BY facid
)
SELECT agg.facid, agg.Slots
FROM agg
WHERE agg.Slots = (SELECT MAX(Slots) FROM agg);
So a bit more of a research, and I figured a solution which might be clean enough to my liking, using a Common Table Expression:
WITH sum AS (SELECT facid, SUM(slots) AS Slots FROM cd.bookings GROUP BY facid)
SELECT facid, Slots
FROM sum
WHERE Slots = (SELECT MAX(Slots) FROM sum);
The first line declares a CTE, which can later be called for a sub-query calculating what is the max value in aggregated slots column.
Hope it helps anyone interested.
Does this do what you are looking for?
SELECT
facid,
SUM(slots)
FROM cd.bookings
GROUP BY
facid
HAVING SUM(slots) = MAX(slots)
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)
SELECT DISTINCT a.s_id, select2Result.s_id, select2Result."mNrPhone",
select2Result."dNrPhone"
FROM "Table1" AS a INNER JOIN
(
SELECT b.s_id, c."mNrPhone", c."dNrPhone" FROM "Table2" AS b, "Table3" AS c
WHERE b.a_id = 1001 AND b.s_id = c.s_id
ORDER BY b.last_name) AS select2Result
ON a.a_id = select2Result.student_id
WHERE a.k_id = 11211
It returns:
1001;1001;"";""
1002;1002;"";""
1002;1002;"2342342232123";"2342342"
1003;1003;"";""
1004;1004;"";""
1002 value is repeated twice, but it shouldn't because I used DISTINCT and no other table has an id repeated twice.
You can use DISTINCT ON like this:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (a.s_id)
a.s_id, select2Result.s_id, select2Result."mNrPhone",
select2Result."dNrPhone"
...
But like other persons have told you, the "repeated records" are different really.
The qualifier DISTINCT applies to the entire row, not to the first column in the select-list. Since columns 3 and 4 (mNrPhone and dNrPhone) are different for the two rows with s_id = 1002, the DBMS correctly lists both rows. You have to write your query differently if you only want the s_id = 1002 to appear once, and you have to decide which auxilliary data you want shown.
As an aside, it is strongly recommended that you always use the explicit JOIN notation (which was introduced in SQL-92) in all queries and sub-queries. Do not use the old implicit join notation (which is all that was available in SQL-86 or SQL-89), and especially do not use a mixture of explicit and implicit join notations (where your sub-query uses the implicit join, but the main query uses explicit join). You need to know the old notation so you can understand old queries. You should write new queries in the new notation.
First of all, the query displayed does not work at all, student_id is missing in the sub-query. You use it in the JOIN later.
More interestingly:
Pick a certain row out of a set with DISTINCT
DISTINCT and DISTINCT ON return distinct values by sorting all rows according to the set of columns to be distinct, then it picks the first row from every set. It sorts by all rows for a general DISTINCT and only the specified rows for DISTINCT ON. Here lies the opportunity to pick certain rows out of a set over other.
For instance if you prefer rows with not-empty "mNrPhone" in your example:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (a.s_id) -- sure you didn't want a.a_id?
,a.s_id AS a_s_id -- use aliases to avoid dupe name
,s.s_id AS s_s_id
,s."mNrPhone"
,s."dNrPhone"
FROM "Table1" a
JOIN (
SELECT b.s_id, c."mNrPhone", c."dNrPhone", ??.student_id -- misssing!
FROM "Table2" b
JOIN "Table3" c USING (s_id)
WHERE b.a_id = 1001
-- ORDER BY b.last_name -- pointless, DISTINCT will re-order
) s ON a.a_id = s.student_id
WHERE a.k_id = 11211
ORDER BY a.s_id -- first col must agree with DISTINCT ON, could add DESC though
,("mNrPhone" <> '') DESC -- non-empty first
ORDER BY cannot disagree with DISTINCT on the same query level. To get around this you can either use GROUP BY instead or put the whole query in a sub-query and run another SELECT with ORDER BY on it.
The ORDER BY you had in the sub-query is voided now.
In this particular case, if - as it seems - the dupes come only from the sub-query (you'd have to verify), you could instead:
SELECT a.a_id, s.s_id, s."mNrPhone", s."dNrPhone" -- picking a.a_id over s_id
FROM "Table1" a
JOIN (
SELECT DISTINCT ON (b.s_id)
,b.s_id, c."mNrPhone", c."dNrPhone", ??.student_id -- misssing!
