I have a query like this:
$foos= Foo::orderBy('order_number', 'asc')->limit(10)->orderBy('updated_at', 'desc')->get();
Its ordering the "order_number" by asc. After one order again.
If there is same order number values in query. Example:
What I want is:
1-2-3-2-3-2-1-1-1-2
There are four "number 1", four "number 2", two "number 3"
Is there a chance to order each number bycreated_at, desc?
The result must be:
1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-3-3
But 1s are ordered by created_at and 2 and 3 are ordered by created_at.
I have one solution but it's not concise: it uses 3 queries.
Edit1:
in my db
id = 1 / order = 1 / name = john / created_at = 2013
id = 2 / order = 2 / name = jack / created_at = 2016
id = 3 / order = 1 / name = jennifer / created_at = 2015
id = 4 / order = 2 / name = janice / created_at = 2014
after the query result must:
john
jennifer
janice
jack
JOHN's order smaller than jack and janice and earlier than Jennifer. (1st place)
JENNIFER's order smaller than smaller than jack and janice but not earlier than JOHN (2nd place)
JANICE's order and JACK's order is not smaller than others but janice's created_at earlier than jack. So jennifer 3rd place. Jack 4th.
There could be a to many orders of course.
First order by id and then order by created_at
OrderModel::orderBy('id')->latest()->get();
Related
Let's say i have a table structure like this :
ID | Name | SCHOOLNAME | CODESCHOOL
1 DARK Kindergarten 123 1
2 DARK Kindergarten 111 1
3 Knight NY University 3
4 Knight LA Senior HS 2
5 JOHN HARVARD 3
so, how to diplay all of the data above into like this :
ID | Name | SCHOOLNAME | CODESCHOOL
1 DARK Kindergarten 123 1
3 Knight NY University 3
5 JOHN HARVARD 3
my purpose is want to display data with the max of codeschool, but when i tried with my query below :
SELECT NAME, SCHOOLNAME, MAX(CODESCHOOL) FROM TABLE GROUP BY NAME, SCHOOLNAME
but the result is just like this :
ID | Name | SCHOOLNAME | CODESCHOOL
1 DARK Kindergarten 123 1
2 DARK Kindergarten 111 1
3 Knight NY University 3
4 Knight LA Senior HS 2
5 JOHN HARVARD 3
maybe it caused by the GROUP BY SCHOOLNAME, when i tried to not select SCHOOLNAME, the data displayed just like what i expected, but i need the SCHOOLNAME field for search condition in my query
hope you guys can help me out of this problem
any help will be appreciated
thanks
Using some wacky joins you can get a functional get max rows per category query.
What you essentially need to do is to join the table to itself and make sure that the joined values only contain the top values for the CODESCHOOL column.
I've also added a :schoolname parameter because you wanted to search by schoolname
Example:
SELECT
A.*
FROM
TABLE1 A
LEFT OUTER JOIN TABLE1 B ON B.NAME = A.NAME
AND B.CODESCHOOL < A.CODESCHOOL
WHERE
B.CODESCHOOL IS NULL AND
(
(A.SCHOOLNAME = :SCHOOLNAME AND :SCHOOLNAME IS NOT NULL) OR
(:SCHOOLNAME IS NULL)
);
this should create this output, note that dark has 2 outputs because it has 2 rows with the same code school which is the max in the dark "category"/name.
ID|NAME |SCHOOLNAME |CODESCHOOL
--| -----|----------------|----------
4|Knight|LA Senior HS | 2
5|JOHN |HARVARD | 3
2|DARK |Kindergarten 111| 1
1|DARK |Kindergarten 123| 1
It's not the most effective query but it should be more than good enough as a starting point.
Sidenote: I've been blatantly stealing this logic for a while from https://www.xaprb.com/blog/2007/03/14/how-to-find-the-max-row-per-group-in-sql-without-subqueries/
I am using an analytical window function ROW_NUMBER().
This will group (or partition) by NAME then select the top 1 CODESCHOOL in DESC order.
Select NAME,
SCHOOLNAME,
CODESCHOOL
From (
Select NAME,
SCHOOLNAME,
CODESCHOOL,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY NAME ORDER BY CODESCHOOL DESC) as rn
from myTable)
Where rn = 1;
I have been working with an application that is integrated with spring and Hibernate 4.X.X and its transaction is managed by JTA in Weblogic application server. After 3 years, there are about 40 million records only into one table from 100 tables that exist in my DB. The DB is Oracle 11g. The response time of a query is about 5 minutes because of increasing the count of records of this tables.
