The following works
s = select([tsr.c.kod]).where(tsr.c.rr=='10').group_by(tsr.c.kod)
and this does not:
s = select([tsr.c.kod, tsr.c.rr, any fields]).where(tsr.c.rr=='10').group_by(tsr.c.kod)
Why?
thx.
It doesn't work because the query isn't valid like that.
Every column needs to be in the group_by or needs an aggregate (i.e. max(), min(), whatever) according to the SQL standard. Most databases have always complied to this but there are a few exceptions.
MySQL has always been the odd one in this regard, within MySQL this behaviour depends on the ONLY_FULL_GROUP_BY setting: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/group-by-handling.html
I would personally recommend setting the sql_mode setting to ANSI. That way you're largely compliant to the SQL standard which will help you in the future if you ever need to use (or migrate) to a standards compliant database such as PostgreSQL.
What you are trying to do is somehow valid in mysql, but invalid in standard sql, postgresql and common sense. When you group rows by 'kod', each row in a group has the same 'kod' value, but different values for 'rr' for example. With aggregate functions you can get some aspect of the values in this column for each group, for example
select kod, max(rr) from table group by kod
will give you list of 'kod's and the max of 'rr's in each group (by kod).
That being sad, in the select clause you can only put columns from the group by clause and/or aggregate functions from other columns. You can put whatever you like in where - this is used for filtering. You can also put additional 'having' clause after group that contains aggregate function expression that can also be used as post-group filtering.
Related
First off this is my first attempt at a multi select. I've done a lot of searching but I can't find the answer that works for me.
I have a postgresql query which has bg.revision_key in (_revision_key) which holds the parameter. A side note, we've named all our parameters in the queries with the underscore and they all work, they are single select in SSRS.
In my SSRS report I have a parameter called Revision Key Segment which is the multi select parameter. I've ticked Allow multi value and in Available Values I have value field pointing to revision_key in the dataset.
In my dataset parameter options I have Parameter Value [#revision_key]
In my shared dataset I also have my parameter set to Allow multi value.
For some reason I can't seem to get the multi select to work so I must be missing something somewhere but I've ran out of ideas.
Unlike with SQL Server, when you connect to a database using an ODBC connection, the parameter support is different. You cannot use named parameters and instead have to use the ? syntax.
In order to accommodate multiple values you can concatenate them into a single string and use a like statement to search them. However, this is inefficient. Another approach is to use a function to split the values into an in-line table.
In PostgreSQL you can use an expression like this:
inner join (select CAST(regexp_split_to_table(?, ',') AS int) as filter) as my on my.filter = key_column
Then in the dataset properties, under the parameters tab, use an expression like this to concatenate the values:
=Join(Parameters!Keys.Value, ",")
In other words, the report is concatenating the values into a comma-separated list. The database is splitting them into a table of integers then inner joining on the values.
I am trying to sort the OUN.note column by using the OUN.outcomeKey, since
the way it it is working right now is putting the notes in the wrong order (sorting alphabetically). Any idea on how to go about this? I've been trying to sort the data using another sub-query within, but I haven't had much luck (I don't have a plethora of experience).
Here's my current query:
SELECT DISTINCT OC.outcomeKey [Outcome Key], OC.outcome [Result],
STUFF((SELECT ','+' '+ OUN.note
FROM
Outcome AS OUT
JOIN OutcomeNote AS OUN
ON OUT.outcomeKey = OUN.outcomeKey
WHERE OUN.outcomeKey = OC.outcomeKey
GROUP BY OUN.note
FOR XML PATH ('')), 1, 1, '') [Outcome Note]
FROM Outcome AS OC
Any help or tips would be greatly appreciated! Also, please let me know if any more info is needed.
You may replace the line
GROUP BY OUN.note
with the line
ORDER BY OUN.outcomeKey
Also, because the concatenation starts with ', ', you may want to use 1, 2, '' as the additional arguments of the STUFF function. Otherwise, the values in your [Outcome note] column always start with a space.
Edit:
By the way, sorting the notes by outcomeKey in the subquery that generates the values for the [Outcome note] column has no effect... since all the notes in each subquery result will have the same outcomeKey value...
But you may sort on any column you want, of course. Perhaps there are other columns in your OutcomeNotes table that can serve as a useful sorting column of your outcome notes.
If I misunderstood your question, please provide definitions of the Outcome and OutcomeNote tables, together with a demo population of those tables and the desired/expected query result, please.
Edit 2:
Starting with SQL Server 2017, Transact-SQL contains a function called STRING_AGG, which seems to be functionally equivalent (more or less) to MySQL's GROUP_CONCAT function. Using this function, your query would become something like this:
SELECT
OUN.outcomeKey [Outcome Key],
OC.outcome [Result],
STRING_AGG(OUN.[Note], ', ') WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY OUN.outcomeKey) [Outcome Note]
FROM
Outcome AS OC
JOIN OutcomeNote AS OUN ON OUN.outcomeKey = OC.outcomeKey
GROUP BY
OUN.outcomeKey,
OC.outcome;
When using SQL Server 2017 or SQL Azure, this might be a more fitting choice, since it does not only make the query more readable, but it also eliminates the use of (way less efficient) XML-functions in your query.
I too have used the XML-functionality for field concatenation (the way you use it) intensively in the past, but I noticed a considerable drop in performance of my queries (which sometimes contained up to 10 columns with concatenated data). Since then, I tend to go for recursive common table expressions or scalar UDF with recursion approaches in pre SQL Server 2017 environments.
