Trying to write an hql which holds a contact_type filed having multiple values for same employee but i need to display any one of it
For example I'm getting the data generated like below and I want only one record with any one of the contact_type out of the below 3 need to be displayed for that Emp_id
Emp_id contact_type
111 T
111 M
111 F
T - tel
M - mob
F - fax
I tried handling with case but we are not sure which contact types will come for each employee, it may come either 1 or more than 3
Related
I have a table abc as:
acc subgroup
720V A
720V A
720V A
720V A
111 C
222 D
333 E
My expected output is:
acc subgroup
720V A
111 C
222 D
333 E
Since 720V A is duplicate i want to delete all three duplicate data and only want one data in my table.
So,i tried
DELETE FROM (
select t.*,rownum rn from abc t where acc='720V') where rn>1;
So,I get error as:
ORA-01732: data manipulation operation not legal on this view
How i can get my expected output?
Your table seems to be lacking a primary key column, which is a big problem here. Assuming there actually is a primary key column PK, we can try using ROW_NUMBER to identify any "duplictes":
DELETE
FROM abc t1
WHERE pk IN (SELECT pk
FROM (
SELECT t.pk, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY acc, subgroup ORDER BY pk) rn
FROM abc t) x
WHERE rn > 1
);
Note that if you can live with keeping your original data, then the most expedient thing to do might be to create a distinct view:
CREATE VIEW abc_view AS
SELECT DISTINCT acc, subgroup
FROM abc;
I have two tables affiliation and customer, in that i have data like this
aff_id From_cus_id
------ -----------
1 10
2 20
3 30
4 40
5 50
cust_id cust_aff_id
------- -------
10
20
30
40
50
i need to update data for cust_aff_id column from affiliation table which is aff_id like below
cust_id cust_aff_id
------- -------
10 1
20 2
30 3
40 4
50 5
could u please give reply if anyone knows......
Oracle doesn't have an UPDATE with join syntax, but you can use a subquery instead:
UPDATE customer
SET customer.cust_aff_id =
(SELECT aff_id FROM affiliation WHERE From_cus_id = customer.cust_id)
merge into customer t2
using affiliation t1 on (t1.From_cus_id =t2.cust_id )
WHEN MATCHED THEN
update set t2.cust_aff_id = t1.aff_id
;
Here is an update with join syntax. This, quite reasonably, works only if from_cus_id is primary key in the first table and cust_id is foreign key in the second table, referencing the first table. Without these conditions, the requirement doesn't make much sense in the first place anyway... but Oracle requires that these constraints be stated explicitly in the tables. This is also reasonable on Oracle's part IMO.
update
( select t1.aff_id, t2.cust_aff_id
from affiliation t1 join customer t2 on t2.cust_id = t1.from_cus_id) j
set j.cust_aff_id = j.aff_id;
I'm dealing whit this for a couple of hours and I can't find the way to get the answer.
I've a table with a maximun of 4 records for a product (let's call it that way) for a diferent period (column name with a number). I'm trying to return the ones that DO NOT has a particular type of CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID. But it doesn't work.
I'll explain it simple. I've a table with these fields (there are more, but these one are just fine)
product_id - CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID - consumption_period
123 103 1
123 104 1
123 107 1
123 108 1
I need to return the ones that don't has one particular type of consumption, let's say that the type 107 is missing (the row doesn't exists), the select query should show the other 3 or any present. I don't mind doing the same select 4 times, I could also try to do a cursor for it and use loop to check every one. The point is, that the type of query with "not in" or "not exists" doesn't work. It gives me a result like the one given below, but when I query the "consumption_period" it shows me the missing "CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID" and that's because the "not in" clause it's only hidding the results.
this is what I need.
select * from t1 where CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID != 108;
product_id - CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID - consumption_period
123 103 1
123 104 1
123 107 1
I hope you can help me with this. I'm stucked, it maybe simple, but I'm having one of those stucked times. Thanks in advance for any help
You probably should've posted that NOT EXISTS query that doesn't work, because that is the right way to do this.
