I am trying to solve an interesting problem. I have a table that has, among other data, these columns (dates in this sample are shown in European format - dd/mm/yyyy):
n_place_id dt_visit_date
(integer) (date)
========== =============
1 10/02/2012
3 11/03/2012
4 11/05/2012
13 14/06/2012
3 04/10/2012
3 03/11/2012
5 05/09/2012
13 18/08/2012
Basically, each place may be visited multiple times - and the dates may be in the past (completed visits) or in the future (planned visits). For the sake of simplicity, today's visits are part of planned future visits.
Now, I need to run a select on this table, which would pull unique place IDs from this table (without date) sorted in the following order:
Future visits go before past visits
Future visits take precedence in sorting over past visits for the same place
For future visits, the earliest date must take precedence in sorting for the same place
For past visits, the latest date must take precedence in sorting for the same place.
For example, for the sample data shown above, the result I need is:
5 (earliest future visit)
3 (next future visit into the future)
13 (latest past visit)
4 (previous past visit)
1 (earlier visit in the past)
Now, I can achieve the desired sorting using case when in the order by clause like so:
select
n_place_id
from
place_visit
order by
(case when dt_visit_date >= now()::date then 1 else 2 end),
(case when dt_visit_date >= now():: date then 1 else -1 end) * extract(epoch from dt_visit_date)
This sort of does what I need, but it does contain repeated IDs, whereas I need unique place IDs. If I try to add distinct to the select statement, postgres complains that I must have the order by in the select clause - but then the unique won't be sensible any more, as I have dates in there.
Somehow I feel that there should be a way to get the result I need in one select statement, but I can't get my head around how to do it.
If this can't be done, then, of course, I'll have to do the whole thing in the code, but I'd prefer to have this in one SQL statement.
P.S. I am not worried about the performance, because the dataset I will be sorting is not large. After the where clause will be applied, it will rarely contain more than about 10 records.
With DISTINCT ON you can easily show additional columns of the row with the resulting n_place_id:
SELECT n_place_id, dt_visit_date
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT ON (n_place_id) *
,dt_visit_date < now()::date AS prio -- future first
,#(now()::date - dt_visit_date) AS diff -- closest first
FROM place_visit
ORDER BY n_place_id, prio, diff
) x
ORDER BY prio, diff;
Effectively I pick the row with the earliest future date (including "today") per n_place_id - or latest date in the past, failing that.
Then the resulting unique rows are sorted by the same criteria.
FALSE sorts before TRUE
The "absolute value" # helps to sort "closest first"
More on the Postgres specific DISTINCT ON in this related answer.
Result:
n_place_id | dt_visit_date
------------+--------------
5 | 2012-09-05
3 | 2012-10-04
13 | 2012-08-18
4 | 2012-05-11
1 | 2012-02-10
Try this
select n_place_id
from
(
select *,
extract(epoch from (dt_visit_date - now())) as seconds,
1 - SIGN(extract(epoch from (dt_visit_date - now())) ) as futurepast
from #t
) v
group by n_place_id
order by max(futurepast) desc, min(abs(seconds))
Related
I searched and saw potential results but with my skills I'm not able to adapt them.
I have a table:
date
record status
1.10.2022
open
2.10.2022
waiting
3.10.2022
approved
5.10.2022
open
6.10.2022
waiting
8.10.2022
approved
10.10.2022
open
12.10.2022
waiting
and need the date difference between 'open' and 'approved' within groups starting with 'open' and ending with 'approved'. The last group is not yet approved. There the date difference is between the last open and today (=15.10.2022 just as example)
date
record status
group/rank
date diff
1.10.2022
open
1
2
2.10.2022
waiting
1
2
3.10.2022
approved
1
2
5.10.2022
open
2
3
6.10.2022
waiting
2
3
8.10.2022
approved
2
3
10.10.2022
open
3
5
12.10.2022
waiting
3
5
Questions then:
How do I define the groups. I thought maybe with a rank because the orig table has thousands of rows
How does the date diff function look like that considers only open and approved plus the special case where the record is not yet approved
How to apply this date diff to the groups only
Thanks a lot :-)
Your idea was good; a CTE to manage the case where you need to use the current day was all you were missing (See EXISTS).
