I know there is IN as alternative to multiple ORs:
select loginid from customer where code IN ('TEST1','TEST2','TEST3','TEST4'))
This will return all loginids with code that mach any of the four TEST elements.
Is there something similar for AND? I will need to find out all loginids that have code: TEST10,TESTA,TEST1,TESTB,AIFK,AICK....(there are 20 codes)
You cannot compare that. With ORs or IN you look for records that match one of the values. With AND you would look for a record where the column matches all those values, but this field can of course only hold one value, so will never find any record.
So obviously you are looking for something entirely else. Probably you want to aggregate your data, to find IDs for which records for each of the values exist. This would be:
select loginid
from customer
where code IN ('TEST1','TEST2','TEST3','TEST4')
group by loginid
having count(distinct code) = 4;
You could do the following:
SELECT loginid
FROM customer
WHERE code IN ('TEST1', ... , 'TEST20')
GROUP BY loginid
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT code) = 20;
The difference between Jon's answer and this one is that if you use other codes in the table, my query will return all loginids for which there are rows for these 20 codes, and Jon's answer will return all loginids for which there are 20 distinct codes.
No
A short answer, I know, but sometimes it's the only real answer.
However
Depending on what exactly you're trying to achieve, you may be able to use a count of a query grouping the items, to check that all match.
This assumes that your CustomerCodes are kept in a separate relational table.
SELECT loginID
FROM Customer
WHERE loginID IN (
SELECT loginID, count(*) as codeCount
FROM CustomerCodes
GROUP BY loginID
HAVING codeCount = 20
)
It doesn't work if you have Code1, Code2 Code3 etc fields... you'd have to split the data out into a separate table, for example:
loginID | code
---------------
1 | code1
1 | code2
Related
Currently the code looks something like this:
LOOP AT lt_orders ASSIGNING <fs_order>.
SELECT COUNT(*) AS cnt
FROM order_items
INTO <fs_order>-cnt
WHERE order_id = <fs_order>-order_id.
ENDLOOP.
It is the slowest part of the report. I want to speed it up.
How can I use FOR ALL ENTRIES with GROUP BY?
Check the documentation. You can't use GROUP BY. Maybe in this case, you could try selecting your items with FAE outside of the loop, then count them using a parallel cursor:
REPORT.
TYPES: BEGIN OF ty_result,
vbeln TYPE vbeln,
cnt TYPE i.
TYPES: END OF ty_result.
DATA: lt_headers TYPE SORTED TABLE OF ty_result WITH UNIQUE KEY vbeln,
lv_tabix TYPE sy-tabix VALUE 1.
"get the headers
SELECT vbeln FROM vbak UP TO 100 ROWS INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE lt_headers.
"get corresponding items
SELECT vbeln, posnr FROM vbap FOR ALL ENTRIES IN #lt_headers
WHERE vbeln EQ #lt_headers-vbeln
ORDER BY vbeln, posnr
INTO TABLE #DATA(lt_items).
LOOP AT lt_headers ASSIGNING FIELD-SYMBOL(<h>).
LOOP AT lt_items FROM lv_tabix ASSIGNING FIELD-SYMBOL(<i>).
IF <i>-vbeln NE <h>-vbeln.
lv_tabix = sy-tabix.
EXIT.
ELSE.
<h>-cnt = <h>-cnt + 1.
ENDIF.
ENDLOOP.
ENDLOOP.
BREAK-POINT.
Or join header/item with a distinct count on the item id (whichever column that would be in your table).
You should be able to do something like
SELECT COUNT(order_item_id) AS cnt, order_id
FROM order_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE lt_count
GROUP BY order_id.
Assuming that order_item_id is a key in the order_items table. And assuming that lt_count has two fields: cnt of type int8 and order_id of same type as your other order_id fields
PS: then you can loop over lt_count and move the counts to lt_orders. Or the other way around. To speed up the loop, sort one of the tables and use READ ... BINARY SEARCH
I did with table KNB1 (customer master in company code), where we have customers, which are created in several company codes.
Please note, because of FOR ALL ENTRIES you have to SELECT the full key.
TYPES: BEGIN OF ty_knb1,
kunnr TYPE knb1-kunnr,
count TYPE i,
END OF ty_knb1.
TYPES: BEGIN OF ty_knb1_fae,
kunnr TYPE knb1-kunnr,
END OF ty_knb1_fae.
