I'm using SQL Server 2000 (80). So, it's not possible to use the LAG function.
I have a code a data set with four columns:
Purchase_Date
Facility_no
Seller_id
Sale_id
I need to identify missing Sale_ids. So every sale_id is a 100% sequential, so the should not be any gaps in order.
This code works for a specific date and store if specified. But i need to work on entire data set looping looping through every facility_id and every seller_id for ever purchase_date
declare #MAXCOUNT int
set #MAXCOUNT =
(
select MAX(Sale_Id)
from #table
where
Facility_no in (124) and
Purchase_date = '2/7/2020'
and Seller_id = 1
)
;WITH TRX_COUNT AS
(
SELECT 1 AS Number
union all
select Number + 1 from TRX_COUNT
where Number < #MAXCOUNT
)
select * from TRX_COUNT
where
Number NOT IN
(
select Sale_Id
from #table
where
Facility_no in (124)
and Purchase_Date = '2/7/2020'
and seller_id = 1
)
order by Number
OPTION (maxrecursion 0)
My Dataset
This column:
case when
Sale_Id=0 or 1=Sale_Id-LAG(Sale_Id) over (partition by Facility_no, Purchase_Date, Seller_id)
then 'OK' else 'Previous Missing' end
will tell you which Seller_Ids have some sale missing. If you want to go a step further and have exactly your desired output, then filter out and distinct the 'Previous Missing' ones, and join with a tally table on not exists.
Edit: OP mentions in comments they can't use LAG(). My suggestion, then, would be:
Make a temp table that that has the max(sale_id) group by facility/seller_id
Then you can get your missing results by this pseudocode query:
Select ...
from temptable t
inner join tally N on t.maxsale <=N.num
where not exists( select ... from sourcetable s where s.facility=t.facility and s.seller=t.seller and s.sale=N.num)
> because the only way to "construct" nonexisting combinations is to construct them all and just remove the existing ones.
This one worked out
; WITH cte_Rn AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY Facility_no, Purchase_Date, Seller_id ORDER BY Purchase_Date) AS [Rn_Num]
FROM (
SELECT
Facility_no,
Purchase_Date,
Seller_id,
Sale_id
FROM MyTable WITH (NOLOCK)
) a
)
, cte_Rn_0 as (
SELECT
Facility_no,
Purchase_Date,
Seller_id,
Sale_id,
-- [Rn_Num] AS 'Skipped Sale'
-- , case when Sale_id = 0 Then [Rn_Num] - 1 Else [Rn_Num] End AS 'Skipped Sale for 0'
, [Rn_Num] - 1 AS 'Skipped Sale for 0'
FROM cte_Rn a
)
SELECT
Facility_no,
Purchase_Date,
Seller_id,
Sale_id,
-- [Skipped Sale],
[Skipped Sale for 0]
FROM cte_Rn_0 a
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(
select * from cte_Rn_0 b
where b.Sale_id = a.[Skipped Sale for 0]
and a.Facility_no = b.Facility_no
and a.Purchase_Date = b.Purchase_Date
and a.Seller_id = b.Seller_id
)
--ORDER BY Purchase_Date ASC
I am wanting to return the values that lie within 20% of the average value within the Duration column in my database.
I want to build on the code below but instead of returning Where Duration is less than the average value of duration I want to return all values which lay within 20% of the AVG(Duration) value.
Select * From table
Where Duration < (Select AVG(Duration) from table)
Here is one way...
Select * From table
Where Duration between (Select AVG(Duration)*0.8 from table)
and (Select AVG(Duration)*1.2 from table)
perhaps this to avoid repeated scans:
with cte as ( Select AVG(Duration) as AvgDuration from table )
Select * From table
Where Duration between (Select AvgDuration*0.8 from cte)
and (Select AvgDuration*1.2 from cte)
or
Select table.* From table
cross join ( Select AVG(Duration) as AvgDuration from table ) cj
Where Duration between cj.AvgDuration*0.8 and cj.AvgDuration*1.2
or using a window function:
Select d.*
from (
SELECT table.*
, AVG(Duration) OVER() as AvgDuration
From table
) d
Where d.Duration between d.AvgDuration*0.8 and d.AvgDuration*1.2
The last one might be the most efficient method.
I'm trying to update a column (pop_1_rank) in a postgresql table with the results from a rank() like so:
UPDATE database_final_form_merge
SET
pop_1_rank = r.rnk
FROM (
SELECT pop_1, RANK() OVER ( ORDER BY pop_1 DESC) FROM database_final_form_merge WHERE territory_name != 'north' AS rnk)r
The SELECT query by itself works fine, but I just can't get it to update correctly. What am I doing wrong here?