WITH RankedStatus AS (
SELECT MyTable.*,
DENSE_RANK() OVER (PARTITION BY RecordStatus ORDER BY Date) AS Rank
FROM MyTable
)
SELECT RS.*,
CASE WHEN EXISTS(SELECT FROM RankedStatus WHERE Rank = RS.Rank and RecordStatus = 'approved')
THEN MAX(Date) OVER (PARTITION BY Rank)
ELSE CURRENT_DATE END
- MIN(Date) OVER (PARTITION BY Rank) AS DateDiff
FROM RankedStatus RS
UserID
CalMonth
ActiveFlag
Months_since_last_active
A
1/1/2021
1
0
A
2/1/2021
1
A
3/1/2021
2
A
4/1/2021
1
0
B
1/1/2021
1
0
B
2/1/2021
1
B
3/1/2021
1
0
Problem --> The first 3 colums are given. Generate the last one 'Months_since_last_active' by adding 1 until the use is active again
My Solution as below:
With active_sessions as (
Select
User_Id
, CalMonth
, active flag as current_flag
, LAG (ActiveFlag,1) over (partition by User_Id order by CalMonth) as previous_flag
)
Select User_Id, CalMonth, current_flag, sum(case when current_flag =1 then 0
when current_flag IS NULL then Months_since_last_active + 1
END
) as Months_since_last_active
from active_sessions
order by 1,2
I was asked the above question in an interview and told that my proposed solution would not work because:
When it comes to 3/1/2021 and beyond, the previous values of 'Months_since_last_active' are not in the table yet -- they are only in the code
If I wanted to use LAG function, then it'd take innumerable LAG functions to achieve what I was trying to achieve
I will appreciate if someone can comment on my solution.
Your solution has 3 major problems, 2 of them may be related to copy/past errors. The active_sessions CTE is missing the from clause, so there is no data source. Then the main portion uses the aggregate function SUM, however, the query has no group by which is required for the aggregate function. These are easily corrected. The other issue concerns the LAG function and your use of it.
First off in the CTE you alias the result as previous_flag, then in the main query you reference Months_since_last_active which does not exist yet. I think this is the source of the interviewer's first point.
The interviewer's second point also stems form the LAG function. As written it always looks back exactly 1 row, but from the current row yet it needs to look back 2 rows for (userid, calmonth) = ('A', 2021-03-01), and 3 rows for (A, 2021-04-01), etc. Basically you need to look back to to the last row with active_flag = 1. This leads directly to the it'd take innumerable LAG functions as you do not know how far beck you need to look. Suppose you had 30-40 or more inactive rows between active rows. You need a LAG(activeflag,n) ... for each possibility.
A solution. I dislike the problem statement it should not contain by adding 1 until the use is active again (is it yours or theirs). Either way this is an XY. If theirs they should be telling you what to solve, i.e. find number of months since last active. If yours you have created the problem for yourself. The problem statement should not say anything about how to solve the it. I will ignore that portion of the problem (And in a real interview I would/have ignored it, but be prepared to explain why).
What you have a a version of a Gaps And Islands (google it, you will find more that to think about). In this version lets consider each row with activeflag = 'Y' an as island, and anything else as a gap. Nor what you are looking for is the length of the gaps between islands. In the following the island_num CTE does 2 things. It assigns a sequence number to each row for a (userid, calmonth) and generates a boolean for each island. The `gap_points' then joins the results with itself, selecting the assigned for the max island whose calmonth is less than the current rows calmonth. In the main part the Months_since_last_active is assigned 0 if the current row is an island, and the difference between the generated row numbers if it is a gap. (see demo)
with island_num (userid, cal_month, active_flag, is_island, row_num) as
( select am.*
, case when am.activeflag = 1 then true else false end is_island
, row_number() over (partition by am.userid order by am.calmonth) rn
from active_month am
) -- select * from island_num
, gap_points(userid, cal_month, active_flag, is_island, row_num, island_row) as
( select *
from island_num i1
join lateral
(select max(row_num)
from island_num i2
where i1.userid = i2.userid
and i2.cal_month < i1.cal_month
and i2.is_island
) s0
on true
) --select * from gap_points;
select userid "User Id"
, cal_month "Cal Month"
, active_flag "Active Flag"
, case when is_island then 0
else row_num - island_row
end "Months_since_last_active"
from gap_points;
Hello everyone I have to get data from and to date, I tried using between clause which fails to retrieve data what I need. Here is what I need.
