postgres select result - postgresql

if the data in table is :
select * from data;
key | value
------+---------
a | a_value
b | b_value
c | c_value
d | d_value
e | e_value
f | f_value
if one client connects to my web server and ask for the value of a, my application will try to do:
select value where key = 'c';
and send the result value to client
if 3 clients connect to my web server, there are 3 statements occur,
select value where key = 'e'; # client 1
select value where key = 'c'; # client 2
select value where key = 'a'; # client 3
for resource reason, I want to consolidate many statements into one select statement.
select * where key = 'e' or key = 'c' or key = 'a';
key | value
------+---------
a | a_value
c | c_value
e | e_value
but the problem is the sequence of result is not the same as my WHERE clause.
so I cannot distinguish the result from the clients' query.
if I want to send value back to the clients
'e_value' to client 1
'c_value' to client 2
'a_value' to client 3
thanks!!

I don't quite understand your use-case, but a query like the following enables you to
.. get results in pre-defined order
.. identify rows in result set
SELECT v.*, d.value
FROM data
JOIN (
VALUES
(1::int, 'e'::text) -- explicit cast may not be necessary
,(2, 'c')
,(3, 'a')
) v(client, key) USING (key)
ORDER BY v.client;
Returns:
client | key | value
-------+-----+------
1 | e | e_value
2 | c | c_value
3 | a | a_value

Related

Maintaining order in DB2 "IN" query

This question is based on this one. I'm looking for a solution to that question that works in DB2. Here is the original question:
I have the following table
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `test`.`foo`;
CREATE TABLE `test`.`foo` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
`name` varchar(45) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
Then I try to get records based on the primary key
SELECT * FROM foo f where f.id IN (2, 3, 1);
I then get the following result
+----+--------+
| id | name |
+----+--------+
| 1 | first |
| 2 | second |
| 3 | third |
+----+--------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
As one can see, the result is ordered by id. What I'm trying to achieve is to get the results ordered in the sequence I'm providing in the query. Given this example it should return
+----+--------+
| id | name |
+----+--------+
| 2 | second |
| 3 | third |
| 1 | first |
+----+--------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
You could use a derived table with the IDs you want, and the order you want, and then join the table in, something like...
SELECT ...
FROM mcscb.mcs_premise prem
JOIN mcscb.mcs_serv_deliv_id serv
ON prem.prem_nb = serv.prem_nb
AND prem.tech_col_user_id = serv.tech_col_user_id
AND prem.tech_col_version = serv.tech_col_version
JOIN (
SELECT 1, '9486154876' FROM SYSIBM.SYSDUMMY1 UNION ALL
SELECT 2, '9403149581' FROM SYSIBM.SYSDUMMY1 UNION ALL
SELECT 3, '9465828230' FROM SYSIBM.SYSDUMMY1
) B (ORD, ID)
ON serv.serv_deliv_id = B.ID
WHERE serv.tech_col_user_id = 'CRSSJEFF'
AND serv.tech_col_version = '00'
ORDER BY B.ORD
You can use derived column to do custom ordering.
select
case
when serv.SERV_DELIV_ID = '9486154876' then 1 ELSE
when serv.SERV_DELIV_ID = '9403149581' then 2 ELSE 3
END END as custom_order,
...
...
ORDER BY custom_order
To make the logic a little bit more evident you might modify the solution provided by bhamby like so:
WITH ordered_in_list (ord, id) as (
VALUES (1, '9486154876'), (2, '9403149581'), (3, '9465828230')
)
SELECT ...
FROM mcscb.mcs_premise prem
JOIN mcscb.mcs_serv_deliv_id serv
ON prem.prem_nb = serv.prem_nb
AND prem.tech_col_user_id = serv.tech_col_user_id
AND prem.tech_col_version = serv.tech_col_version
JOIN ordered_in_list il
ON serv.serv_deliv_id = il.ID
WHERE serv.tech_col_user_id = 'CRSSJEFF'
AND serv.tech_col_version = '00'
ORDER BY il.ORD

Fetch records with distinct value of one column while replacing another col's value when multiple records

