I am trying to output some necessary rows for my report using a simple query to fetch. That's the query:-
SELECT DISTINCT Z.ITEMDESC, X.NMCODDES AS CODE
FROM NMCODMAS X, NMITEMAS Y, NMSALREC Z
WHERE
X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
AND Y.FINISHGD='Y'
AND X.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND Y.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND X.COMPCODE=Y.COMPCODE
AND Y.USERDEF1=X.NMSOFCDE
AND Y.ITEMCODE=Z.ITEMCODE
AND Z.DOCTDATE BETWEEN NVL(:P11,Z.DOCTDATE) AND NVL(:P12,Z.DOCTDATE)
And Here's the ouput
But for some reasons I can't use X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ' IN WHERE. So, I just use X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ' in a CASE WHEN Expression. Just Like that:-
SELECT DISTINCT Z.ITEMDESC,
CASE
WHEN X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
THEN X.NMCODDES
END AS CODE
FROM NMCODMAS X, NMITEMAS Y, NMSALREC Z
WHERE
-- X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
Y.FINISHGD='Y'
AND X.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND Y.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND X.COMPCODE=Y.COMPCODE
AND Y.USERDEF1=X.NMSOFCDE
AND Y.ITEMCODE=Z.ITEMCODE
AND Z.DOCTDATE BETWEEN NVL(:P11,Z.DOCTDATE) AND NVL(:P12,Z.DOCTDATE)
In this case every row has been duplicated with an NULL NMCODDES field. Check the output-output
I can't understand why there has been an extra empty row for every item. And using an ELSE in the above code doesn't make any difference. Because I can assure that in my DATABASE every item has an unique NMHRDCDE. SO, even using ELSE in the case will not solve my problem.
Could someone help me pinpointing the problem??
The only way to ignore that rows is:
select * from (/*YOUR QUERY*/) where code is not null;
As WJack wrote your nulls are ruturned when case not matches and it is correct behaviour. Where clause defines which rows will be returned, case defines what will be returned for rows. So your second query returns rows for any X.NMHRDCDE but do not have value for X.NMHRDCDE != 'PKZ'
Try this:
select a.ITEMDESC,b.CODE from
(SELECT DISTINCT Z.ITEMDESC
FROM NMCODMAS X, NMITEMAS Y, NMSALREC Z
WHERE
-- X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
Y.FINISHGD='Y'
AND X.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND Y.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND X.COMPCODE=Y.COMPCODE
AND Y.USERDEF1=X.NMSOFCDE
AND Y.ITEMCODE=Z.ITEMCODE
AND Z.DOCTDATE BETWEEN NVL(:P11,Z.DOCTDATE) AND NVL(:P12,Z.DOCTDATE)) as a
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT DISTINCT Z.ITEMDESC,
CASE
WHEN X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
THEN X.NMCODDES
END AS CODE
FROM NMCODMAS X, NMITEMAS Y, NMSALREC Z
WHERE
-- X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
Y.FINISHGD='Y'
AND X.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND Y.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND X.COMPCODE=Y.COMPCODE
AND Y.USERDEF1=X.NMSOFCDE
AND Y.ITEMCODE=Z.ITEMCODE
AND Z.DOCTDATE BETWEEN NVL(:P11,Z.DOCTDATE) AND NVL(:P12,Z.DOCTDATE)) as b
on a.ITEMDESC = b.ITEMDESC
Related
Disclaimer: This is Glua (Lua used by Garry's Mod)
I just need to compare tables between them and return the difference, like if I was substrating them.
TableOne = {thing = "bob", 89 = 1, 654654 = {"hi"}} --Around 3k items like that
TableTwo = {thing = "bob", 654654 = "hi"} --Same, around 3k
function table.GetDifference(t1, t2)
local diff = {}
for k, dat in pairs(t1) do --Loop through the biggest table
if(!table.HasValue(t2, t1[k])) then --Checking if t2 hasn't the value
table.insert(diff, t1[k]) --Insert the value in the difference table
print(t1[k])
end
end
return diff
end
if table.Count(t1) != table.Count(t2) then --Check if amount is equal, in my use I don't need to check if they are exact.
PrintTable(table.GetDifference(t1, t2)) --Print the difference.
end
My problem being that with only one of difference between the two tables, this returns me more than 200 items. The only item I added was a String. I tried many other functions like this one but they usually cause a stack overflow error because of the table's length.
