I am trying to use a query to return the count from rows such that the date of the rows matches the maximum date for that column in the table.
Oracle SQL: version 11.2:
The following syntax would seem to be correct (to me), and it compiles and runs. However, instead of returning JUST the count for the maximum, it returns several counts more or less like the "HAIVNG" clause wasn't there.
Select ourDate, Count(1) as OUR_COUNT
from schema1.table1
group by ourDate
HAVING ourDate = max(ourDate) ;
How can this be fixed, please?
You can use:
SELECT MAX(ourDate) AS ourDate,
COUNT(*) KEEP (DENSE_RANK LAST ORDER BY ourDate) AS ourCount
FROM schema1.table1
or:
SELECT ourDate,
COUNT(*) AS our_count
FROM (
SELECT ourDate,
RANK() OVER (ORDER BY ourDate DESC) AS rnk
FROM schema1.table1
)
WHERE rnk = 1
GROUP BY ourDate
Which, for the sample data:
CREATE TABLE table1 (ourDate) AS
SELECT SYSDATE FROM DUAL CONNECT BY LEVEL <= 5 UNION ALL
SELECT SYSDATE - 1 FROM DUAL;
Both output:
OURDATE
OUR_COUNT
2022-06-28 13:35:01
5
db<>fiddle here
I don't know if I understand what you want. Try this:
Select x.ourDate, Count(1) as OUR_COUNT
from schema1.table1 x
where x.ourDate = (select max(y.ourDate) from schema1.table1 y)
group by x.ourDate
One option is to use a subquery which fetches maximum date:
select ourdate, count(*)
from table1
where ourdate = (select max(ourdate)
from table1)
group by ourdate;
Or, a more modern approach (if your database version supports it; 11g doesn't, though):
select ourdate, count(*)
from table1
group by ourdate
order by ourdate desc
fetch first 1 rows only;
You can use this SQL query:
select MAX(ourDate),COUNT(1) as OUR_COUNT
from schema1.table1
where ourDate = (select MAX(ourDate) from schema1.table1)
group by ourDate;
Title was tough to choose my wording.
I have 2 tables I want to join together via a lg_code. Both columns are VARCHAR2(4 byte). I am running into an issue where table1 lg_code = 0003 and table2 lg_code = 3. The three 0's are causing an issue with the join and not returning all the data needed. How would I go about writing the join clause to fix this issue?
Code:
select * from table1 t1 JOIN table2 t2 ON t1.LG_CODE = t2.LG_CODE
I would suggest to convert the value of the columnlg_code to number first then make the join:
SELECT * FROM table1 t1
JOIN table2 t2 ON to_number(t1.LG_CODE) = to_number(t2.LG_CODE)
you can also use ltrim() on them:
SELECT * FROM table1 t1
JOIN table2 t2 ON LTRIM(t1.LG_CODE, '0') = LTRIM(t2.LG_CODE, '0');
but in newer versions of oracle SQL*PLUS it trims automatically.
I have a requirement to do matching of few attributes one by one. I'm looking to avoid multiple select statements. Below is the example.
Table1
Col1|Price|Brand|size
-----------------------
A|10$|BRAND1|SIZE1
B|10$|BRAND1|SIZE1
C|30$|BRAND2|SIZE2
D|40$|BRAND2|SIZE4
Table2
Col1|Col2|Col3
--------------
B|XYZ|PQR
C|ZZZ|YYY
Table3
Col1|COL2|COL3|LIKECOL1|Price|brand|size
-----------------------------------------
B|XYZ|PQR|A|10$|BRAND1|SIZE1
C|ZZZ|YYY|D|NULL|BRAND2|NULL
In table3, I need to insert data from table2 by checking below conditions.
Find a match for record in table2, if Brand and size, Price match
If no match found, then try just Brand, Size
still no match found, try brand only
In the above example, for the first record in table2, found match with all the 3 attributes and so inserted into table3 and second record, record 'D' is matching but only 'Brand'.
All I can think of is writing 3 different insert statements like below into an oracle pl/sql block.
insert into table3
select from tab2
where all 3 attributes are matching;
insert into table3
select from tab2
where brand and price are matching
and not exists in table3 (not exists is to avoid
inserting the same record which was already
inserted with all 3 attributes matched);
insert into table3
select from tab2
where Brand is matching and not exists in table3;
Can anyone please suggest a better way to achieve it in any better way avoiding multiple times selecting from table2.
This is a case for OUTER APPLY.