I have 2 tables that I need to join based on distinct rid while replacing the column value with having different values in multiple rows. Better explained with an example set below.
CREATE TABLE usr (rid INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(12) NOT NULL,
email VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL);
CREATE TABLE usr_loc
(rid INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
code CHAR NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
loc_id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY);
INSERT INTO usr VALUES
(1,'John','john#product'),
(2,'Linda','linda#product'),
(3,'Greg','greg#product'),
(4,'Kate','kate#product'),
(5,'Johny','johny#product'),
(6,'Mary','mary#test');
INSERT INTO usr_loc VALUES
(1,'A',4532),
(1,'I',4538),
(1,'I',4545),
(2,'I',3123),
(3,'A',4512),
(3,'A',4527),
(4,'I',4567),
(4,'A',4565),
(5,'I',4512),
(6,'I',4567);
(6,'I',4569);
Required Result Set
+-----+-------+------+-----------------+
| rid | name | Code | email |
+-----+-------+------+-----------------+
| 1 | John | B | 'john#product' |
| 2 | Linda | I | 'linda#product' |
| 3 | Greg | A | 'greg#product' |
| 4 | Kate | B | 'kate#product' |
| 5 | Johny | I | 'johny#product' |
| 6 | Mary | I | 'mary#test' |
+-----+-------+------+-----------------+
I have tried some queries to join and some to count but lost with the one which exactly satisfies the whole scenario.
The query I came up with is
SELECT distinct(a.rid)as rid, a.name, a.email, 'B' as code
FROM usr
JOIN usr_loc b ON a.rid=b.rid
WHERE a.rid IN (SELECT rid FROM usr_loc GROUP BY rid HAVING COUNT(*) > 1);`
You need to group by the users and count how many occurrences you have in usr_loc. If more than a single one, then replace the code by B. See below:
select
rid,
name,
case when cnt > 1 then 'B' else min_code end as code,
email
from (
select u.rid, u.name, u.email, min(l.code) as min_code, count(*) as cnt
from usr u
join usr_loc l on l.rid = u.rid
group by u.rid, u.name, u.email
) x;
Seems to me that you are using MySQL, rather than IBM DB2. Is that so?

Comparing tables and getting non matching values

I'm pretty new to SQL and I can't get this to work I've got these two tables below
Table A Table B
_________________ _________________
| A | 2015-10-4 | B | 2015-11-6
| B | 2015-11-4 | C | 2015-05-4
| C | 2015-05-6 | D | 2015-05-8
| D | 2015-05-7 | C | 2015-05-5
I'm trying to write a stored procedure that will get all letters from table B that has a date less than table A and any letter that doesn't exist in table B.
This is what I have so far
SELECT *
FROM A q JOIN
B c ON q.Letter = c.Letter AND q.Date > c.Date OR c.Letter IS NULL
This returns C but I can't have it return A also. It's confusing to me trying to join and compare tables still.
I do not want duplicate rows, the results I would be expecting would return
| A | 2015-10-4
| C | 2015-05-6
EDIT
I'm running into an issue now where if I have a case like this
Table A Table B
_________________ _________________
| A | 2015-10-4 | B | 2015-11-6
| B | 2015-11-4 | C | 2015-05-4
| C | 2015-05-6 | D | 2015-05-8
| D | 2015-05-7 | C | 2015-05-5
| C | 2015-05-7
It will still return C for some reason. Using a.date > max(b.date) doesn't work because max can't used that way. And I want to assume the max date can be anywhere in the table in table B.
So now my new results would be
| A | 2015-10-4
But I am getting A and C still.
You should use a LEFT JOIN:
SELECT DISTINCT A.letter, A.[Date]
FROM dbo.TableA A
LEFT JOIN dbo.TableB B
ON A.letter = B.letter
WHERE B.[Date] < A.[Date] OR B.letter IS NULL;
UPDATE
You should have explained your requirements as: "get all letters from table B in which every date is lesser than...."
SELECT DISTINCT A.letter, A.[Date]
FROM dbo.TableA A
LEFT JOIN (SELECT letter, MAX([Date]) [Date]
FROM dbo.TableB
GROUP BY letter) B
ON A.letter = B.letter
WHERE B.[Date] < A.[Date] OR B.letter IS NULL;
I would go for a UNION / UNION ALL, so that you get the result subset for the first condition + the ones for the second one.
Something similar to this should do the job:
sqlite> create table A (letter, my_date);
sqlite> create table B (letter, my_date);
sqlite> insert into A values ('A', '2015-10-04');
sqlite> insert into A values ('B', '2015-11-04');
sqlite> insert into A values ('C', '2015-05-06');
sqlite> insert into A values ('D', '2015-05-07');
sqlite> insert into B values ('B', '2015-11-06');
sqlite> insert into B values ('C', '2015-05-04');
sqlite> insert into B values ('D', '2015-05-08');
sqlite> insert into B values ('C', '2015-05-05');
A 2015-10-04
sqlite> select B.* from A, B where A.letter = B.letter and B.my_date < A.my_date UNION ALL select A.* from A where not exists (select 1 from B where B.letter=A.letter);
letter my_date
---------- ----------
C 2015-05-04
C 2015-05-05
A 2015-10-04

