I'm a SSAS newbie and i'm trying to query a cube to retrieve data against aome measure groups order by date. The date range i wish to specify in my query. The query I'm using is this:-
SELECT
{
[Measures].[Measure1],
[Measures].[Measure2],
[Measures].[Measure3]
}
ON COLUMNS,
NON EMPTY{
[Date].[AllMembers]
}
ON ROWS
FROM (SELECT ( STRTOMEMBER('2/23/2013', CONSTRAINED) :
STRTOMEMBER('3/1/2013', CONSTRAINED) ) ON COLUMNS
FROM [MyCube])
However it gives me the following error
Query (10, 16) The restrictions imposed by the CONSTRAINED flag in the STRTOMEMBER function were violated.
I tried removing the constrained keyword and then even strtomember function. But in each cases i got the following errors respectively
Query (10, 16) The STRTOMEMBER function expects a member expression for the 1 argument. A string or numeric expression was used.
and
*Query (10, 14) The : function expects a member expression for the 1 argument. A string or numeric expression was used.
*
I can understand from the last two errors that i need to include the constraint keyword. But can anyone tell me why this query wont execute?
The string that you pass as the member expression must be a fully-qualified member name, or resolve to one. Use the same format as you did in the SELECT.
For example:
STRTOMEMBER('[Date].[2/23/2013]', CONSTRAINED)
Edit: I just noticed the syntax of your range select looks wrong -- you need to use {...}, not (...).
SELECT {
STRTOMEMBER('2/23/2013', CONSTRAINED) :
STRTOMEMBER('3/1/2013', CONSTRAINED) }
Please execute below script.
Extract your date dimension attribute copy it by right clicking and paste it in STRTOMEMBER value.
It will works fine.
SELECT NON EMPTY { [Measures].[Internet Sales Amount] } ON COLUMNS
FROM ( SELECT ( STRTOMEMBER('[Date].[Date].&[20050701]') :
STRTOMEMBER('[Date].[Date].&[20061007]') ) ON COLUMNS
FROM [Adventure Works])
FROM ( SELECT (
STRTOMEMBER(#FromDateCalendarDate, CONSTRAINED) :
STRTOMEMBER(#ToDateCalendarDate, CONSTRAINED) ) ON COLUMNS
Related
I have a details table with adeet column defined as jsonb[]
a sample value stored in adeet column is as below image
Sample data stored in DB :
I want to return the rows which satisfies id=26088 i.e row 1 and 3
I have tried array operations and json operations but it does'nt work as required. Any pointers
Obviously the type of the column adeet is not of type JSON/JSONB, but maybe VARCHAR and we should fix the format so as to convert into a JSONB type. I used replace() and r/ltrim() funcitons for this conversion, and preferred to derive an array in order to use jsonb_array_elements() function :
WITH t(jobid,adeet) AS
(
SELECT jobid, replace(replace(replace(adeet,'\',''),'"{','{'),'}"','}')
FROM tab
), t2 AS
(
SELECT jobid, ('['||rtrim(ltrim(adeet,'{'), '}')||']')::jsonb as adeet
FROM t
)
SELECT t.*
FROM t2 t
CROSS JOIN jsonb_array_elements(adeet) j
WHERE (j.value ->> 'id')::int = 26088
Demo
You want to combine JSONB's <# operator with the generic-array ANY construct.
select * from foobar where '{"id":26088}' <# ANY (adeet);
I get the following error for this query: [22P02] ERROR: invalid input syntax for type numeric: "."
select
date,
row_number () over () as RN,
case when (row_number() over ()) ='8' then '.' else (success/trials) end as "After_1M"
from trials
groupy by date;
Is there another way to indicate that a certain value in a ROWxCOLUMN combination should be adjusted?
Well your description certainly leaves a lot to be desired. But your query only needs slight modification to actually run. First off "groupy by date". I will assume it's just a typo. But a group by without an aggregate function generally doesn't do anything - and this is one of those. But I believe your attempting to get a row count by date. If so the you need the partition by and order by clauses in the in the row_number function. The other issue is in the expression. Each entry in the expression must return the same data type but in case it doesn't. The THEN condition returns character (.) while the ELSE returns a numeric (success/trials) which must define 2 numeric columns to be valid. So which needs to change? I will assume the later. Given this we wind up with:
select date
, row_number() over(partition by date order by trl_date) rn
, case when (row_number() over(partition by date order by trl_date)) = 8
then '.'
else (success/trials)::text
end as "After_1M"
from trials;
Note: Date is a very poor date is a very poor column name. It's a reserved word, as well as a data type.
original query looks like this :
UPDATE reponse_question_finale t1, reponse_question_finale t2 SET
t1.nb_question_repondu = (9-(ISNULL(t1.valeur_question_4)+ISNULL(t1.valeur_question_6)+ISNULL(t1.valeur_question_7)+ISNULL(t1.valeur_question_9))) WHERE t1.APPLICATION = t2.APPLICATION;
I know you cannot update 2 tables in a single query so i tried this :
UPDATE reponse_question_finale t1
SET nb_question_repondu = (9-(COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_4,'')::int+COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_6,'')::int+COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_7)::int+COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_9,'')::int))
WHERE t1.APPLICATION = t1.APPLICATION;
But this query gaves me an error : invalid input syntax for integer: ""
I saw that the Postgres equivalent to MySQL is COALESCE() so i think i'm on the good way here.
I also know you cannot add varchar to varchar so i tried to cast it to integer to do that. I'm not sure if i casted it correctly with parenthesis at the good place and regarding to error maybe i cannot cast to int with coalesce.
Last thing, i can certainly do a co-related sub-select to update my two tables but i'm a little lost at this point.