I customized the query and put it into Sql Developer and run the query advisor plan for suggestion some Index. Totally after doing such this, its response time is reduced to 2 minute. But even so, this response time does not satisfy the Custumer. To further clarify I put the query, It is as following:
select *
from (select (count(storehouse0_.ID) over()) as col_0_0_,
storehouse3_.storeHouse_ID as col_1_0_,
(DBPK_PUB_STOREHOUSE.get_Storehouse_Title(storehouse5_.id, 1)) as col_2_0_,
storehouse5_.Organization_Code as col_3_0_,
publicgood1_.Goods_Item_Id as col_4_0_,
storehouse0_.storeHouse_Inventory_Id as col_5_0_,
storehouse0_.Id as col_6_0_,
storehouse3_.samapel_Item_Id as col_7_0_,
samapelite10_.MAINNAME as col_8_0_,
publicgood1_.serial_Number as col_9_0_,
publicgood1_1_.production_Year as col_10_0_,
samapelpar2_.ID_SourceInfo as col_11_0_,
samapelpar2_.Pn as col_12_0_,
storehouse3_.expire_Date as col_13_0_,
publicgood1_1_.Status_Id as col_14_0_,
baseinform12_.Topic as col_15_0_,
publicgood1_.public_Num as col_16_0_,
cast(publicgood1_1_.goods_Status as number(10, 0)) as col_17_0_,
publicgood1_1_.goods_Status as col_18_0_,
publicgood1_1_.deleted as col_19_0_
from amd.Core_StoreHouse_Inventory_Item storehouse0_,
amd.Core_STOREHOUSE_INVENTORY storehouse3_,
amd.Core_STOREHOUSE storehouse5_,
amd.SMP_SAMAPEL_CODE samapelite10_
cross join amd.Core_Goods_Item_Public publicgood1_
inner join amd.Core_Goods_Item publicgood1_1_
on publicgood1_.Goods_Item_Id = publicgood1_1_.Id
left outer join amd.SMP_SOURCEINFO samapelpar2_
on publicgood1_1_.Samapel_Part_Number_Id =
samapelpar2_.ID_SourceInfo, amd.App_BaseInformation
baseinform12_
where not exists
(select ssec.samapelITem_id
from core_security_samapelitem ssec
inner join core_goods_item g
on ssec.samapelitem_id = g.samapel_item_id
where not exists (SELECT aa.groupid
FROM app_actiongroup aa
where aa.groupid in
(select au.groupid
from app_usergroup au
where au.userid = 1)
and aa.actionid = 9054)
and ssec.isenable = 1
and storehouse0_.goods_Item_ID = g.id)
and not exists
(select *
from CORE_POWER_SECURITY cps
where not exists (SELECT aa.groupid
FROM app_actiongroup aa
where aa.groupid in
(select au.groupid
from app_usergroup au
where au.userid = 1)
and aa.actionid = 9055)
and cps.inventory_id =
storehouse0_.storeHouse_Inventory_Id
and cps.goodsitemtype = 6)
and storehouse0_.storeHouse_Inventory_Id = storehouse3_.Id
and storehouse3_.storeHouse_ID = storehouse5_.Id
and storehouse3_.samapel_Item_Id = samapelite10_.MAINCODE
and publicgood1_1_.Status_Id = baseinform12_.ID
and 1 <> 2
and storehouse0_.goods_Item_ID = publicgood1_.Goods_Item_Id
and publicgood1_1_.edited = 0
and publicgood1_1_.deleted = 0
and (exists (select storehouse13_.Id
from amd.Core_STOREHOUSE storehouse13_
cross join amd.core_power power16_
cross join amd.core_power power17_
where storehouse5_.powerID = power16_.Id
and storehouse13_.powerID = power17_.Id
and (storehouse13_.Id in (741684217))
and storehouse13_.storeHouseType = 2
and (power16_.hierarchiCode like
power17_.hierarchiCode || '%')) or
(storehouse3_.storeHouse_ID in (741684217)) and
storehouse5_.storeHouseType = 1)
and (storehouse5_.storeHouse_Status not in (2, 3))
order by storehouse3_.samapel_Item_Id)
where rownum <= 10
[Note: This query is generated by Hibernate].
It is clear that order by 40 million holds so much time.
I find the main issue of this query. I omitted the “order by” and run the query, its response time was reduced to about 5 second. I was wonderful why the “order by” affects so much the response time.
(Some body may think that if this table is partitioned or use another facility of oracle, it may get better response time. Ok it may be right but my emphasis is the “order by” performance. If there is a way that do the “order by” responsibility, why not to do it). Any way I am not able to omit the “order by” because the Customer needs to order and it is necessary for paging. I find a solution that is explained by an example. This solution I order only some records that is needed. How, I will explain later. It is clear when oracle wants to sort 40 million records, it naturally takes so much time. I replace “order by” with “where clause”. With doing this replacement the response time was reduces from 2 minute to about 5 second and this is very exciting for me.
I explain my solution via an example, anybody that read this Post tells me whether this solution is good or there are another solution that I do not know exists.
Another hand I have a solution that is explained later, if it is ok or not. Whether I use it or not.
