I am trying to obtain a max() output of multiple IDs in the same query, joined from three different tables.
id.id_client is unique, but it can share with other id_client a d.name.
Each id_client have multiple time_start but I need the max() result from it separated by id_client.
I am trying this but with no success:
select ts.time_start,id.id_client,d.name
from session ts, client id, name d
where
id.id_deck=d.ID_DECk AND
ts.id_client=id.id_client AND
d.name like '%John Doe%' and
ts.time_start = (select max(time_start) from session)
So for each id that have a name as 'John Doe' i need a row with max(time_start) output.
What you need is a group by:
SELECT MAX(ts.time_start), id.id_client, d.name
FROM session ts
INNER JOIN client ID ON ts.id_client = id.id_client
INNER JOIN name d ON id.id_deck = d.ID_DECk
WHERE d.name LIKE '%John Doe%'
GROUP BY id.id_client, d.name;
you can also switch to ANSI JOINS, they are easier to read and write.
Related
I have a query which uses the view a as follows and the query is extremely slow.
select *
from a
where a.id = 1 and a.name = 'Ann';
The view a is made up another four views b,c,d,e.
select b.id, c.name, c.age, e.town
from b,c,d,e
where c.name = b.name AND c.id = d.id AND d.name = e.name;
I have created an index on the table of c named c_test and I need to use it when executing the first query.
Is this possible?
Are you really using this deprecated 1980s join syntax? You shouldn't. Use proper explicit joins (INNER JOIN in your case).
You are joining the two tables C and D on their IDs. That should mean they are 1:1 related. If not, "ID" is a misnomer, because an ID is supposed to identify a row.
Now let's look at the access route: You have the ID from table B and the name from tables B and C. We can tell from the column name that b.id is unique and Oracle guarantees this with a unique index, if the database is set up properly.
This means the DBMS will look for the B row with ID 1, find it instantly in the index, find the row instantly in the table, see the name and see whether it matches 'Ann'.
The only thing that can be slow hence is joining C, D, and E. Joining on unique IDs is extremely fast. Joining on (non-unigue?) names is only fast, if you provide indexes on the names. I'd recommend the following indexes accordingly:
create index idx_c on c (name);
create index idx_e on e (name);
To get this faster still, use covering indexes instead:
create index idx_b on b (id, name);
create index idx_c on c (name, id, age);
create index idx_d on d (id, name);
create index idx_e on e (name, town);
Let me explain the question.
I have two tables, which have 3 columns with same data tpyes. The 3 columns create a key/ID if you like, but the name of the columns are different in the tables.
Now I am creating queries with these 3 columns for both tables. I've managed to independently get these results
For example:
SELECT ID, FirstColumn, sum(SecondColumn)
FROM (SELECT ABC||DEF||GHI AS ID, FirstTable.*
FROM FirstTable
WHERE ThirdColumn = *1st condition*)
GROUP BY ID, FirstColumn
;
SELECT ID, SomeColumn, sum(AnotherColumn)
FROM (SELECT JKM||OPQ||RST AS ID, SecondTable.*
FROM SecondTable
WHERE AlsoSomeColumn = *2nd condition*)
GROUP BY ID, SomeColumn
;
So I make a very similar queries for two different tables. I know the results have a certain number of same rows with the ID attribute, the one I've just created in the queries. I need to check which rows in the result are not in the other query's result and vice versa.
Do I have to make temporary tables or views from the queries? Maybe join the two tables in a specific way and only run one query on them?
As a beginner I don't have any experience how to use results as an input for the next query. I'm interested what is the cleanest, most elegant way to do this.
No, you most probably don't need any "temporary" tables. WITH factoring clause would help.
Here's an example:
with
first_query as
(select id, first_column, ...
from (select ABC||DEF||GHI as id, ...)
),
second_query as
(select id, some_column, ...
from (select JKM||OPQ||RST as id, ...)