OUTER APPLY is a type of lateral join that allows you join on dynamic views that refer to tables appearing earlier in your FROM clause. With that ability, you can define a dynamic view that finds all the matches, sorts them by the pecking order you've specified, and then use FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY to only include the 1st one in the results.
Using OUTER APPLY means that if there is no match, you will still get the table B record -- just with all the match columns null. If you don't want that, you can change OUTER APPLY to CROSS APPLY.
Here is a working example (with step by step comments), shamelessly stealing the table creation scripts from Michael Piankov's answer:
create table Table1 (Col1,Price,Brand,size1)
as select 'A','10','BRAND1','SIZE1' from dual union all
select 'B','10','BRAND1','SIZE1' from dual union all
select 'C','30','BRAND2','SIZE2' from dual union all
select 'D','40','BRAND2','SIZE4'from dual
create table Table2(Col1,Col2,Col3)
as select 'B','XYZ','PQR' from dual union all
select'C','ZZZ','YYY' from dual;
-- INSERT INTO table3
SELECT t2.col1, t2.col2, t2.col3,
t1.col1 likecol1,
decode(t1.price,t1_template.price,t1_template.price, null) price,
decode(t1.brand,t1_template.brand,t1_template.brand, null) brand,
decode(t1.size1,t1_template.size1,t1_template.size1, null) size1
FROM
-- Start with table2
table2 t2
-- Get the row from table1 matching on col1... this is our search template
inner join table1 t1_template on
t1_template.col1 = t2.col1
-- Get the best match from table1 for our search
-- template, excluding the search template itself
outer apply (
SELECT * FROM table1 t1
WHERE 1=1
-- Exclude search template itself
and t1.col1 != t2.col1
-- All matches include BRAND
and t1.brand = t1_template.brand
-- order by match strength based on price and size
order by case when t1.price = t1_template.price and t1.size1 = t1_template.size1 THEN 1
when t1.size1 = t1_template.size1 THEN 2
else 3 END
-- Only get the best match for each row in T2
FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY) t1;
Unfortunately is not clear what do you mean when say match. What is you expectation if there is more then one match?
Should it be only first matching or it will generate all available pairs?
Regarding you question how to avoid multiple inserts there is more then one way:
You could use multitable insert with INSERT first and condition.
You could join table1 to self and get all pairs and filter results in where condition
You could use analytical function
I suppose there is another ways. But why you would like to avoid 3 simple inserts. Its easy to read and maintain. And may be
There is example with analytical function next:
create table Table1 (Col1,Price,Brand,size1)
as select 'A','10','BRAND1','SIZE1' from dual union all
select 'B','10','BRAND1','SIZE1' from dual union all
select 'C','30','BRAND2','SIZE2' from dual union all
select 'D','40','BRAND2','SIZE4'from dual
create table Table2(Col1,Col2,Col3)
as select 'B','XYZ','PQR' from dual union all
select'C','ZZZ','YYY' from dual
with s as (
select Col1,Price,Brand,size1,
count(*) over(partition by Price,Brand,size1 ) as match3,
count(*) over(partition by Price,Brand ) as match2,
count(*) over(partition by Brand ) as match1,
lead(Col1) over(partition by Price,Brand,size1 order by Col1) as like3,
lead(Col1) over(partition by Price,Brand order by Col1) as like2,
lead(Col1) over(partition by Brand order by Col1) as like1,
lag(Col1) over(partition by Price,Brand,size1 order by Col1) as like_desc3,
lag(Col1) over(partition by Price,Brand order by Col1) as like_desc2,
lag(Col1) over(partition by Brand order by Col1) as like_desc1
from Table1 t )
select t.Col1,t.Col2,t.Col3, coalesce(s.like3, like_desc3, s.like1, like_desc1, s.like1, like_desc1),
case when match3 > 1 then size1 end as size1,
case when match1 > 1 then Brand end as Brand,
case when match2 > 1 then Price end as Price
from table2 t
left join s on s.Col1 = t.Col1
COL1 COL2 COL3 LIKE_COL SIZE1 BRAND PRICE
B XYZ PQR A SIZE1 BRAND1 10
C ZZZ YYY D - BRAND2 -
I need to convert a query from Oracle SQL to Postgres.
select count(*) from table1 group by column1 having max(rownum) = 4
If I replace "rownum" with "row_number() over()", I have an error message: "window functions are not allowed in HAVING".
Could you help me to get the same result in Postgres, as in Oracle?
