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;
Related
I have the table T_LOCATION_DATA on Oracle DB as follows:
Person_ID | Location | Role
----------------------------
101 Delhi Manager
102 Mumbai Employee
103 Noida Manager
104 Mumbai Employee
105 Noida Employee
106 Delhi Manager
107 Mumbai Manager
108 Delhi Employee
109 Mumbai Employee
Another table is T_STATUS with following data:
Person_ID | Status
-------------------
101 Active
102 Active
103 Inactive
104 Active
105 Active
106 Inactive
107 Active
108 Active
109 Inactive
I am trying to get the count of both Employee and Manager who are Active; group by location in a single query so that the result comes as follows:
Location | MANAGER COUNT | EMPLOYEE COUNT
Delhi 1 1
Mumbai 1 1
Noida 0 1
I am trying with following query but with no result:
select location, count (a.person_id) as MANAGER COUNT,
count (b.person_id) as EMPLOYEE COUNT
from T_LOCATION_DATA a,T_LOCATION_DATA b
where a.person_id in (select person_id from t_status where status='Active')
... and I get lost here
Can someone guide me on this please?
From your data, I would query like this:
SELECT
Location,
COUNT(CASE WHEN Role='Manager' THEN 1 END) as count_managers,
COUNT(CASE WHEN Role='Employee' THEN 1 END) as count_employees,
COUNT(*) count_everyone
FROM
t_location_data l
INNER JOIN
t_status s
ON
l.person_id = s.person_id AND
s.status = 'Active'
GROUP BY location
Differences to your SQL:
We dump the awful old join syntax (SELECT * FROM a,b WHERE a.id=b.id) - please always use a JOIN b ON a.id = b.id
We join in the status table but we only really do that for the active ones, hence the reason why i stated it as another clause in the ON. I could have put it in a WHERE. With an INNER JOIN it makes no difference. With an OUTER JOIN it can make a big difference, as if you write a LEFT JOIN b ON a.id = b.id WHERE b.id = 'active' will convert that LEFT JOIN back to an INNER JOIN behaviour unless you made a where clause like WHERE b.id = 'active' OR b.id IS NULL - and that's just ugly. If that comparison to a constant had been put in an ON clause, you can skip the or ... is null ugliness
We group by location, but we don't necessarily count everything. If we count the result of a CASE WHEN role = 'Manager' THEN ..., the case when produces a 1 for a manager, and it produces NULL for a non manager (i didn't specify anything for the else; this is the design behaviour of CASE WHEN in such a scenario). The number didn't have to be a 1 either; it could be 'a', Role; anything that is non null. COUNT counts anything non null as a 1, and null as a 0. The following are thus equivalent, pick whichever one makes more sense to you:
COUNT(CASE WHEN Role='Employee' THEN 1 END) as count_employees,
COUNT(CASE WHEN Role='Employee' THEN 'a' END) as count_employees,
COUNT(CASE WHEN Role='Employee' THEN role END) as count_employees,
COUNT(CASE WHEN Role='Employee' THEN role ELSE null END) as count_employees,
SUM(CASE WHEN Role='Employee' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) as count_employees,
They both work as counts, but in the SUM case, you really do have to use 1 and 0 if you want the output number to be a count. Actually, 0 is optional, as SUM doesn't sum nulls (but as mathguy points out below, if you didn't put ELSE 0, then the SUM method would produce a NULLwhen there were 0 items, rather than a 0. Whether this is helpful or hindering to you is a decision for you alone to make)
I wasn't clear whether managers are employees also. To me, they are, maybe not to you. I added a COUNT(*) that literally counts everyone at the location. Any difference meaning count_employees+count_managers != count_everyone means there was another role, not manager or employee, in the table.. Pick your poison
This COUNT/SUM(CASE WHEN...) pattern is really useful for turning data around - a PIVOT operation. It takes a column of data:
Manager
Employee
Manager
And turns it into two columns, for the count values:
Manager Employee
2 1
You can extend it as many times as you like. If you have 10 roles, make 10 case whens, and the results will have 10 columns with a grouped up count. The data is pivoted from row-ar representation to column-ar representation
I did search the forum before posting this and found some topics which were close to the same issue but I still had questions so am posting it here.
EMP_ID SEQ_NR NAME
874830 3 JOHN
874830 4 JOE
874830 21 MIKE
874830 22 BILL
874830 23 ROBERT
874830 24 STEVE
874830 25 JERRY
My output should look like this.
EMP ID SEQ3NAME SEQ4NAME SEQ21NAME SEQ22NAME SEQ23NAME SEQ24NAME SEQ25NAME
874830 JOHN JOE MIKE BILL ROBERT STEVE JERRY
SELECT A.EMP_ID
,A.NAME SEQ3NAME
,B.NAME SEQ4NAME
FROM AC_XXXX_CONTACT A
INNER JOIN AC_XXXX_CONTACT B ON A.EMP_ID = B.EMP_ID
WHERE A.SEQ_NR = '03' AND B.SEQ_NR = '04'
AND B.EMP_ID = '874830';
The above query helped me get the below results.
EMP_ID SEQ3NAME SEQ4NAME
874830 JOHN JOE
My question is to get all the fields(i.e till seq nr = 25) should I be joining the table 5 more times.