)
select id from first_query
minus
select id from second_query;
For another result you'd just switch the tables, e.g.
with ... <the same as above>
select id from second_query
minus
select id from first_query
I created this query using HQL with Hibernate and Oracle
select c from Cat c
left join c.kittens k
where (c.location= 1 OR c.location = 2)
and (i.activo = 1)
group
by c.id,
c.name,
c.fulldescription,
c.kittens
order by count(e) desc
The problem comes with the fact that in HQL you need to specify all fields in Cat in order to perform a Group By, but fulldescription is a CLOB, and you cannot group by by a CLOB (I get a "Not a Group By Expression" error. I've seen a few solutions around for a pure SQL sentence but none for HQL.
A serious issue GROUP BY of HQL because if you specify your object in GROUP BY and in your SELECT field list behaviours are differents. In GROUP BY has considered only id field but in SELECT field list all fields are considered.
So you can use a subquery with GROUP BY to return only id from your object, so that result becomes an input for the main query, like the follow I write for you.
Pay attention there are some alias table (i and e) not defined, so this query doesn't work, but you know as fixed.
Try this:
select c2 from Cat c2
where c2.id in (
select c.id from Cat c
left join c.kittens k
where (c.location= 1 OR c.location = 2)
and (i.activo = 1) <-- who is i alias??
group by c.id)
order by count(e) desc <-- who is e alias???
I have a table something like this:
ID|Value
01|1
02|4
03|12
01|5
02|14
03|22
01|9
02|32
02|62
01|13
03|92
I want to know how much progress have each id made (from initial or minimal value)
so in sybase I can type:
select ID, (value-min(value)) from table group by id;
ID|Value
01|0
01|4
01|8
01|12
02|0
02|10
02|28
02|58
03|0
03|10
03|80
But monetdb does not support this (I am not sure may be cz it uses SQL'99).
Group by only gives one column or may be average of other values but not the desired result.
Are there any alternative to group by in monetdb?
You can achieve this with a self join. The idea is that you build a subselect that gives you the minimum value for each id, and then join that to the original table by id.
SELECT a.id, a.value-b.min_value
FROM "table" a INNER JOIN
(SELECT id, MIN(value) AS min_value FROM "table" GROUP BY id) AS b
ON a.id = b.id;
I have one table, 'a', with id and timestamp. Another table, 'b', has N multiple rows referring to id, and each row has 'type', and "some other data".
I want a LINQ query to produce a single row with id, timestamp, and "some other data" x N. Like this:
1 | 4671 | 46.5 | 56.5
where 46.5 is from one row of 'b', and 56.5 is from another row; both with the same id.
I have a working query in SQLite, but I am new to LINQ. I dont know where to start - I don't think this is a JOIN at all.
SELECT
a.id as id,
a.seconds,
COALESCE(
(SELECT b.some_data FROM
b WHERE
b.id=a.id AND b.type=1), '') AS 'data_one',
COALESCE(
(SELECT b.some_data FROM
b WHERE
b.id=a.id AND b.type=2), '') AS 'data_two'
FROM a first
WHERE first.id=1
GROUP BY first.ID
you didn't mention if you are using Linq to sql or linq to entities. However following query should get u there
(from x in a
join y in b on x.id equals y.id
select new{x.id, x.seconds, y.some_data, y.type}).GroupBy(x=>new{x.id,x.seconds}).
Select(x=>new{
id = x.key.id,
seconds = x.Key.seconds,
data_one = x.Where(z=>z.type == 1).Select(g=>g.some_data).FirstOrDefault(),
data_two = x.Where(z=>z.type == 2).Select(g=>g.some_data).FirstOrDefault()
});
Obviously, you have to prefix your table names with datacontext or Objectcontext depending upon the underlying provider.
What you want to do is similar to pivoting, see Is it possible to Pivot data using LINQ?. The difference here is that you don't really need to aggregate (like a standard pivot), so you'll need to use Max or some similar method that can simulate selecting a single varchar field.