I have table called hall_info which has following structure
hall_info
id | hall_name |address |contact_no
1 | abc | India |XXXX-XXXX-XX
2 | xyz | India |XXXX-XXXX-XX
Now I have one more table which is events, that contains data about when and which hall is booked on what date, the structure is as follows.
id |hall_info_id |event_date(booked_date)| event_name
1 | 2 | 2015-10-25 | Marriage
2 | 1 | 2015-10-28 | Marriage
3 | 2 | 2015-10-26 | Marriage
So what I need now is I wanna show hall_names that are not booked on selected dates, suppose if user chooses from 2015-10-23 to 2015-10-30 so I wanna list all halls that are not booked on selected dates. In above case both the halls of hall_info_id 1 and 2 ids booked in given range but still I wanna show them because they are free on 23,24,27 and on 29 date.
In second case suppose if user chooses date from 2015-10-25 and 2015-10-26 then only hall_info_id 2 is booked on both the dates 25 and 26 so in this case i wanna show only hall_info_id 1 as hall_info_id 2 is booked.
I tried using inner query and between clause but I am not getting required result to simply i have given only selected fields I have more tables to join so i cant paste my query please help with this. Thanks in advance for all who are trying.
Some changes in Yasen Zhelev's code:
SELECT * FROM hall_info
WHERE id not IN (
SELECT hall_info_id FROM events
WHERE event_date >= '2015-10-23' AND event_date <= '2015-10-30'
GROUP BY hall_info_id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT event_date) > DATE_PART('day', '2015-10-30'::timestamp - '2015-10-23'::timestamp))
I have not tried it but how about checking if the number of bookings per hall is less than the actual days in the selected period.
SELECT * FROM hall_info WHERE id NOT IN
(SELECT hall_info_id FROM events
WHERE event_date >= '2015-10-23' AND event_date <= '2015-10-30'
GROUP BY hall_info_id
HAVING COUNT(id) < DATEDIFF(day, '2015-10-30', '2015-10-23')
);
That will only work if you have one booking per day per hall.
To get the "available dates" for the hall returned, your query needs a row source of all possible dates. For example, if you had a calendar table populated with possible date values, e.g.
CREATE TABLE cal (dt DATE NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY) Engine=InnoDB
;
INSERT INTO cal (dt) VALUES ('2015-10-23')
,('2015-10-24'),('2015-10-25'),('2015-10-26'),('2015-10-27')
,('2015-10-28'),('2015-10-29'),('2015-10-30'),('2015-10-31')
;
The you could use a query that performs a cross join between the calendar table and hall_info... to get every hall on every date... and an anti-join pattern to eliminate rows that are already booked.
The anti-join pattern is an outer join with a restriction in the WHERE clause to eliminate matching rows.
For example:
SELECT cal.dt, h.id, h.hall_name, h.address
FROM cal cal
CROSS
JOIN hall_info h
LEFT
JOIN events e
ON e.hall_id = h.id
AND e.event_date = cal.dt
WHERE e.id IS NULL
AND cal.dt >= '2015-10-23'
AND cal.dt <= '2015-10-30'
The cross join between cal and hall_info gets all halls for all dates (restricted in the WHERE clause to a specified range of dates.)
The outer join to events find matching rows in the events table (matching on hall_id and event_date. The trick is the predicate (condition) in the WHERE clause e.id IS NULL. That throws out any rows that had a match, leaving only rows that don't have a match.
This type of problem is similar to other "sparse data" problems. e.g. How do you return a zero total for sales by a given store on a given date, when there are no rows with that store and date...
In your case, the query needs a source of rows with available date values. That doesn't necessarily have to be a table named calendar. (Other databases give us the ability to dynamically generate a row source; someday, MySQL may have similar features.)
If you want the row source to be dynamic in MySQL, then one approach would be to create a temporary table, and populate it with the dates, run the query referencing the temporary table, and then dropping the temporary table.
Another approach is to use an inline view to return the rows...