The query below will do what your Oracle query is doing.
select count(*) from
(select column1, row_number() over () as x from table1) as t
group by column1 having max(t.x) = 6;
However
Neither oracle not postgres will guarantee the order in which records are read unless you specify an order by clause. So running the query multiple times is going to be inconsistent depending on how the database decides to process the query. Certainly in postgres any updates will change the underlying row order.
In the example below I've got an extra column of seq which is used to provide a consistent sort.
CREATE TABLE table1 (column1 int, seq int);
insert into table1 values (0,1),(0,2),(0,3),(1,4),(0,5),(1,6);
And a revised query which forces the order to be consistent:
select count(*) from
(select column1, row_number() over (order by seq) as x from table1) as t
group by column1 having max(t.x) = 6;
Here is my query,
SELECT ID As Col1,
(
SELECT VID FROM TABLE2 t
WHERE (a.ID=t.ID or a.ID=t.ID2)
AND t.STARTDTE =
(
SELECT MAX(tt.STARTDTE)
FROM TABLE2 tt
WHERE (a.ID=tt.ID or a.ID=tt.ID2) AND tt.STARTDTE < SYSDATE
)
) As Col2
FROM TABLE1 a
Table1 has 48850 records and Table2 has 15944098 records.
I have separate indexes in TABLE2 on ID,ID & STARTDTE, STARTDTE, ID, ID2 & STARTDTE.
The query is still too slow. How can this be improved? Please help.
I'm guessing that the OR in inner queries is messing up with the optimizer's ability to use indexes. Also I wouldn't recommend a solution that would scan all of TABLE2 given its size.
This is why in this case I would suggest using a function that will efficiently retrieve the information you are looking for (2 index scan per call):
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION getvid(p_id table1.id%TYPE)
RETURN table2.vid%TYPE IS
l_result table2.vid%TYPE;
BEGIN
SELECT vid
INTO l_result
FROM (SELECT vid, startdte
FROM (SELECT vid, startdte
FROM table2 t
WHERE t.id = p_id
AND t.startdte < SYSDATE
ORDER BY t.startdte DESC)
WHERE rownum = 1
UNION ALL
SELECT vid, startdte
FROM (SELECT vid, startdte
FROM table2 t
WHERE t.id2 = p_id
AND t.startdte < SYSDATE
ORDER BY t.startdte DESC)
WHERE rownum = 1
ORDER BY startdte DESC)
WHERE rownum = 1;
RETURN l_result;
END;
Your SQL would become:
SELECT ID As Col1,
getvid(a.id) vid
FROM TABLE1 a
Make sure you have indexes on both table2(id, startdte DESC) and table2(id2, startdte DESC). The order of the index is very important.
Possibly try the following, though untested.
WITH max_times AS
(SELECT a.ID, MAX(t.STARTDTE) AS Startdte
FROM TABLE1 a, TABLE2 t
WHERE (a.ID=t.ID OR a.ID=t.ID2)
AND t.STARTDTE < SYSDATE
GROUP BY a.ID)
SELECT b.ID As Col1, tt.VID
FROM TABLE1 b
LEFT OUTER JOIN max_times mt
ON (b.ID = mt.ID)
LEFT OUTER JOIN TABLE2 tt
ON ((mt.ID=tt.ID OR mt.ID=tt.ID2)
AND mt.startdte = tt.startdte)
You can look at analytic functions to avoid having to hit the second table twice. Something like this might work:
SELECT id AS col1, vid
FROM (
SELECT t1.id, t2.vid, RANK() OVER (PARTITION BY t1.id ORDER BY
CASE WHEN t2.startdte < TRUNC(SYSDATE) THEN t2.startdte ELSE null END
NULLS LAST) AS rn
FROM table1 t1
JOIN table2 t2 ON t2.id IN (t1.ID, t1.ID2)
)
WHERE rn = 1;
The inner select gets the id and vid values from the two tables with a simple join on id or id2. The rank function calculates a ranking for each matching row in the second table based on the startdte. It's complicated a bit by you wanting to filter on that date, so I've used a case to effectively ignore any dates today or later by changing the evaluated value to null, and in this instance that means the order by in the over clause needs nulls last so they're ignored.
I'd suggest you run the inner select on its own first - maybe with just a couple of id values for brevity - to see what its doing, and what ranks are being allocated.
The outer query is then just picking the top-ranked result for each id.
You may still get duplicates though; if table2 has more than one row for an id with the same startdte they'll get the same rank, but then you may have had that situation before. You may need to add more fields to the order by to break ties in a way that makes sens to you.
But this is largely speculation without being able to see where your existing query is actually slow.