DATA: lt_knb1_fae TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF ty_knb1_fae.
DATA: lt_knb1 TYPE HASHED TABLE OF ty_knb1
WITH UNIQUE KEY kunnr.
DATA: ls_knb1 TYPE ty_knb1.
DATA: ls_knb1_db TYPE knb1.
START-OF-SELECTION.
lt_knb1_fae = VALUE #( ( kunnr = ... ) ). "add at least one customer which is created in several company codes
ls_knb1-count = 1.
SELECT kunnr bukrs
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF ls_knb1_db
FROM knb1
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN lt_knb1_fae
WHERE kunnr EQ lt_knb1_fae-kunnr.
ls_knb1-kunnr = ls_knb1_db-kunnr.
COLLECT ls_knb1 INTO lt_knb1.
ENDSELECT.
Create a range table for your lt_orders, like lt_orders_range.
Do select order_id, count( * ) where order_id in lt_orders_range.
If you think this is too much to create a range table, you will save a lot of performance by running just one select for all orders instead of single select for each order id.
Not directly, only through a CDS view
While all of the answers provide a faster solution than the one in the question, the fastest way is not mentioned.
If you have at least Netweaver 7.4, EHP 5 (and you should, it was released in 2014), you can use CDS views, even if you are not on HANA.
It still cannot be done directly, as OpenSQL does not allow FOR ALL ENTRIES with GROUP BY, and CDS views cannot handle FOR ALL ENTRIES. However, you can create one of each.
CDS:
#AbapCatalog.sqlViewName: 'zorder_i_fae'
DEFINE VIEW zorder_items_fae AS SELECT FROM order_items {
order_id,
count( * ) AS cnt,
}
GROUP BY order_id
OpenSQL:
SELECT *
FROM zorder_items_fae
INTO TABLE #DATA(lt_order_cnt)
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN #lt_orders
WHERE order_id = #lt_orders-order_id.
Speed
If lt_orders contains more than about 30% of all possible order_id values from table ORDER_ITEMS, the answer from iPirat is faster. (While using more memory, obviously)
However, if you need only a couple hunderd order_id values out of millions, this solution is about 10 times faster than any other answer, and 100 times faster than the original.
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 am trying to create a view that displays size (char) of LastName and the total number of records whose last name has that size. So far I have:
SELECT LENGTH(LastName) AS Name_Size
FROM Table
ORDER BY Name_Size;
I need to add something like
COUNT(LENGTH(LastName)) AS Students
This is giving me an error. Do I need to add a GROUP BY command? I need the view:
Name_Size Students
3 11
4 24
5 42
SELECT LENGTH(LastName) as Name_Size, COUNT(*) as Students
FROM Table
GROUP BY Name_Size
ORDER BY Name_Size;
You may have to change the group by and order by to LENGTH(LastName) as not all SQL engines let you reference an alias from the select statement in a clause on that same statement.
HTH,
Eric
I have a date column in my table and I would like to 'filter'/select out items after a certain year-month. So if I have data from 2010 on, I have a user input that specifies '2011-10' as the 'earliest date' they want to see data from.
My current SQL looks like this:
select round(sum(amount), 2) as amount,
date_part('month', date) as month
from receipts join items
on receipts.item = items.item
where items.expense = ?
and date_part('year', date)>=2014
and funding = 'General'
group by items.expense, month, items.order
order by items.order desc;
In the second part of the 'where', instead of doing year >= 2014, I want to do something like to_char(date, 'YY-MMMM') >= ? as another parameter and then pass in '2011-10'. However, when I do this:
costsSql = "select round(sum(amount), 2) as amount,
to_char(date, 'YY-MMMM') as year_month
from receipts join items
on receipts.item = items.item
where items.expense = ?
and year_month >= ?
and funding = 'General'
group by items.expense, year_month, items.order
order by items.order desc"
and call that with my two params, I get a postgres error: PG::UndefinedColumn: ERROR: column "year_month" does not exist.
Edit: I converted my YYYY-MM string into a date and passed that in as my param instead and it's working. But I still don't understand why I get the 'column does not exist' error after I created that column in the select clause - can someone explain? Can columns created like that not be used in where clauses?
This error: column "year_month" does not exist happens because year_month is an alias defined the SELECT-list and such aliases can't be refered to in the WHERE clause.