Postgresql Update inside For Loop

I'm new enough to postgresql, and I'm having issues updating a column of null values in a table using a for loop. The table i'm working on is huge so for brevity i'll give a smaller example which should get the point across. Take the following table
+----+----------+----------+
| id | A | B | C |
+----+----------+----------+
| a | 1 | 0 | NULL |
| b | 1 | 1 | NULL |
| c | 2 | 4 | NULL |
| a | 3 | 2 | NULL |
| c | 2 | 3 | NULL |
| d | 4 | 2 | NULL |
+----+----------+----------+
I want to write a for loop which iterates through all of the rows and does some operation
on the values in columns a and b and then inserts a new value in c.
For example, where id = a , update table set C = A*B, or where id = d set C = A + B etc. This would then give me a table like
+----+----------+----------+
| id | A | B | C |
+----+----------+----------+
| a | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| b | 1 | 1 | NULL |
| c | 2 | 4 | NULL |
| a | 3 | 2 | 6 |
| c | 2 | 3 | NULL |
| d | 4 | 2 | 6 |
+----+----------+----------+
So ultimately I'd like to loop through all the rows of the table and update column C according to the value in the "id" column. The function I've written (which isn't giving any errors but also isn't updating anything either) looks like this...
-- DROP FUNCTION some_function();
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION some_function()
RETURNS void AS
$BODY$
DECLARE
--r integer; not too sure if this needs to be declared or not
result int;
BEGIN
FOR r IN select * from 'table_name'
LOOP
select(
case
when id = 'a' THEN B*C
when id = 'd' THEN B+C
end)
into result;
update table set C = result
WHERE id = '';
END LOOP;
RETURN;
END
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql
I'm sure there's something silly i'm missing, probably around what I'm, returning... void in this case. But as I only want to update existing rows should I need to return anything? There's probably easier ways of doing this than using a loop but I'd like to get it working using this method.
If anyone could point me in the right direction or point out anything blatantly obvious that I'm doing wrong I'd much appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.
No need for a loop or a function, this can be done with a single update statement:
update table_name
set c = case
when id = 'a' then a*b
when id = 'd' then a+b
else c -- don't change anything
end;
SQLFiddle: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!15/b65cb/2
The reason your function isn't doing anything is this:
update table set C = result
WHERE id = '';
You don't have a row with an empty string in the column id. Your function also seems to use the wrong formula: when id = 'a' THEN B*C I guess that should be: then a*b. As C is NULL initially, b*c will also yield null. So even if your update in the loop would find a row, it would update it to NULL.
You are also retrieving the values incorrectly from the cursor.
If you really, really want to do it inefficiently in a loop, the your function should look something like this (not tested!):
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION some_function()
RETURNS void AS
$BODY$
DECLARE
result int;
BEGIN
-- r is a structure that contains an element for each column in the select list
FOR r IN select * from table_name
LOOP
if r.id = 'a' then
result := r.a * r.b;
end if;
if r.id = 'b' then
result := r.a + r.b;
end if;
update table
set C = result
WHERE id = r.id; -- note the where condition that uses the value from the record variable
END LOOP;
END
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql
But again: if your table is "huge" as you say, the loop is an extremely bad solution. Relational databases are made to deal with "sets" of data. Row-by-row processing is an anti-pattern that will almost always have bad performance.
Or to put it the other way round: doing set-based operations (like my single update example) is always the better choice.

SQL to remove rows with duplicated value while keeping one

Say I have this table
id | data | value
-----------------
1 | a | A
2 | a | A
3 | a | A
4 | a | B
5 | b | C
6 | c | A
7 | c | C
8 | c | C
I want to remove those rows with duplicated value for each data while keeping the one with the min id, e.g. the result will be
id | data | value
-----------------
1 | a | A
4 | a | B
5 | b | C
6 | c | A
7 | c | C
I know a way to do it is to do a union like:
SELECT 1 [id], 'a' [data], 'A' [value] INTO #test UNION SELECT 2, 'a', 'A'
UNION SELECT 3, 'a', 'A' UNION SELECT 4, 'a', 'B'
UNION SELECT 5, 'b', 'C' UNION SELECT 6, 'c', 'A'
UNION SELECT 7, 'c', 'C' UNION SELECT 8, 'c', 'C'
SELECT * FROM #test WHERE id NOT IN (
SELECT MIN(id) FROM #test
GROUP BY [data], [value]
HAVING COUNT(1) > 1
UNION
SELECT MIN(id) FROM #test
GROUP BY [data], [value]
HAVING COUNT(1) <= 1
)
but this solution has to repeat the same group by twice (consider the real case is a massive group by with > 20 columns)
I would prefer a simpler answer with less code as oppose to complex ones. Is there any more concise way to code this?
Thank you
You can use one of the methods below:
Using WITH CTE:
WITH CTE AS
(SELECT *,RN=ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY data,value ORDER BY id)
FROM TableName)
DELETE FROM CTE WHERE RN>1
Explanation:
This query will select the contents of the table along with a row number RN. And then delete the records with RN >1 (which would be the duplicates).
This Fiddle shows the records which are going to be deleted using this method.
Using NOT IN:
DELETE FROM TableName
WHERE id NOT IN
(SELECT MIN(id) as id
FROM TableName
GROUP BY data,value)
Explanation:
With the given example, inner query will return ids (1,6,4,5,7). The outer query will delete records from table whose id NOT IN (1,6,4,5,7).
This fiddle shows the records which are going to be deleted using this method.
Suggestion: Use the first method since it is faster than the latter. Also, it manages to keep only one record if id field is also duplicated for the same data and value.
I want to add MYSQL solution for this query
Suggestion 1 : MySQL prior to version 8.0 doesn't support the WITH clause
Suggestion 2 : throw this error (you can't specify table TableName for update in FROM clause
So the solution will be
DELETE FROM TableName WHERE id NOT IN
(SELECT MIN(id) as id
FROM (select * from TableName) as t1
GROUP BY data,value) as t2;