Your problem is with this line
if(!table.HasValue(t2, t1[k])) then --Checking if t2 hasn't the value
Change it to this:
if(!table.HasValue(t2, k) or t1[k] != t2[k]) then --Checking if t2[k] matches
Right now what is happening is that you're looking at an entry like thing = "bob" and then you're looking to see whether t2 has "bob" as a key. And it doesn't. But neither did t1 so that shouldn't be regarded as a difference.
I have a question about the way I put together this piece of Lua code.
Say, there is a function like the one below, containing 200 myTable tables, where the names are ordered alphabetically:
function loadTable(x)
local myTable
if x == "aaron" then myTable = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0}
elseif x == "bobby" then myTable = {1,3,3,4,5,8,7,8,9,1}
elseif x == "cory" then myTable = {1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9,2}
elseif x == "devin" then myTable = {1,2,3,4,5,2,3,4,9,0}
...
else
print("table not available")
end
return myTable
end
and now I want to find the table corresponding to x == "zac" (which happens to be somewhere at the end). I use this line of code:
local foundTable = loadTable("zac")
Isnt this like not efficient at all? If it has to find the table at the very end of the function it has to go through all the previous lines of code. Is there some way to code this more efficiently in lua and find the correct table faster? ?
This can become a lot faster by using... a table!
Simply make a table whose keys are the name of the person and the values are the table you want to load, like this:
local tables = {
john = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0},
peter = {1,3,3,4,5,8,7,8,9,1},
william = {1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9,2},
victoria = {1,2,3,4,5,2,3,4,9,0}
--...
}
Then, instead of calling loadTable("richard") simply use tables["richard"] or tables.richard if the key is a valid identifier
New to cascading, trying to find out a way to get top N tuples based on a sort/order. for example, I'd like to know the top 100 first names people are using.
here's what I can do similar in teradata sql:
select top 100 first_name, num_records
from
(select first_name, count(1) as num_records
from table_1
group by first_name) a
order by num_records DESC
Here's similar in hadoop pig
a = load 'table_1' as (first_name:chararray, last_name:chararray);
b = foreach (group a by first_name) generate group as first_name, COUNT(a) as num_records;
c = order b by num_records DESC;
d = limit c 100;
It seems very easy to do in SQL or Pig, but having a hard time try to find a way to do it in cascading. Please advise!
Assuming you just need the Pipe set up on how to do this:
In Cascading 2.1.6,
Pipe firstNamePipe = new GroupBy("topFirstNames", InPipe,
new Fields("first_name"),
);
firstNamePipe = new Every(firstNamePipe, new Fields("first_name"),
new Count("num_records"), Fields.All);
firstNamePipe = new GroupBy(firstNamePipe,
new Fields("first_name"),
new Fields("num_records"),
true); //where true is descending order
firstNamePipe = new Every(firstNamePipe, new Fields("first_name", "num_records")
new First(Fields.Args, 100), Fields.All)
Where InPipe is formed with your incoming tap that holds the tuple data that you are referencing above. Namely, "first_name". "num_records" is created when new Count() is called.
If you have the "num_records" and "first_name" data in separate taps (tables or files) then you can set up two pipes that point to those two Tap sources and join them using CoGroup.
The definitions I used were are from Cascading 2.1.6:
GroupBy(String groupName, Pipe pipe, Fields groupFields, Fields sortFields, boolean reverseOrder)
Count(Fields fieldDeclaration)
First(Fields fieldDeclaration, int firstN)
Method 1
Use a GroupBy and group them base on the columns required and u can make use of secondary sorting that is provided by the cascading ,by default it provies them in ascending order ,if we want them in descing order we can do them by reverseorder()
To get the TOP n tuples or rows
Its quite simple just use a static variable count in FILTER and increment it by 1 for each tuple count value increases by 1 and check weather it is greater than N
return true when count value is greater than N or else return false
this will provide the ouput with first N tuples
method 2
cascading provides an inbuit function unique which returns firstNbuffer
see the below link
http://docs.cascading.org/cascading/2.2/javadoc/cascading/pipe/assembly/Unique.html
Can anybody tell me how I would get the records in the first statement that are not in the second statement (see below)?
from or in TblOrganisations
where or.OrgType == 2
select or.PkOrgID
Second query:
from o in TblOrganisations
join m in LuMetricSites
on o.PkOrgID equals m.FkSiteID
orderby m.SiteOrder
select o.PkOrgID
If you only need the IDs then Except should do the trick:
var inFirstButNotInSecond = first.Except(second);
Note that Except treats the two sequences as sets. This means that any duplicate elements in first won't be included in the results. I suspect that this won't be a problem since the name PkOrgID suggests a unique ID of some kind.
