This is question in Oracle views.I have a table with Emp_id,Start_Period and Key. Sample data is given in Descending order of start period with 201909 on top. Need to generate a column named Key_order. (Finally I am planning to create a view with all 4 columns.)
With the sample data as shown. In the sorted list with Start_period what ever comes in first position with number 1 and then on, when the Key changes order has to increment by one.
That is in row 1 and 2 key is same and order is 1. In row 3 SCD changed to ABC so order has to increment by 1 so order value is 2. 4th position key changes and order becomes 3.
See in 7th and 8th position value is same so order remains 6 for both. I am trying to do this inside a view. Tried RANK() but it is sorting column Key and giving order based on that.
Please help.Sample Data
Set a one in each line that has a different key than the line before. Use LAG for this. Then build a running total of these ones with SUM OVER.
select
emp_id, start_period, key,
sum(chg) over (partition by emp_id order by start_period desc) as key_order
from
(
select
emp_id, start_period, key,
case when key = lag(key) over (partition by emp_id order by start_period desc)
then 0 else 1 end as chg
from mytable
)
order by emp_id, start_period desc;
Related
I have a test script that I'm beggining to play with. I'm getting stuck with something that seems simple.
I want to iterate through rows to fetch data from last row of result set to use only it.
procedure e_test_send
is
cursor get_rec is
select
id,
email_from,
email_to,
email_cc,
email_subject,
email_message
from test_email_tab;
begin
for rec_ in get_rec loop
ifsapp.send_email_api.send_html_email(rec_.email_to,rec_.email_from, rec_.email_subject, rec_.email_message);
end loop;
end e_test_send;
All I'm trying to do is send an email with a message and to a person from the last row only. This is a sample table that will grow in records. At the minute I have 2 rows of data in it, if I execute this procedure it will send 2 emails which is not the desired action.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks
Do you know which row is the last row? The one with the MAX(ID) value? If so, then you could base cursor on a straightforward
SELECT id,
email_from,
email_to,
email_cc,
email_subject,
email_message
FROM test_email_tab
WHERE id = (SELECT MAX (id) FROM test_email_tab)
As it scans the same table twice, its performance will drop as number of rows gets higher and higher. In that case, consider
WITH
temp
AS
(SELECT id,
email_from,
email_to,
email_cc,
email_subject,
email_message,
ROW_NUMBER () OVER (ORDER BY id DESC) rn
FROM test_email_tab)
SELECT t.id,
t.email_from,
t.email_to,
t.email_cc,
t.email_subject,
t.email_message
FROM temp t
WHERE t.rn = 1
which does it only once; sorts rows by ID in descending order and returns the one that ranks as the "highest" (i.e. the last).
Am trying to list top 3 records from atable based on some amount stored in a column FTE_TMUSD which is of varchar datatype
below is the query i tried
SELECT *FROM
(
SELECT * FROM FSE_TM_ENTRY
ORDER BY FTE_TMUSD desc
)
WHERE rownum <= 3
ORDER BY FTE_TMUSD DESC ;
o/p i got
972,9680,963 -->FTE_TMUSD values which are not displayed in desc
I am expecting an o/p which will display the top 3 records of values
That should work; inline view is ordered by FTE_TMUSD in descending order, and you're selecting values from it.
What looks suspicious are values you specified as the result. It appears that FTE_TMUSD's datatype is VARCHAR2 (ah, yes - it is, you said so). It means that values are sorted as strings, not numbers - and it seems that you expect numbers. So, apply TO_NUMBER to that column. Note that it'll fail if column contains anything but numbers (for example, if there's a value 972C).
Also, an alternative to your query might be use of analytic functions, such as row_number:
with temp as
(select f.*,
row_number() over (order by to_number(f.fte_tmusd) desc) rn
from fse_tm_entry f
)
select *
from temp
where rn <= 3;
i have table:
how do i select ID form this table when value after less than previous value (expected result is ID = B2 and C1 ). Thanks you
You can use window function lead for to get the last row's value and check if current row's value is lesser than that. You can also use lead in similar way to get the value from next row.
select distinct ID
from (
select t.*,
lag(value) over (
partition by ID order by time
) as last_value
from your_table t
) t
where value < last_value;
I have a table with 3 columns:
table1: ID, CODE, RESULT, RESULT2, RESULT3
I have this SAS code:
data table1
set table1;
BY ID, CODE;
IF FIRST.CODE and RESULT='A' THEN OUTPUT;
ELSE IF LAST.CODE and RESULT NE 'A' THEN OUTPUT;
RUN;
So we are grouping the data by ID and CODE, and then writing to the dataset if certain conditions are met. I want to write a hive query to replicate this. This is what I have:
proc sql;
create table temp as
select *, row_number() over (partition by ID, CODE) as rowNum
from table1;
create table temp2 as
select a.ID, a.CODE, a.RESULT, a.RESULT2, a.RESULT3
from temp a
inner join (select ID, CODE, max(rowNum) as maxRowNum
from temp
group by ID, CODE) b
on a.ID=b.ID and a.CODE=b.CODE
where (a.rowNum=1 and a.RESULT='A') or (a.rowNum=b.maxRowNum and a.RESULT NE 'A');
quit;
There are two issues I see with this.