Is there a better way to get the results ?
I m querying against the Oracle DB
Thanks for your help.
New Requirement
New Input
STU-ID SEM CRS-NBR
12345 1 100
12345 1 110
12345 2 200
New Output
stu-id crs1 crs2
12345 100 200
12345 110
Not tested since you didn't provide test data (from table AC_XXXX):
(using Oracle 11 PIVOT clause)
select *
from ( select emp_id, seq_nr, name
from ac_xxxx
where emp_id = '874830' )
pivot ( max(name) for seq_nr in (3 as seq3name, 4 as seq4name, 21 as seq21name,
22 as seq22name, 23 as seq23name, 24 as seq24name, 25 as seq25name)
)
;
For Oracle 10 or earlier, pivoting was done "by hand", like so:
select max(emp_id) as emp_id, -- Corrected based on comment from OP
max(case when seq_nr = 3 then name end) as seq3name,
max(case when seq_nr = 4 then name end) as seq4name,
-- etc. (similar expressions for the other seq_nr)
from ac_xxxx
where emp_id = '874830'
;
Or, emp_id doesn't need to be within max() if we add group by emp_id - which then will work even without the WHERE clause, for a different but related question.
In the school assignment I'm working on I need to display the 3 criminals with the most crimes. But I'm having a few problems
Here's the code I have so far, and its output:
`Select Last, First, Count(Crime_ID)
From Criminals Natural Join crimes
Group by Last, First, Criminal_ID
order by Count(Crime_Id) Desc`
`LAST FIRST COUNT(CRIME_ID)
--------------- ---------- ---------------
Panner Lee 2
Sums Tammy 1
Statin Penny 1
Dabber Pat 1
Mansville Nancy 1
Cat Tommy 1
Phelps Sam 1
Caulk Dave 1
Simon Tim 1
Pints Reed 1
Perry Cart 1
11 rows selected `
I've been toying around with ROWNUM, but when I include it in the SELECT it won't run because of my GROUP BY. But If you put ROWNUM in the GROUP BY it just separates everything back out.
I just want to display the top 3 with the most crimes, which is weird because only 1 guy has more than 1 crime. Theoretically, more criminals would be added to the Database, but these are the tables given in the assignment.
select *
from
( Select Last, First, Count(Crime_ID)
From Criminals Natural Join crimes
Group by Last, First, Criminal_ID
order by Count(Crime_Id) Desc )
where ROWNUM <= 3;
I have the following table called questions in HQL Hibernate:
ID | Name
1 | Bread
2 | Bread
3 | Rise
4 | Rise
I want to select each PRODUT only once and if there are multiple PRODUCT with the same name, select the one of the highest id. So, the expected results:
ID | NAME
3 | Bread
4 | Rise
I use the following query:
from Product AS E group by E.producto
So it selects the first 'Product' it encounters instead of the last one.
Thanks
The syntax is almost identical to SQL:
select max(p.id), p.name from Product p group by p.name
Relevant documentation:
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/4.3/manual/en-US/html/ch16.html#queryhql-aggregation
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/4.3/manual/en-US/html/ch16.html#queryhql-grouping
Let's say I have table data similar to the following:
123456 John Doe 1 Green 2001
234567 Jane Doe 1 Yellow 2001
234567 Jane Doe 2 Red 2001
345678 Jim Doe 1 Red 2001
What I am attempting to do is only isolate the records for Jane Doe based upon the fact that she has more than one row in this table. (More that one sequence number)
I cannot isolate based upon ID, names, colors, years, etc...
The number 1 in the sequence tells me that is the first record and I need to be able to display that record, as well as the number 2 record -- The change record.
If the table is called users, and the fields called ID, fname, lname, seq_no, color, date. How would I write the code to select only records that have more than one row in this table? For Example:
I want the query to display this only based upon the existence of the multiple rows:
234567 Jane Doe 1 Yellow 2001
234567 Jane Doe 2 Red 2001
In PL/SQL
First, to find the IDs for records with multiple rows you would use:
SELECT ID FROM table GROUP BY ID HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
So you could get all the records for all those people with
SELECT * FROM table WHERE ID IN (SELECT ID FROM table GROUP BY ID HAVING COUNT(*) > 1)
If you know that the second sequence ID will always be "2" and that the "2" record will never be deleted, you might find something like:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE ID IN (SELECT ID FROM table WHERE SequenceID = 2)
to be faster, but you better be sure the requirements are guaranteed to be met in your database (and you would want a compound index on (SequenceID, ID)).
Try something like the following. It's a single tablescan, as opposed to 2 like the others.
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT t1.*, COUNT(name) OVER (PARTITION BY name) mycount FROM TABLE t1
)
WHERE mycount >1;
INNER JOIN
JOIN:
SELECT u1.ID, u1.fname, u1.lname, u1.seq_no, u1.color, u1.date
FROM users u1 JOIN users u2 ON (u1.ID = u2.ID and u2.seq_no = 2)
WHERE:
SELECT u1.ID, u1.fname, u1.lname, u1.seq_no, u1.color, u1.date
FROM users u1, thetable u2
WHERE
u1.ID = u2.ID AND
u2.seq_no = 2
Check out the HAVING clause for a summary query. You can specify stuff like
HAVING COUNT(*) >= 2
and so forth.