So i built a query for my leadership team that was correct, but i dont understand why oracle gave me the correct answer.
i have 3 tables that i needed to get data out of in order to get the total billed amount.
Here is my query (please forgive me, my 2nd post and im not sure how to properly format my querys)
select b.total_amount_billed as billed from t1.billing_information b
where b.billing_no in
(select h.billing_no
from t1.res_history h where h.res_seq_no in
(Select r.reservation_seq_no
from t1.res r where r.customer_order_no in ('THO40000') ))
so in the deepest select, i take the the sequence number where my customer order number was THO40000, this query returns 2 sequence numbers.
the second sub query returns the billing numbers for my order from the history table where the sequence number match, in this case for this order they both use the same billing number, 312000.
the final select, returns my total billed amount where it matched my billing numbers it found, in my case $110.
the query works, but what i dont understand is why is it not duplicated? why does it not return 110, for each time it found 312000, giving me 2 records of 110? the billing number is a PK in the billing_information table. im not sure why it worked without me using the distinct keyword on the query for the billing number.
anyway thanks for the help, ill do my best to explain if you have questions!
You are being saved because you used IN to get the billing_no values to use, rather than an INNER JOIN between the two tables using b.billing_no = h.billing_no. A join would have duplicated the records, but your IN query is essentially this:
select b.total_amount_billed as billed
from t1.billing_information b
where b.billing_no in (312000, 312000);
If there is a single row in billing_information having billing_no equal to 312000, it is in the list, so the WHERE condition is true and it is included in the results. The fact that it is in the list twice doesn't make the IN condition "more true".
Related
I need someone who can explain me about "group function is not allowed here" because I don't understand it and I would like to understand it.
I have to get the product name and the unit price of the products that have a price above the average
I initially tried to use this, but oracle quickly told me that it was wrong.
SELECT productname,unitprice
FROM products
WHERE unitprice>(AVG(unitprice));
search for information and found that I could get it this way:
SELECT productname,unitprice FROM products
WHERE unitprice > (SELECT AVG(unitprice) FROM products);
What I want to know is why do you put two select?
What does group function is not allowed here mean?
More than once I have encountered this error and I would like to be able to understand what to do when it appears
Thank you very much for your time
The phrase "group function not allowed here" is referring to anything that is in some way an "aggregation" of data, eg SUM, MIN, MAX, etc et. These functions must operate on a set of rows, and to operate on a set of rows you need to do a SELECT statement. (I'm leaving out UPDATE/DELETE here)
If this was not the case, you would end up with ambiguities, for example, lets say we allowed this:
select *
from products
where region = 'USA'
and avg(price) > 10
Does this mean you want the average prices across all products, or just the average price for those products in the USA? The syntax is no longer deterministic.
Here's another option:
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT productname,unitprice,AVG(unitprice) OVER (PARTITION BY 1) avg_price
FROM products)
WHERE unitprice > avg_price
The reason your original SQL doesn't work is because you didn't tell Oracle how to compute the average. What table should it find it in? What rows should it include? What, if any, grouping do you wish to apply? None of that is communicated with "WHERE unitprice>(AVG(unitprice))".
Now, as a human, I can make a pretty educated guess that you intend the averaging to happen over the same set of rows you select from the main query, with the same granularity (no grouping). We can accomplish that either by using a sub-query to make a second pass on the table, as your second SQL did, or the newer windowing capabilities of aggregate functions to internally make a second pass on your query block results, as I did in my answer. Using the OVER clause, you can tell Oracle exactly what rows to include (ROWS BETWEEN ...) and how to group it (PARTITION BY...).
Hei guys. I am desperately seeking help.
Please take a look at this image first.
Thanks. Now
Please look at the table below. The rightmost column REMAINING BALANCE is holding the SUM of credit_amount - debit_amount. But when I add a new amount of credit it changes in the entire column. For example, the REMAINING BALANCE column has 102500.0. If I add 500 of credit is supposed to give me 102500 + 500 = 103000 only in that specific row. 102500 will stay same in the previous row. But my problem is, it changes in the entire column.
And I have used this repository to sum the total amount of credit and subtract total amount of debit.
// Find remaining balance
#Query("SELECT SUM(b.credit_amount - b.debit_amount) FROM Mosque b")
double remainingBalance();
Thanks for your attention.
Well, it seems that you need to specify a criteria in your query, otherwise, the SQL query (or JPQL in your case) will be applied to the entire table...
I'd do something like:
#Query("SELECT SUM(b.credit_amount - b.debit_amount) FROM Mosque b where b.id =?")
double remainingBalance(int id);
Otherwise, without criteria, for each Domain Object you have, you will query the entire table. Hence, you will always get the same result. If you run this query in your Database, you will see that you will have only one result, as SUM is "summing" all your rows together.
Crosstab report works 99%.
About 20 rows, all but one are ok.
5 columns - Company Division.
The rows are things like cost, revenue, revenue 2, etc.
All the rows that work have three attributes I'm using to select them:
Fiscal Year
Period
Solution.
The problem is there is table that lists an YTD rate for each period. This table is not Division Specific; it's company wide.
All the tables are linked to the accounting period table that has fiscal year and period. So the overall query limits data to fiscal year (?pFiscalYear?) and period <= ?pPeriod?, based on prompt page results.