I want to do something like this in OrmLite
SELECT *, COUNT(title) as titleCount from table1 group by title;
Is there any way to do this via QueryBuilder without the need for queryRaw?
The documentation states that the use of COUNT() and the like necessitates the use of selectRaw(). I hoped for a way around this - not having to write my SQL as strings is the main reason I chose to use ORMLite.
http://ormlite.com/docs/query-builder
selectRaw(String... columns):
Add raw columns or aggregate functions
(COUNT, MAX, ...) to the query. This will turn the query into
something only suitable for using as a raw query. This can be called
multiple times to add more columns to select. See section Issuing Raw
Queries.
Further information on the use of selectRaw() as I was attempting much the same thing:
Documentation states that if you use selectRaw() it will "turn the query into" one that is supposed to be called by queryRaw().
What it does not explain is that normally while multiple calls to selectColumns() or selectRaw() are valid (if you exclusively use one or the other),
use of selectRaw() after selectColumns() has a 'hidden' side-effect of wiping out any selectColumns() you called previously.
I believe that the ORMLite documentation for selectRaw() would be improved by a note that its use is not intended to be mixed with selectColumns().
QueryBuilder<EmailMessage, String> qb = emailDao.queryBuilder();
qb.selectColumns("emailAddress"); // This column is not selected due to later use of selectRaw()!
qb.selectRaw("COUNT (emailAddress)");
ORMLite examples are not as plentiful as I'd like, so here is a complete example of something that works:
QueryBuilder<EmailMessage, String> qb = emailDao.queryBuilder();
qb.selectRaw("emailAddress"); // This can also be done with a single call to selectRaw()
qb.selectRaw("COUNT (emailAddress)");
qb.groupBy("emailAddress");
GenericRawResults<String[]> rawResults = qb.queryRaw(); // Returns results with two columns
Is there any way to do this via QueryBuilder without the need for queryRaw(...)?
The short answer is no because ORMLite wouldn't know what to do with the extra count value. If you had a Table1 entity with a DAO definition, what field would the COUNT(title) go into? Raw queries give you the power to select various fields but then you need to process the results.
With the code right now (v5.1), you can define a custom RawRowMapper and then use the dao.getRawRowMapper() method to process the results for Table1 and tack on the titleCount field by hand.
I've got an idea how to accomplish this in a better way in ORMLite. I'll look into it.
I have a generic code that is used to retrieve DDL information from a Firebird database (FB2.1). It generates SQL code like
SELECT * FROM MyTable where 'c' <> 'c'
I cannot change this code. Actually, if that matters, it is inside Report Builder 10.
The fact is that some tables from my database are becoming a litle too populated (>1M records) and that query is starting to take too long to execute.
If I try to execute
SELECT * FROM MyTable where SomeIndexedField = SomeImpossibleValue
it will obviously use that index and run very quickly.
Well, it wouldn´t be that hard to the database find out that that is an impossible matcher and make some sort of optimization and avoid testing it against each row.
Is there any way to make my firebird database to optimize that search?
As the filter condition is a negative proposition (and also doesn't refer a column to search, but only a value to compare to another value), Firebird need to do a full table scan (without use any index) to confirm that aren't any record that meet your criteria.
If you can't change you need to wait for the upcoming 3.0 version, that will implement the Boolean data type, and therefore should start to evaluate "constant" fake comparisons in advance (maybe the client library will do this evaluation before send the statement to the server?).
Is it possible to sort the data inside of an oracle table? Like ascending/descending via a certain column, alphabetically. Oracle 10g express.
You could try
Select *
from some_table
order by some_column asc
This will sort the results by some_column and place them in ascending order. Use desc instead of asc if you want descending order. Or did you mean to have the ordering in the physical storage itself?
I believe it's possible to specify the ordering/sorting of an indexed column in storage. It's probably closest to what you want. I don't usually use this index sort feature, but for more info see: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/itss/docs/oracle/10g/server.101/b10759/statements_5010.htm#i2062718
Perhaps you could use an index organized table - IOT to ensure that the data is stored ordered by index.
Have a look at the physical properties clause of the CREATE TABLE statement:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/statements_7002.htm#i2128663
What is the problem that you are trying to solve though? An IOT may or may not be what you should be using.
As defined by the relational model, the rows and columns in a table are unordered. That's the theory at least.
In practice, if you want the data to come out of a query in a particular order then you should always use the ORDER BY clause. The order of the output is not guarantee unless you provide that.
It would be possible to use an ORDER BY when inserting into a table but that doesn't guarantee the order that data will be output. A query might come out in the same order every time.... but that doesn't mean it will come out in the same order next time.
There were issues when Oracle 10g came out where aggregate queries (with GROUP BY) were not coming out sorted because users had come to rely on the data being sorted as a side-effect of the grouping. With the introduction of the HASH GROUP BY in addition to the SORT GROUP BY people were caught out. This was a useful reminder that ORDER BY should always be used.
What do you really mean ?
Are you just asking for the order by clause ?
http://www.1keydata.com/sql/sqlorderby.html
Oracle 10g Express supports ANSI SQL like most RDBM's so you can sort in the standard manner:
SELECT * FROM Persons ORDER BY LastName
A good tutorial on SQL can be found here: w3schools SQL
Oracle Express does have some limitations compared to the Enterprise Edition but not in the basic SQL dialect it supports.