1) The row that is first or last in each BY group is entirely dependant on the order of rows in table1 in SAS, we aren't ordering by anything. I don't think row order is preserved when translating to a hive query.
2) The SAS code is taking the first row in each BY GROUP or the last, not both. I think that my HIVE query is taking both, resulting in more rows than I want.
Any suggestions or insight on how to improve my query is appreciated. Is it even possible to replicate this SAS code in HIVE?
The SAS code has a by statement (BY ID CODE;), which tells SAS that the set dataset is sorted at those levels. So, not a random selection for first. and last..
That said, we can replicate this in HIVE by using the first_value and last_value window functions.
FIRST.CODE should replicate to
first_value(code) over (partition by Id order by code)fcode
Similarly, LAST.CODE would be
last_value(code) over (partition by Id order by code)lcode
Once you have the fcode and lcode columns, use case when statements for the result column criteria. Like,
case when (code=fcode and result='A') or (code=lcode and result<>'A')
then 1 else 0 end as op_flag
Then the fetch the table with where op_flag = 1
SAMPLE
select id, code, result from (
select *,
first_value(code) over (partition by id order by code)fcode,
last_value(code) over (partition by id order by code)lcode
from footab) f
where (code=fcode and result='A') or (code=lcode and result<>'A')
Regarding point 1) the BY group processing requires the input data to be sorted or indexed on BY variables, so though the code contains no ordering, the source data is processed in order. If the input data was not indexed/sorted, SAS will throw error.
Regarding this, possible differences are on rows with same values of BY variables, especially if the RESULT is different.
In SAS, I would pre-sort data by ID, CODE, RESULT, then use BY ID CODE in order to not be influenced by order of rows.
Regarding 2) FIRST and LAST can be both true in SAS. Since your condition for first and last on RESULT is different, I guess this is not a source of differences.
I guess you could add another field as
row_number() over (partition by ID, CODE desc) as rowNumDesc
to detect last row with rowNumDesc = 1 (so that you skip the join).
EDIT:
I think the two programs above both include random selection of rows for groups with same values of ID and CODE variables, especially with same values of RESULT. But you should get same number of rows from both. If not, just debug it.
However the random aspect in SAS code/storage is based on physical order of rows, while the ROW_NUMBERs randomness within a group will be influenced by the implementation of the function in the engine.
I have a row that is a varchar(50) that has a unique constraint and i would like to get the next unique number for an new insert but with a given prefix.
My rows could look like this:
ID (varchar)
00010001
00010002
00010003
00080001
So if I would like to get the next unqiue number from the prefix "0001" it would be "00010004" but if I would want it for the prefix "0008" it would be "00080002".
There will be more then 1 millon entries in this table. Is there a way with Oracle 11 to perform this kind of operation that is fairly fast?
I know that this setup is totaly insane but this is what I have to work with. I cant create any new tables etc.
You can search for the max value of the specified prefix and increment it:
SQL> WITH DATA AS (
2 SELECT '00010001' id FROM DUAL UNION ALL
3 SELECT '00010002' id FROM DUAL UNION ALL
4 SELECT '00010003' id FROM DUAL UNION ALL
5 SELECT '00080001' id FROM DUAL
6 )
7 SELECT :prefix || to_char(MAX(to_number(substr(id, 5)))+1, 'fm0000') nextval
8 FROM DATA
9 WHERE ID LIKE :prefix || '%';
NEXTVAL
---------
00010004
I'm sure you're aware that this is an inefficient method to generate a primary key. Furthermore it won't play nicely in a multi-user environment and thus won't scale. Concurrent inserts will wait then fail since there is a UNIQUE constraint on the column.
If the prefix is always the same length, you can reduce the workload somewhat: you could create a specialized index that would find the max value in a minimum number of steps:
CREATE INDEX ix_fetch_max ON your_table (substr(id, 1, 4),
substr(id, 5) DESC);
Then the following query could use the index and will stop at the first row retrieved:
SELECT id
FROM (SELECT substr(id, 1, 4) || substr(id, 5) id
FROM your_table
WHERE substr(id, 1, 4) = :prefix
ORDER BY substr(id, 5) DESC)
WHERE rownum = 1
If you need to do simultaneous inserts with the same prefix, I suggest you use DBMS_LOCK to request a lock on the specified newID. If the call fails because someone is already inserting this value, try with newID+1. Although this involves more work than traditional sequence, at least your inserts won't wait on each others (potentially leading to deadlocks).
This is a very unsatisfactory situation for you. As other posters have pointed out - if you don't use sequences then you will almost certainly have concurrency issues. I mentioned in a comment the possibility that you live with big gaps. This is the simplest solution but you will run out of numbers after 9999 inserts.
Perhaps an alternative would be to create a separate sequence for each prefix. This would only really be practical if the number of prefixes is fairly low but it could be done.
ps - your requirement that > 1000000 records should be possible may, in fact, mean you have no choice but to redesign the database.
SELECT to_char(to_number(max(id)) + 1, '00000000')
FROM mytable
WHERE id LIKE '0001%'
SQLFiddle demo here http://sqlfiddle.com/#!4/4f543/5/0