FROM "Table2" b
JOIN "Table3" c USING (s_id)
WHERE b.a_id = 1001
ORDER BY b.s_id, (c."mNrPhone" <> '') DESC -- pick non-empty first
) s ON a.a_id = s.student_id
WHERE a.k_id = 11211
ORDER BY a.a_id -- now you can ORDER BY freely
This query for creating a list of Candidate duplicates is easy enough:
SELECT Count(*), Can_FName, Can_HPhone, Can_EMail
FROM Can
GROUP BY Can_FName, Can_HPhone, Can_EMail
HAVING Count(*) > 1
But if the actual rule I want to check against is FName and (HPhone OR Email) - how can I adjust the GROUP BY to work with this?
I'm fairly certain I'm going to end up with a UNION SELECT here (i.e. do FName, HPhone on one and FName, EMail on the other and combine the results) - but I'd love to know if anyone knows an easier way to do it.
Thank you in advance for any help.
Scott in Maine
Before I can advise anything, I need to know the answer to this question:
name phone email
John 555-00-00 john#example.com
John 555-00-01 john#example.com
John 555-00-01 john-other#example.com
What COUNT(*) you want for this data?
Update:
If you just want to know that a record has any duplicates, use this:
WITH q AS (
SELECT 1 AS id, 'John' AS name, '555-00-00' AS phone, 'john#example.com' AS email
UNION ALL
SELECT 2 AS id, 'John', '555-00-01', 'john#example.com'
UNION ALL
SELECT 3 AS id, 'John', '555-00-01', 'john-other#example.com'
UNION ALL
SELECT 4 AS id, 'James', '555-00-00', 'james#example.com'
UNION ALL
SELECT 5 AS id, 'James', '555-00-01', 'james-other#example.com'
)
SELECT *
FROM q qo
WHERE EXISTS
(
SELECT NULL
FROM q qi
WHERE qi.id <> qo.id
AND qi.name = qo.name
AND (qi.phone = qo.phone OR qi.email = qo.email)
)
It's more efficient, but doesn't tell you where the duplicate chain started.
This query select all entries along with the special field, chainid, that indicates where the duplicate chain started.
WITH q AS (
SELECT 1 AS id, 'John' AS name, '555-00-00' AS phone, 'john#example.com' AS email
UNION ALL
SELECT 2 AS id, 'John', '555-00-01', 'john#example.com'
UNION ALL
SELECT 3 AS id, 'John', '555-00-01', 'john-other#example.com'
UNION ALL
SELECT 4 AS id, 'James', '555-00-00', 'james#example.com'
UNION ALL
SELECT 5 AS id, 'James', '555-00-01', 'james-other#example.com'
),
dup AS (
SELECT id AS chainid, id, name, phone, email, 1 as d
FROM q
UNION ALL
SELECT chainid, qo.id, qo.name, qo.phone, qo.email, d + 1
FROM dup
JOIN q qo
ON qo.name = dup.name
AND (qo.phone = dup.phone OR qo.email = dup.email)
AND qo.id > dup.id
),
chains AS
(
SELECT *
FROM dup do
WHERE chainid NOT IN
(
SELECT id
FROM dup di
WHERE di.chainid < do.chainid
)
)
SELECT *
FROM chains
ORDER BY
chainid
None of these answers is correct. Quassnoi's is a decent approach, but you will notice one fatal flaw in the expressions "qo.id > dup.id" and "di.chainid < do.chainid": comparisons made by ID! This is ALWAYS bad practice because it depends on some inherent ordering in the IDs. IDs should NEVER be given any implicit meaning and should ONLY participate in equality or null testing. You can easily break Quassnoi's solution in this example by simply reordering the IDs in the data.
The essential problem is a disjunctive condition with a grouping, which leads to the possibility of two records being related through an intermediate, though they are not directly relatable.
e.g., you stated these records should all be grouped:
(1) John 555-00-00 john#example.com
(2) John 555-00-01 john#example.com
(3) John 555-00-01 john-other#example.com
You can see that #1 and #2 are relatable, as are #2 and #3, but clearly #1 and #3 are not directly relatable as a group.
