How to get a number of rows for given query? - scala

I would like to get a number (like 5, 1000, etc.) of rows for given query. However method "count" for query gives me ColumnOps.CountAll -- and I don't know how to get the number.
See SQ wiki for example:
https://github.com/szeiger/scala-query/wiki/Counts
(for(...) yield ...).count
Obviously one step is missing, and the question is -- what is that step?
I use explicit query route because the count is for join.

You can get a number to do like this:
val q = (for(...) yield ...).count
q.first
I was confused by ScalaQuery document too.
I recommend that you check SQ's tests to know how it use.

Related

Count all tables in one instance in kdb

I would like to count all tables in the same instance.
I have not used kdb for a while and I forgot how to make this work.
This is what I got:
tablelist:tables[]
{select count i from x} each tablelist
but I got a type error
Your statement doesn't contain a trailing semi colon ; at the end of the first line which will cause an error in an IDE like qpad (assuming you are running it as written).
If not running from an IDE I would check my hdb for any possible missing data and run some sanity checks (i.e can I select from each of my tables normally, do types match across partitions, i is a virtual column representing row count so issues with non-conforming types in your other columns is probably not a cause but investigating may yield the right answer)
One way to achieve what you're trying is (using dummy data):
q){flip select counts:count i,tab:1#x from x}each tablelist:tables[]
counts tab
-------------
5469 depth
3150 quotes
3005 trades
Here I select the count for each table, but also add on the name of the table, flip each result into a dictionary, which results in a list of dictionaries of conforming types and key names which is in fact a table, hence my result. In this way you have a nice way to track what you're actually counting.
Each select query you run is returning a table in the form:
x
-
3
It would be better to use exec as opposed to select to simply return the value of the count e.g:
q){exec count i from x} each tables[]
3 2
Your current method would be attempting to return a list of tables: e.g:
q){select count i from x} each tables[]
+(,`x)!,,3
+(,`x)!,,2
However, the type error makes me think there may be an issue with your tables as this should not error for in-memory tables.
Here's one way
count each `. tables[]
I am using 3.6 2018.05.17 and your expression worked for me. I then change the select to an exec to return just a list of counts.
q){exec count i from x} each tables[]
Below code helps us get the count of each table along with tablename.
q)flip (`table;`msgcount)! flip {x, count value x}#'tables[]
To get only the count and not the tablename along with it.
q){count value x}#'tables[]

Spark groupBy agg not working as expected

I am getting similar issue:
(df
.groupBy("email")
.agg(last("user_id") as "user_id")
.select("user_id").count,
df
.groupBy("email")
.agg(last("user_id") as "user_id")
.select("user_id")
.distinct
.count)
When run on one computer it gives: (15123144,15123144)
When run on cluster it gives: (15123144,24)
The first one is expected and looks correct but second one is horribly wrong. One more observation - even if I change data where total count is more/less than 15123144 I get distinct = 24 on cluster.
Even if I interchange user_id and email, it gives same distinct count.
I am more confused by seeing: https://spark.apache.org/docs/1.5.2/api/scala/index.html#org.apache.spark.sql.DataFrame
Agg doc says: Aggregates on the entire DataFrame without groups. "Without group"? what does that mean?
Any clue? or Jira ticket? or what can be fix for now?
Lets start with "without group" part. As it is described in the docs:
df.agg(...) is a shorthand for df.groupBy().agg(...)
If it is still not clear it translates to SQL:
SELECT SOME_AGGREGATE_FUNCTION(some_column) FROM table
Regarding your second problem it is hard to give you a good answer without an access to the data but generally speaking these two queries are not equivalent. The first simply counts distinct email values, the second one count unique values of the last user_id per email. Moreover last without explicit ordering is meaningless.

Oracle 10g, how to query numerical value, (years) with specific limits on results

So the question I am posed with is to take the years produced of all of the movies in two genre's, (SH and CH) an then print out a list of all the movies, (title and year), that were produced before any of the movies in my specific genre were produced. I have this:
SELECT x.title "Title", x.yr "Year"
FROM movies x
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT x FROM movies y
WHERE y.genre IN ('SH', 'CH') AND y.yr < x.yr)
ORDER BY yr;
but it's producing all sorts of titles that were produced during and after the two genres had any of their movies produced. I would think that the less than would limit the results to anything under 1965, (the oldest move in either genre), but it doesn't, but if I use the greater than operator it does, (although it still pumps out newer results as well, so that doesn't work either)
Does anybody see what it is I am missing here? Thanks for any help.
Got it!
I just needed to use the operator differently
WHERE yr <
(SELECT insert stuff here); // this is homework so I can't post the full code
Seems I was just over complicating things.