I explain my solution:
Let’s assumed that there are two table as below:
Post table
Id Others fields
1
2
3
4
5
… …
Post_comment table
Id post_id
1 5
2 5
3 5
4 5
6 5
7 2
8 2
9 2
10 3
11 1
12 1
13 1
14 1
15 1
16 1
17 1
18 1
19 1
20 1
21 1
22 1
23 1
24 1
25 1
26 4
27 4
There is a form that shows the result of join between POST table and POST_COMMENT table.
I explain both query with “order by” all records of that table and “order by” only specific records that are needed. The result of two query are exactly the same but the response time of second approach is the better than that one.
You assume that the page size is 10 and you are in page 3.
The first query with the “order by” all records of that table:
select *
from (Select res.*, rownum as rownum_
from (Select * from POST_COMMENT Order by post_id asc) res
Where rownum <= 30)
where rownum_ > 20
The second solution:
Before execution the query, I query as below:
select *
from (select post_id, count(id) from POST_COMMENT group by post_id)
order by post_id asc
So the result of it is the below:
Post_id Count(id) Sum(count(id))
1 15 15
2 3 18
3 1 19
4 2 21
5 5 26
It needs to say that the third column that is "Sum(count(id))" is calculated after that query.Any entry of this column is sum all before records.
So there is a formula that specifics which post_id must be selected. The formula is the below:
pageSize = 10, pageNumber = 3
from : (pageNumber – 1) * pageCount 2 * 10 = 20
to : (pageNumber – 1) * pageCount + pageCount 20 + 10 = 30
So I need the posts that are between (20, 30] of Sum(count(id)). According to this, I need only two post_id that have value 4,5. According to this the main query of second approach is:
select *
from (select rownum as rownum_, res.*
from (select *
from (select * from POST_COMMENT where post_id in (4, 5))
order by post_id asc) res
where rownum <= 30)
where rownum_ > 20
If you look at both query, you will see the biggest difference. The second query only selects the records of POST_COMENT that have post_id that are 4 and 5. After that, orders this records not all records of that table.
After posting this post, I have searched. finally I am redirected to HERE . I can reach to the response time that is very excited for me. It is reduced from 3 minutes to less than 3 seconds. It is necessary to know, I only use one tip from all of the query optimization guidelines that are in that site that is Duplicate constant condition for different tables whenever possible.
Note: Before doing this tip, there are some indexs on fields that are in where-clause and order-by.
I have one table scores where I have saving users scores. It's looks like this
table `scores`
id | points | user_id
1 5 1
2 2 1
3 4 1
4 1 3
5 10 2
I want to select each user, sum his points and show as a ranking. The result from above should be
user_id | points
1 11
2 10
3 1
The query with which I came up is
$sumPoints = Scores::select( \DB::raw("sum(points) as numberOfPoints"), \DB::raw("count(id) as numberId"))->groupBy("user_id")->first();
The problem is in ->first() because it's return only one result.. it is working as must. If I try to use ->get() instead I've got Undefined property error. How should I use this?
The query which is working in phpmyadmin
SELECT count(id) as numberId, sum(points) as numberOfPoints FROM `points` GROUP BY `user_id`
You can use something like this
$sumPoints = Scores::select( \DB::raw("sum(points) as numberOfPoints"), \DB::raw("count(id) as numberId"))->groupBy("user_id")->get();
foreach($sumPoints as $point){
dd($point); //OR dd($point->numberOfPoints)
}
It must be that time of year. Totally having a brain fart.
I have two basic iEnumerable objects. Each object has two fields. In the first object I have a field with an ID and then total.
Id Total
1 23
2 16
3 59
...
In the other object it has a ID field and then Fruit Name
ID Fruit
1 Apple
2 Orange
3. Pear
I need to combine these into a new table by the ID so I get a new object with the fields
ID Total Fruit
1 23 Apple
2 16 Orange
3 59 Pear
What's the best way to go about this using LINQ?
Do a join
from o in iEobject
join f in Fruit on o.ID equals f.ID
select new {ID = o.ID, Total = o.Total, Fruit = f.Name }
I have two table
First table
BID Town
1 ABC
2 ABC2
3 ABC
Second Table
PID BID AmountFirst AmountSecond AmountThird Minority
1 1 1000 1000 1000 SC
2 2 2000 1000 2000 ST
3 3 1000 1000 1000 SC
BID is foreign key in Second table.
I want sum AmountFirst + AmountSecond + AmountThird for individualTown
e.g for ABC town answer should be : 6000 (summation of PID 1 and PID 2)
I want Linq query for this..Please help
Untested, but something like this should work. See hooked on linq - GroupBy operator for groupby syntax.
from bid in db.Bids
group by bid.Town into g
select new
{
Town = g.Key,
Total = g.Sum(x => x.AmountFirst + x.AmountSecond + x.AmountThird)
}
Town is now a number, you can also do:
Town = g.Key.Town