I rather use the CTE notation.
WITH cte as (
SELECT pop_1,
RANK() OVER ( ORDER BY pop_1 DESC) AS rnk
FROM database_final_form_merge
WHERE territory_name <> 'north'
)
UPDATE database_final_form_merge
SET pop_1_rank = cte.rnk
FROM cte
WHERE database_final_form_merge.pop_1 = cte.pop_1
As far as I know, Postgres updates tables not subqueries. So, you can join back to the table:
UPDATE database_final_form_merge
SET pop_1_rank = r.rnk
FROM (SELECT pop_1, RANK() OVER ( ORDER BY pop_1 DESC) as rnk
FROM database_final_form_merge
WHERE territory_name <> 'north'
) r
WHERE database_final_form_merge.pop_1 = r.pop_1;
In addition:
The column alias goes by the column name.
This assumes that pop_1 is the id connecting the two tables.
You're missing WHERE on UPDATE query, because when doing UPDATE ... FROM you're basically doing joins.
So you need to select primary key and then match on primary key to update just the columns are computing rank over.
tblUserProfile - I have a table which holds all the Profile Info (too many fields)
tblMonthlyProfiles - Another table which has just the ProfileID in it (the idea is that this table holds 2 profileids which sometimes become monthly profiles (on selection))
Now when I need to show monthly profiles, I simply do a select from this tblMonthlyProfiles and Join with tblUserProfile to get all valid info.
If there are no rows in tblMonthlyProfile, then monthly profile section is not displayed.
Now the requirement is to ALWAYS show Monthly Profiles. If there are no rows in monthlyProfiles, it should pick up 2 random profiles from tblUserProfile. If there is only one row in monthlyProfiles, it should pick up only one random row from tblUserProfile.
What is the best way to do all this in one single query ?
I thought something like this
select top 2 * from tblUserProfile P
LEFT OUTER JOIN tblMonthlyProfiles M
on M.profileid = P.profileid
ORder by NEWID()
But this always gives me 2 random rows from tblProfile. How can I solve this ?
Try something like this:
SELECT TOP 2 Field1, Field2, Field3, FinalOrder FROM
(
select top 2 Field1, Field2, Field3, FinalOrder, '1' As FinalOrder from tblUserProfile P JOIN tblMonthlyProfiles M on M.profileid = P.profileid
UNION
select top 2 Field1, Field2, Field3, FinalOrder, '2' AS FinalOrder from tblUserProfile P LEFT OUTER JOIN tblMonthlyProfiles M on M.profileid = P.profileid ORDER BY NEWID()
)
ORDER BY FinalOrder
The idea being to pick two monthly profiles (if that many exist) and then 2 random profiles (as you correctly did) and then UNION them. You'll have between 2 and 4 records at that point. Grab the top two. FinalOrder column is an easy way to make sure that you try and get the monthly's first.
If you have control of the table structure, you might save yourself some trouble by simply adding a boolean field IsMonthlyProfile to the UserProfile table. Then it's a single table query, order by IsBoolean, NewID()
In SQL 2000+ compliant syntax you could do something like:
Select ...
From (
Select TOP 2 ...
From tblUserProfile As UP
Where Not Exists( Select 1 From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 )
Order By NewId()
) As RandomProfile
Union All
Select MP....
From tblUserProfile As UP
Join tblMonthlyProfile As MP
On MP.ProfileId = UP.ProfileId
Where ( Select Count(*) From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 ) >= 1
Union All
Select ...
From (
Select TOP 1 ...
From tblUserProfile As UP
Where ( Select Count(*) From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 ) = 1
Order By NewId()
) As RandomProfile
Using SQL 2005+ CTE you can do:
With
TwoRandomProfiles As
(
Select TOP 2 ..., ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY UP.ProfileID ) As Num
From tblUserProfile As UP
Order By NewId()
)
Select MP.Col1, ...
From tblUserProfile As UP
Join tblMonthlyProfile As MP
On MP.ProfileId = UP.ProfileId
Where ( Select Count(*) From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 ) >= 1
Union All
Select ...
From TwoRandomProfiles
Where Not Exists( Select 1 From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 )
Union All
Select ...
From TwoRandomProfiles
Where ( Select Count(*) From tblMonthlyProfile As MP1 ) = 1
And Num = 1
The CTE has the advantage of only querying for the random profiles once and the use of the ROW_NUMBER() column.
Obviously, in all the UNION statements the number and type of the columns must match.
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