COUNT(field) returns correct amount of rows but full SELECT query returns zero rows

I have a UDF in my database which basically tries to get a station (e.g. bus/train) based on some input data (geographic/name/type). Inside this function i try to check if there are any rows matching the given values:
SELECT
COUNT(s.id)
INTO
firsttry
FROM
geographic.stations AS s
WHERE
ST_DWithin(s.the_geom,plocation,0.0017)
AND
s.name <-> pname < 0.8
AND
s.type ~ stype;
The firsttry variable now contains the value 1. If i use the following (slightly extended) SELECT statement i get no results:
RETURN query SELECT
s.id, s.name, s.type, s.the_geom,
similarity(
regexp_replace(s.name::text,'(Hauptbahnhof|Hbf)','Hbf'),
regexp_replace(pname::text,'(Hauptbahnhof|Hbf)','Hbf')
)::double precision AS sml,
st_distance(s.the_geom,plocation) As dist from geographic.stations AS s
WHERE ST_DWithin(s.the_geom,plocation,0.0017) and s.name <-> pname < 0.8
AND s.type ~ stype
ORDER BY dist asc,sml desc LIMIT 1;
the parameters are as follows:
stype = '^railway'
pname = 'Amsterdam Science Park'
plocation = ST_GeomFromEWKT('SRID=4326;POINT(4.9492530 52.3531670)')
the tuple i need to be returned is:
id name type geom (displayed as ST_AsText)
909658;"Amsterdam Sciencepark";"railway_station";"POINT(4.9482893 52.352904)"
The same UDF returns quite well for a lot of other stations, but this is one (of more) which just won't work. Any suggestions?
P.S. The use of the <-> operator is coming from the pg_trgm module.
Some ideas on how to troubleshoot this:
Break your troubleshooting into steps. Start with the simplest query possible. No aggregates, just joins and no filters. Then add filters. Then add order by, then add aggregates. Look at exactly where the change occurs.
Try reindexing the database.
One possibility that occurs to me based on this is that it could be a corrupted index used in the second query but not the first. I have seen corrupted indexes in the past and usually they throw errors but at least in theory they should be able to create a problem like this.
If this is correct, your query will suddenly return rows if you remove the ORDER BY clause.
If you have a corrupted index, then you need to pay close attention to hardware. Is the RAM ECC? Is the processor overheating? How are you disks doing?
A second possibility is that there is a typo on a join condition of filter statement. Normally this is something I would suspect first but it is easy enough to weed out index problems to start there. If removing the ORDER BY doesn't change things, then chances are it is a typo. If you can't find a typo, then try reindexing.

T-SQL speed comparison between LEFT() vs. LIKE operator

I'm creating result paging based on first letter of certain nvarchar column and not the usual one, that usually pages on number of results.
And I'm not faced with a challenge whether to filter results using LIKE operator or equality (=) operator.
select *
from table
where name like #firstletter + '%'
vs.
select *
from table
where left(name, 1) = #firstletter
I've tried searching the net for speed comparison between the two, but it's hard to find any results, since most search results are related to LEFT JOINs and not LEFT function.
"Left" vs "Like" -- one should always use "Like" when possible where indexes are implemented because "Like" is not a function and therefore can utilize any indexes you may have on the data.
"Left", on the other hand, is function, and therefore cannot make use of indexes. This web page describes the usage differences with some examples. What this means is SQL server has to evaluate the function for every record that's returned.
"Substring" and other similar functions are also culprits.
Your best bet would be to measure the performance on real production data rather than trying to guess (or ask us). That's because performance can sometimes depend on the data you're processing, although in this case it seems unlikely (but I don't know that, hence why you should check).
If this is a query you will be doing a lot, you should consider another (indexed) column which contains the lowercased first letter of name and have it set by an insert/update trigger.
This will, at the cost of a minimal storage increase, make this query blindingly fast:
select * from table where name_first_char_lower = #firstletter
That's because most database are read far more often than written, and this will amortise the cost of the calculation (done only for writes) across all reads.
It introduces redundant data but it's okay to do that for performance as long as you understand (and mitigate, as in this suggestion) the consequences and need the extra performance.
I had a similar question, and ran tests on both. Here is my code.
where (VOUCHER like 'PCNSF%'
or voucher like 'PCLTF%'
or VOUCHER like 'PCACH%'
or VOUCHER like 'PCWP%'
or voucher like 'PCINT%')
Returned 1434 rows in 1 min 51 seconds.
vs
where (LEFT(VOUCHER,5) = 'PCNSF'
or LEFT(VOUCHER,5)='PCLTF'
or LEFT(VOUCHER,5) = 'PCACH'
or LEFT(VOUCHER,4)='PCWP'
or LEFT (VOUCHER,5) ='PCINT')
Returned 1434 rows in 1 min 27 seconds
My data is faster with the left 5. As an aside my overall query does hit some indexes.
I would always suggest to use like operator when the search column contains index. I tested the above query in my production environment with select count(column_name) from table_name where left(column_name,3)='AAA' OR left(column_name,3)= 'ABA' OR ... up to 9 OR clauses. My count displays 7301477 records with 4 secs in left and 1 second in like i.e where column_name like 'AAA%' OR Column_Name like 'ABA%' or ... up to 9 like clauses.
Calling a function in where clause is not a best practice. Refer http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2013/03/12/sql-server-avoid-using-function-in-where-clause-scan-to-seek/
Entity Framework Core users
You can use EF.Functions.Like(columnName, searchString + "%") instead of columnName.startsWith(...) and you'll get just a LIKE function in the generated SQL instead of all this 'LEFT' craziness!
Depending upon your needs you will probably need to preprocess searchString.
See also https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFrameworkCore/issues/7429
This function isn't present in Entity Framework (non core) EntityFunctions so I'm not sure how to do it for EF6.