(See the documentation for Enumerable.Except and Queryable.Except for more info.)
Do you need the whole records, or just the IDs? The IDs are easy...
var ids = firstQuery.Except(secondQuery);
EDIT: Okay, if you can't do that, you'll need something like:
var secondQuery = ...; // As you've already got it
var query = from or in TblOrganisations
where or.OrgType == 2
where !secondQuery.Contains(or.PkOrgID)
select ...;
Check the SQL it produces, but I think it should do the right thing. Note that there's no point in performing any ordering in the second query - or even the join against TblOrganisations. In other words, you could use:
var query = from or in TblOrganisations
where or.OrgType == 2
where !LuMetricSites.Select(m => m.FkSiteID).Contains(or.PkOrgID)
select ...;
Use Except:
var filtered = first.Except(second);
I'm trying to merge these two object but not totally sure how.. Can you help me merge these two result objects?
//
// Create Linq Query for all segments in "CognosSecurity"
//
var userListAuthoritative = (from c in ctx.CognosSecurities
where (c.SecurityType == 1 || c.SecurityType == 2)
select new {c.SecurityType, c.LoginName , c.SecurityName}).Distinct();
//
// Create Linq Query for all segments in "CognosSecurity"
//
var userListAuthoritative3 = (from c in ctx.CognosSecurities
where c.SecurityType == 3 || c.SecurityType == 0
select new {c.SecurityType , c.LoginName }).Distinct();
I think I see where to go with this... but to answer the question the types of the objects are int, string, string for SecurityType, LoginName , and SecurityName respectively
If you're wondering why I have them broken like this is because I want to ignore one column when doing a distinct. Here are the SQL queries that I'm converting to SQL.
select distinct SecurityType, LoginName, 'Segment'+'-'+SecurityName
FROM [NFPDW].[dbo].[CognosSecurity]
where SecurityType =1
select distinct SecurityType, LoginName, 'Business Line'+'-'+SecurityName
FROM [NFPDW].[dbo].[CognosSecurity]
where SecurityType =2
select distinct SecurityType, LoginName, SecurityName
FROM [NFPDW].[dbo].[CognosSecurity]
where SecurityType in (1,2)
You can't join these because the types are different (first has 3 properties in the resulting type, second has two).
If you can tolerate putting a null value in for the 3rd result of the second query this will help. I would then suggest you just do a userListAuthoritative.concat(userListAuthoritative3 ) BUT I think this will not work as the anonymous types generated by the linq will not be of the same class, even tho the structure is the same. To solve that you can either define a CustomType to encapsulate the tuple and do select new CustomType{ ... } in both queries or postprocess the results using select() in a similar fashion.
Acutally the latter select() approach will also allow you to solve the parameter count mismatch by implementing the select with a null in the post-process to CustomType.
EDIT: According to the comment below once the structures are the same the anonymous types will be the same.
I assume that you want to keep the results distinct:
var merged = userListAuthoritative.Concat(userListAuthoritative3).Distinct();
And, as Mike Q pointed out, you need to make sure that your types match, either by giving the anonymous types the same signature, or by creating your own POCO class specifically for this purpose.
Edit
If I understand your edit, you want your Distinct to ignore the SecurityName column. Is that correct?
var userListAuthoritative = from c in ctx.CognosSecurities
where new[]{0,1,2,3}.Contains(c.SecurityType)
group new {c.SecurityType, c.LoginName, c.SecurityName}
by new {c.SecurityType, c.LoginName}
select g.FirstOrDefault();
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by merge, since you're returning different (anonymous) types from each one. Is there a reason the following doesn't work for you?
var userListAuthoritative = (from c in ctx.CognosSecurities
where (c.SecurityType == 1 || c.SecurityType == 2 || c.SecurityType == 3 || c.SecurityType == 0)
select new {c.SecurityType, c.LoginName , c.SecurityName}).Distinct();
Edit: This assumed they were of the same type -- but they're not.
userListAuthoritative.Concat(userListAuthoritative3);
Try below code, you might need to implement IEqualityComparer<T> in your ctx type.
var merged = userListAuthoritative.Union(userListAuthoritative3);