The output must be an integer matching the number of questions answered to a backup survey.
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
coalesce() returns the first non-null value from the list supplied. So, if the column value is null the expression COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_4,'') returns an empty string and that's why you get the error.
But it seems you want something completely different: you want check if the column is null (or empty) and then subtract a value if it is to count the number of non-null columns.
To return 1 if a value is not null or 0 if it isn't you can use:
(nullif(valeur_question_4, '') is null)::int
nullif returns null if the first value equals the second. The IS NULL condition returns a boolean (something that MySQL doesn't have) and that can be cast to an integer (where false will be cast to 0 and true to 1)
So the whole expression should be:
nb_question_repondu = 9 - (
(nullif(t1.valeur_question_4,'') is null)::int
+ (nullif(t1.valeur_question_6,'') is null)::int
+ (nullif(t1.valeur_question_7,'') is null)::int
+ (nullif(t1.valeur_question_9,'') is null)::int
)
Another option is to unpivot the columns and do a select on them in a sub-select:
update reponse_question_finale
set nb_question_repondu = (select count(*)
from (
values
(valeur_question_4),
(valeur_question_6),
(valeur_question_7),
(valeur_question_9)
) as t(q)
where nullif(trim(q),'') is not null);
Adding more columns to be considered is quite easy then, as you just need to add a single line to the values() clause
What is the argument type for the order by clause in Postgresql?
I came across a very strange behaviour (using Postgresql 9.5). Namely, the query
select * from unnest(array[1,4,3,2]) as x order by 1;
produces 1,2,3,4 as expected. However the query
select * from unnest(array[1,4,3,2]) as x order by 1::int;
produces 1,4,3,2, which seems strange. Similarly, whenever I replace 1::int with whatever function (e.g. greatest(0,1)) or even case operator, the results are unordered (on the contrary to what I would expect).
So which type should an argument of order by have, and how do I get the expected behaviour?
This is expected (and documented) behaviour:
A sort_expression can also be the column label or number of an output column
So the expression:
order by 1
sorts by the first column of the result set (as defined by the SQL standard)
However the expression:
order by 1::int
sorts by the constant value 1, it's essentially the same as:
order by 'foo'
By using a constant value for the order by all rows have the same sort value and thus aren't really sorted.
To sort by an expression, just use that:
order by
case
when some_column = 'foo' then 1
when some_column = 'bar' then 2
else 3
end
The above sorts the result based on the result of the case expression.
Actually I have a function with an integer argument which indicates the column to be used in the order by clause.
In a case when all columns are of the same type, this can work: :
SELECT ....
ORDER BY
CASE function_to_get_a_column_number()
WHEN 1 THEN column1
WHEN 2 THEN column2
.....
WHEN 1235 THEN column1235
END
If columns are of different types, you can try:
SELECT ....
ORDER BY
CASE function_to_get_a_column_number()
WHEN 1 THEN column1::varchar
WHEN 2 THEN column2::varchar
.....
WHEN 1235 THEN column1235::varchar
END
But these "workarounds" are horrible. You need some other approach than the function returning a column number.
Maybe a dynamic SQL ?
I would say that dynamic SQL (thanks #kordirko and the others for the hints) is the best solution to the problem I originally had in mind:
create temp table my_data (
id serial,
val text
);
insert into my_data(id, val)
values (default, 'a'), (default, 'c'), (default, 'd'), (default, 'b');
create function fetch_my_data(col text)
returns setof my_data as
$f$
begin
return query execute $$
select * from my_data
order by $$|| quote_ident(col);
end
$f$ language plpgsql;
select * from fetch_my_data('val'); -- order by val
select * from fetch_my_data('id'); -- order by id
In the beginning I thought this could be achieved using case expression in the argument of the order by clause - the sort_expression. And here comes the tricky part which confused me: when sort_expression is a kind of identifier (name of a column or a number of a column), the corresponding column is used when ordering the results. But when sort_expression is some value, we actually order the results using that value itself (computed for each row). This is #a_horse_with_no_name's answer rephrased.
So when I queried ... order by 1::int, in a way I have assigned value 1 to each row and then tried to sort an array of ones, which clearly is useless.
There are some workarounds without dynamic queries, but they require writing more code and do not seem to have any significant advantages.
I have a query in postgres
insert into c_d (select * from cd where ak = '22019763');
And I get the following error
ERROR: column "region" is of type integer but expression is of type character varying
HINT: You will need to rewrite or cast the expression.
An INSERT INTO table1 SELECT * FROM table2 depends entirely on order of the columns, which is part of the table definition. It will line each column of table1 up with the column of table2 with the same order value, regardless of names.
The problem you have here is whatever column from cd with the same order value as c_d of the table "region" has an incompatible type, and an implicit typecast is not available to clear the confusion.
INSERT INTO SELECT * statements are stylistically bad form unless the two tables are defined, and will forever be defined, exactly the same way. All it takes is for a single extra column to get added to cd, and you'll start getting errors about extraneous extra columns.
If it is at all possible, what I would suggest is explicitly calling out the columns within the SELECT statement. You can call a function to change type within each of the column references (or you could define a new type cast to do this implicitly -- see CREATE CAST), and you can use AS to set the column label to match that of your target column.
If you can't do this for some reason, indicate that in your question.
Check out the PostgreSQL insert documentation. The syntax is:
INSERT INTO table [ ( column [, ...] ) ]
{ DEFAULT VALUES | VALUES ( { expression | DEFAULT } [, ...] ) | query }
which here would look something like:
INSERT INTO c_d (column1, column2...) select * from cd where ak = '22019763'
This is the syntax you want to use when inserting values from one table to another where the column types and order are not exactly the same.