This establishes that a recursive or iterative solution is the ONLY possible solution.
So, recursion is not viable since you can easily end up in a looping situation. This is what Quassnoi was trying to avoid with his ID comparisons, but in doing so he broke the algorithm. You could try limiting the levels of recursion, but you may not then complete all relations, and you will still potentially be following loops back upon yourself, leading to excessive data size and prohibitive inefficiency.
The best solution is ITERATIVE: Start a result set by tagging each ID as a unique group ID, and then spin through the result set and update it, combining IDs into the same unique group ID as they match on the disjunctive condition. Repeat the process on the updated set each time until no further updates can be made.
I will create example code for this soon.
GROUP BY doesn't support OR - it's implicitly AND and must include every non-aggregator in the select list.
I assume you also have a unique ID integer as the primary key on this table. If you don't, it's a good idea to have one, for this purpose and many others.
Find those duplicates by a self-join:
select
c1.ID
, c1.Can_FName
, c1.Can_HPhone
, c1.Can_Email
, c2.ID
, c2.Can_FName
, c2.Can_HPhone
, c2.Can_Email
from
(
select
min(ID),
Can_FName,
Can_HPhone,
Can_Email
from Can
group by
Can_FName,
Can_HPhone,
Can_Email
) c1
inner join Can c2 on c1.ID < c2.ID
where
c1.Can_FName = c2.Can_FName
and (c1.Can_HPhone = c2.Can_HPhone OR c1.Can_Email = c2.Can_Email)
order by
c1.ID
The query gives you N-1 rows for each N duplicate combinations - if you want just a count along with each unique combination, count the rows grouped by the "left" side:
select count(1) + 1,
, c1.Can_FName
, c1.Can_HPhone
, c1.Can_Email
from
(
select
min(ID),
Can_FName,
Can_HPhone,
Can_Email
from Can
group by
Can_FName,
Can_HPhone,
Can_Email
) c1
inner join Can c2 on c1.ID < c2.ID
where
c1.Can_FName = c2.Can_FName
and (c1.Can_HPhone = c2.Can_HPhone OR c1.Can_Email = c2.Can_Email)
group by
c1.Can_FName
, c1.Can_HPhone
, c1.Can_Email
Granted, this is more involved than a union - but I think it illustrates a good way of thinking about duplicates.
Project the desired transformation first from a derived table, then do the aggregation:
SELECT COUNT(*)
, CAN_FName
, Can_HPhoneOrEMail
FROM (
SELECT Can_FName
, ISNULL(Can_HPhone,'') + ISNULL(Can_EMail,'') AS Can_HPhoneOrEMail
FROM Can) AS Can_Transformed
GROUP BY Can_FName, Can_HPhoneOrEMail
HAVING Count(*) > 1
Adjust your 'OR' operation as needed in the derived table project list.
I know this answer will be criticised for the use of the temp table, but it will work anyway:
-- create temp table to give the table a unique key
create table #tmp(
ID int identity,
can_Fname varchar(200) null, -- real type and len here
can_HPhone varchar(200) null, -- real type and len here
can_Email varchar(200) null, -- real type and len here
)
-- just copy the rows where a duplicate fname exits
-- (better performance specially for a big table)
insert into #tmp
select can_fname,can_hphone,can_email
from Can
where can_fname exists in (select can_fname from Can
group by can_fname having count(*)>1)
-- select the rows that have the same fname and
-- at least the same phone or email
select can_Fname, can_Hphone, can_Email
from #tmp a where exists
(select * from #tmp b where
a.ID<>b.ID and A.can_fname = b.can_fname
and (isnull(a.can_HPhone,'')=isnull(b.can_HPhone,'')
or (isnull(a.can_email,'')=isnull(b.can_email,'') )
Try this:
SELECT Can_FName, COUNT(*)
FROM (
SELECT
rank() over(partition by Can_FName order by Can_FName,Can_HPhone) rnk_p,
rank() over(partition by Can_FName order by Can_FName,Can_EMail) rnk_m,
Can_FName
FROM Can
) X
WHERE rnk_p=1 or rnk_m =1
GROUP BY Can_FName
HAVING COUNT(*)>1