If I got your requirements right: all products that do not have a record for a specific consumption_type_id.
SELECT DISTINCT product_id
FROM t1 t
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT 1 FROM t1
WHERE t.product_id = product_id
AND Consumption_Type_ID = ?)
The obvious answer here is to search for CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID = 108 and have the surrounding code check for a lack of rows, rather than the existence of rows.
If you really need a row return for each consumption_type_id that's not in this table, then you should probably be selecting from the lookup table for consumption_type_id:
select *
from consumption_type ct
where not exists (select *
from t1
where t1.consumption_type_id = ct.consumption_type_id)
and ct.consumption_type_id = 108
I have a table with following structure
SubId Status
---------------------------------------
001 Active
001 Partially Active
While displaying this record, I need to display this like this
SubId Status
---------------------------------------
001 Active/Partially active
I tried using distinct, but this returns both rows.
Any idea how can I get only 1 row instead of 2. I know it would be simple. I just cannot find it.
select subid,
listagg(status, '/') within group (order by null) as status
from the_table
group by subid;
I am facing an issue using connect by.
I have a query through which I retrieve a few columns including these three:
ID
ParentID
ObjectID
Now for the same ID and parentID, there are multiple objects associated e.g.
ID ParentID ObjectID
1 0 112
1 0 113
2 0 111
2 0 112
3 1 111
4 1 112
I am trying to use connect by but I'm unable to get the result in a proper hierarchy. I need it the way it is showed below. Take an ID-parentID combo, display all rows with that ID-parentID and then all the children of this ID i.e. whose parentID=ID
ID ParentID ObjectID
1 0 112
1 0 113
3 1 111
4 1 112
2 0 111
2 0 112
select ID,parent_id, object_id from table start with parent_id=0
connect by prior id=parent_id order by id,parent_id
Above query is not resulting into proper hierarchy that i need.
Well, your problem appears to be that you are using a non-normalized table design. If a given ID always has the same ParentID, that relationship shouldn't be indicated separately in all these rows.
A better design would be to have a single table showing the parent child relationships, with ID as a primary key, and a second table showing the mappings of ID to ObjectID, where I presume both columns together would comprise the primary key. Then you would apply your hierarchical query against the first table, and join the results of that to the other table to get the relevant objects for each row.
You can emulate this with your current table structure ...
with parent_child as (select distinct id, parent_id from table),
tree as (select id, parent_id from parent_child
start with parent_id = 0
connect by prior id = parent_id )
select id, table.parent_id, table.object_id
from tree join table using (id)
Here's a script that runs. Not ideal but will work -
select * from (select distinct test.id,
parent_id,
object_id,
connect_by_root test.id root
from test
start with test.parent_id = 0
connect by prior test.id = parent_id)
order by root,id
First of all Thanks to all who tried helping me.
Finally i changed my approach as applying hierarchy CONNECT BY clause to inner queryw ith multiple joins was not working for me.
I took following approach
Get the hierarchical data from First table i.e. table with ID-ParentID. Select Query table1 using CONNECT BY. It will give the ID in proper sequence.
Join the retrieved List of ID.
Pass the above ID as comma seperated string in select query IN Clause to second table with ID-ObjectID.
select * from table2 where ID in (above Joined string of ID) order by
instr('above Joined string of ID',ID);
ORDER BY INSTR did the magic. It will give me the result ordered by the IN Clause data and IN Clause string is prepared using the hierarchical query. Hence it will obviously be in sequence.
Again Thanks all for the help!
Note: Above approach has one constraint : ID passed as comma separated string in IN Clause. IN Clause has a limit of characters inside it. I guess 1000 chars. Not sure.
But as i am sure on the data of First table that it will not be so much so as to cross limit of 1000 chars. Hence i chose above approach.