This is based on the fact that the SELECT-list is evaluated after the WHERE clause, see for example: Column alias in where clause? for an explanation from PG developers.
Some databases allow it nonetheless, others don't, and PostgreSQL doesn't. It's one of the many portability hazards between SQL engines.
In the case of the query shown in the question, you don't even need the to_char in the WHERE clause anyway, because as mentioned in the first comment, a direct comparison with a date is simpler and more efficient too.
When a query has a complex expression in the SELECT-list and repeating it in the WHERE clause looks wrong, sometimes it might be refactored to move the expression into a sub-select or a WITH clause at the beginning of the query.
The easiest way to ask my question is with a Hypothetical Scenario.
Lets say we have 3 tables. Singapore_Prices, Produce_val, and Bosses_unreasonable_demands.
So Prices is a pretty simple table. Item column containing a name, and a Price column containing a number.
Produce_Val is also simple 2 column table. Type column containing what type the produce is (Fruit or veggie) and then Name column (Tomato, pineapple, etc.)
The Bosses_unreasonable_demands only contains one column, Fruit, which CAN contain the names of some fruits.
OK? Ok.
SO, My boss wants me to write a query that returns the prices for every fruit in his unreasonable demands table. Simple enough. BUT, if he doesn't have any entries in his table, he just wants me to output the prices of ALL fruits that exist in produce_val.
Now, assuming I don't know where the DBA who designed this silly hypothetical system lives (and therefore can't get him to fix this), our query would look like this:
if <Logic to determine if Bosses demands are empty>
Then
select Item, Price
from Singapore_Prices
where Item in (select Fruit from Bosses_Unreasonable_demands)
Else
select Item, Price
from Singapore_Prices
where Item in (select Name from Produce_val where type = 'Fruit')
end if;
(Well, we'd select those into a variable, and then output the variable, probably with bulk-collect shenanigans, but that's not important)
Which works. It is entirely functional, and won't be slow, even if we extend it out to 2000 other stores other than Singapore. (Well, no slower than anything else that touches 2000 some tables) BUT, I'm still doing two different select statements that are practically identical. My Comp Sci teacher rolls in their grave every time my fingers hit ctrl-V. I can cut this code in half and only do one select statement. I KNOW I can.
I just have no earthly idea how. I can't use cursors as an in statement, I can't use nested tables or varrays, I can't use cleverly crafted strings, I... I just... I don't know. I don't know how to do this. Is there a way? Does it exist?
Or do I have to copy/paste forever?
Your best bet would be dynamic SQL, because you can't parameterize table or column names.
You will have a SQL query template, have a logic to determine tables and columns that you want to query, then blend them together and execute.
Another aproach, (still a lot of ctrl-v like code) is to use set construction UNION ALL:
select 1st query where boss_condition
union all
select 2nd query where not boss_condition
Try this:
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT s.*, 'BOSS' AS FRUIT_SOURCE
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS b
INNER JOIN SINGAPORE_FRUIT_LIST s
ON s.ITEM = b.FRUIT
CROSS JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS BOSS_COUNT
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS)) x
UNION ALL
(SELECT s.*, 'NORMAL' AS FRUIT_SOURCE
FROM PRODUCE_VAL p
INNER JOIN SINGAPORE_FRUIT_LIST s
ON (s.ITEM = p.NAME AND
s.TYPE = 'Fruit')
CROSS JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS BOSS_COUNT
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS)) n
WHERE (BOSS_COUNT > 0 AND FRUIT_SOURCE = 'BOSS') OR
(BOSS_COUNT = 0 AND FRUIT_SOURCE = 'NORMAL')
Share and enjoy.
I think you can use nested tables. Assume you have a schema-level nested table type FRUIT_NAME_LIST (defined using CREATE TYPE).
SELECT fruit
BULK COLLECT INTO my_fruit_name_list
FROM bosses_unreasonable_demands
;
IF my_fruit_name_list.count = 0 THEN
SELECT name
BULK COLLECT INTO my_fruit_name_list
FROM produce_val
WHERE type='Fruit'
;
END IF;
SELECT item, price
FROM singapore_prices
WHERE item MEMBER OF my_fruit_name_list
;
(or, WHERE item IN (SELECT column_value FROM TABLE(CAST(my_fruit_name_list AS fruit_name_list)) if you like that better)