SELECT cal.dt, h.id, h.hall_name, h.address
FROM (
SELECT '2015-10-23'+INTERVAL 0 DAY AS dt
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-24'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-25'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-26'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-27'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-28'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-29'
UNION ALL SELECT '2015-10-30'
) cal
CROSS
JOIN hall_info h
LEFT
JOIN events e
ON e.hall_id = h.id
AND e.event_date = c.dt
WHERE e.id IS NULL
FOLLOWUP: When this question was originally posted, it was tagged with mysql. The SQL in the examples above is for MySQL.
In terms of writing a query to return the specified results, the general issue is still the same in PostgreSQL. The general problem is "sparse data".
The SQL query needs a row source for the "missing" date values, but the specification doesn't provide any source for those date values.
The answer above discusses several possible row sources in MySQL: 1) a table, 2) a temporary table, 3) an inline view.
The answer also mentions that some databases (not MySQL) provide other mechanisms that can be used as a row source.
For example, PostgreSQL provides a nifty generate_series function (Reference: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/functions-srf.html.
It should be possible to use the generate_series function as a row source, to supply a set of rows containing the date values needed by the query to produced the specified result.
This answer demonstrates the approach to solving the "sparse data" problem.
If the specification is to return just the list of halls, and not the dates they are available, the queries above can be easily modified to remove the date expression from the SELECT list, and add a GROUP BY clause to collapse the rows into a distinct list of halls.
I've been trying to find a solution to this challenge all day.
I've got a table:
id | amount | type | date | description | club_id
-------+---------+------+----------------------------+---------------------------------------+---------+--------
783 | 10000 | 5 | 2011-08-23 12:52:19.995249 | Sign on fee | 7
The table has a lot more data than this.
What I'm trying to do is get the sum of amount for each week, given a specific club_id.
The last thing I ended up with was this, but it doesn't work:
WITH RECURSIVE t AS (
SELECT EXTRACT(WEEK FROM date) AS week, amount FROM club_expenses WHERE club_id = 20 AND EXTRACT(WEEK FROM date) < 10 ORDER BY week
UNION ALL
SELECT week+1, amount FROM t WHERE week < 3
)
SELECT week, amount FROM t;
I'm not sure why it doesn't work, but it complains about the UNION ALL.
I'll be off to bed in a minute, so I won't be able to see any answers before tomorrow (sorry).
I hope I've described it adequately.
Thanks in advance!
It looks to me like you are trying to use the UNION ALL to retrieve a subset of the first part of the query. That won't work. You have two options. The first is to use user defined functions to add behavior as you need it and the second is to nest your WITH clauses. I tend to prefer the former, but you may be preferring the latter.
To do the functions/table methods approach you create a function which accepts as input a row from a table and does not hit the table directly. This provides a bunch of benefits including the ability to easily index the output. Here the function would look like:
CREATE FUNCTION week(club_expense) RETURNS int LANGUAGE SQL IMMUTABLE AS $$
select EXTRACT(WEEK FROM $1.date)
$$;
Now you have a usable macro which can be used where you would use a column. You can then:
SELECT c.week, sum(amount) FROM club_expense c
GROUP BY c.week;
Note that the c. before week is not optional. The parser converts that into week(c). If you want to limit this to a year, you can do the same with years.
This is a really neat, useful feature of Postgres.
I need to sum values that are + 2 months or within a quarter period (related date table)
is there a way to use dense rank to partition those periods (custom periods)?
select
FiscalMonth
,Value
from table
The sql will have to do the following:
Join the value table and the period table
Include the period in the select list and sum the value, grouping by the period
i.e
select b.period, sum(a.value)
from table a
inner join period b on a.FiscalMonth between b.StartMonth and b.EndMonth
group by b.period
Note: The join condition will have to be modified based on what data you actually have in the period table.
Hope this helps
Well, If you need value from an X interval, by month you could use something like:
SELECT *
FROM yourTable
MONTH(some_date) = MONTH(CURRENT_DATE - INTERVAL 1 MONTH) //Could be X interval!
This is an example (which show the results of the previous month, from the actual one). Just trying to write that it is possible to massage the query in functions on intervals.
Of course, you could use the SUMcommand for the adding.