The source table has this:
FY_CD PD_NO ACT_CURR_RT ACT_YTD_RT
2018 1 0.36121715 0.36121715
2018 2 0.32471476 0.34255512
2018 3 0.25240906 0.31210183
2018 4 0.33154745 0.31925874
Note the YTD rate is not an average of any of the other numbers.
When I select the ACT_YTD_RT, as a row, I want the ACT_YTD_RT that matches the selected period.
What I get is the average if I set the aggregation to average or the lowest if I set it to other aggregations. So sometimes, it looks right (if I run for period 1,2,3, as the rate kept falling), and sometimes it's wrong (period 4
returns .3121 instead of .3192).
I've tried a number of different methods and can generate garbage data (totals, min, max, average) and crossjoins but can't figure out how to get the value I'm looking for.
I want YTD_RT where fiscal year =?pFiscal? and period = ?pPeriod?.
I tried a straight if then clause:
if (sourcetable.fiscalYear = ?pFiscalYear?) and (sourcetable.Period = ?pPeriod?) then (ACT_YTD_RT)
but I get an error like this:
'ACT_YTD_RT' is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause. (SQLSTATE=42000, SQLERRORCODE=8120)
If I create another query that generates the right response and try to include it, I get a crossjoin error that the query I'm referencing is trying to crossjoin several other items in the crosstab query.
A union doesn't work (different number of columns).
Not sure how a join would work since the division doesn't exist in the rate table.
I maybe could create a view in the database that did a crossjoin of the division table and the rate table, add that to the framework and then I wouldn't have a crossjoin since the solution would be in the rate "table" (really view), but that seems wrong somehow.
If I could just write a freaking parameterized query direct to the database I'd be done. But in Cognos 11 crosstabs I can't find a place for a SQL query object. And that shouldn't be necessary.
I've spent hours and hours chasing this in circles.
Anybody have any ideas?
Thanks
Paul
So the earlier problem was that this:
if (sourcetable.fiscalYear = ?pFiscalYear?) and (sourcetable.Period = ?pPeriod?) then (ACT_YTD_RT)
Generated an error like this:
'ACT_YTD_RT' is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause. (SQLSTATE=42000, SQLERRORCODE=8120)
To fix the above, I had to add a cross join of the division table and the rate table as a view in the database. Then add that to the framework. Then build the data item this way:
total (
if (sourcetable.fiscalYear = ?pFiscalYear?) and (sourcetable.Period = ?pPeriod?) then (ACT_YTD_RT)
)
And now the "total" provides the missing group by. And the crossjoin in the database provides the division information so the crosstab is happy.
I still think there should have been an easier way to do this, but I have a functioning hammer at the moment.
I need to get sales figures from open orders, sorted by code. The items are separated in the stock table by lot number (for traceability reasons) but the lot numbers do not appear in the orders table. The only link between the 2 tables is the part number.
When my query
SELECT code, SUM(qty*price) AS Sales
FROM orders INNER JOIN stock ON orders.partno = stock.partno
GROUP BY code
started returning strange results (very high sales figures for a given code), I changed it to
SELECT DISITNCT orders.partno, stock.lot, stock.code
FROM orders INNER JOIN stock ON orders.partno = stock.partno
and noticed that if several lots of a given part are in stock they are all returned
Part1 LotA code
Part1 LotB code
Part1 LotC code
which means that if a customer orders 300 units of Part1, my query returns 900 and my sales figure is multiplied by 3.
How can I work around that?
It must be noted that I do not work from a database but from a group of tables, the structures of which can sometimes be whimsical.
You should really use table.column or alias.column reference when writing queries. As your question stands, we do not know which table the PRICE comes from... the parts table or the lots table. If you are dealing with inventory tracking such as FIFO or LIFO method accounting, you must have an association to the lot table for inventory being tracked/sold.
Now, why are you getting large numbers? That is because of a Cartesian result. If you are not familiar with that, for each record in one table joined to another, it is returning however many matches.
So, if you have an order of one line item, there is only one line item in a products available table. So this is simple 1:1 ratio. Now, you have your STOCK table that can have multiple records for the exact same part number. You are now returning the same original order line item for EACH LOT ENTRY in the Stock table. So now, for your 1 item, you are getting 3 lots (1:3 result).
I know this is important from a cost-of-goods sold basis, hence your need to know which "lot" it is joined to so you only get that one specific record for proper pricing.
If however, you do have a generic product table of everything you sell, and that table has a generic common price no matter which "lot" was used for the sale, I would join to that table instead for your report. But you will still have the accounting issue of inventory, cost-of-goods, etc.
I need your advice on the following query that I have - Let's say that I have a table with all payments that are booked on my current account.
The details of the payment contain date of the operation and hour. I would like to extract the information in a such a way so to have next to each transaction the amount of of the balance(sum of transactions' amount) since the beginning of the day up to the current transaction. The balance for each day is reset to 0.
I was thinking to join this table to itself and find all unique operations from the joined table where the date matches and the hour is less then currently reviewed operation's hour then to use sum on the group.
Still I think that there is much more intelligent solution.
Thanks in advance
here is a sample of the table. Expected result is in the last column
My guess is that you just want a rolling sum. Making up column names and table names, you probably want something like this in your projection (your select list). You shouldn't need to do a self-join.
SUM(transaction_amount)
OVER (PARTITION BY account_number, trunc(transaction_date)
ORDER BY transaction_date) rolling_sum