I'm dealing whit this for a couple of hours and I can't find the way to get the answer.
I've a table with a maximun of 4 records for a product (let's call it that way) for a diferent period (column name with a number). I'm trying to return the ones that DO NOT has a particular type of CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID. But it doesn't work.
I'll explain it simple. I've a table with these fields (there are more, but these one are just fine)
product_id - CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID - consumption_period
123 103 1
123 104 1
123 107 1
123 108 1
I need to return the ones that don't has one particular type of consumption, let's say that the type 107 is missing (the row doesn't exists), the select query should show the other 3 or any present. I don't mind doing the same select 4 times, I could also try to do a cursor for it and use loop to check every one. The point is, that the type of query with "not in" or "not exists" doesn't work. It gives me a result like the one given below, but when I query the "consumption_period" it shows me the missing "CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID" and that's because the "not in" clause it's only hidding the results.
this is what I need.
select * from t1 where CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID != 108;
product_id - CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID - consumption_period
123 103 1
123 104 1
123 107 1
I hope you can help me with this. I'm stucked, it maybe simple, but I'm having one of those stucked times. Thanks in advance for any help
You probably should've posted that NOT EXISTS query that doesn't work, because that is the right way to do this.
If I got your requirements right: all products that do not have a record for a specific consumption_type_id.
SELECT DISTINCT product_id
FROM t1 t
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT 1 FROM t1
WHERE t.product_id = product_id
AND Consumption_Type_ID = ?)
The obvious answer here is to search for CONSUMPTION_TYPE_ID = 108 and have the surrounding code check for a lack of rows, rather than the existence of rows.
If you really need a row return for each consumption_type_id that's not in this table, then you should probably be selecting from the lookup table for consumption_type_id:
select *
from consumption_type ct
where not exists (select *
from t1
where t1.consumption_type_id = ct.consumption_type_id)
and ct.consumption_type_id = 108
Related
I have the following query:
SELECT DISTINCT
status,
CASE
WHEN status = 0 THEN 'bla'
WHEN status = 2 THEN 'bla1'
END AS "description" ,
COUNT(*) AS total
FROM
TRANSACTIONS
WHERE
status != 1
GROUP BY
status
which displays:
Status
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
0
bla
29
2
bla1
70
3
(null)
12
4
(null)
85
now lets assume I have a table called Status_Codes which provides the Description itself, for example:
Status
DESCRIPTION
0
bla
2
bla1
I want to remove the case statement from my query that explicitly attaching the descriptions I need, and add my FROM clause the Status_Codes table, and to add Status_Codes.Description to my select.
That action cannot be done simply because I use an aggregate function in my select statement and I'd have to group by the same column( which is not something I want).
Im not sure on how to approach that problem, was thinking maybe it has something to do with partition by, but even if thats the case I dont know how to implement it in my query.
Any advices, Enlightments and whatnot will be appreciated.
thanks.
Why that irrational fear of adding yet another column into the group by clause? That's the simplest and most efficient way of doing it.
SELECT t.status, c.description, COUNT (*) AS total
FROM transactions t JOIN status_codes c ON c.status = t.status
WHERE t.status != 1
GROUP BY t.status, c.description
What benefit do you expect if you do it differently?
BTW, if you have group by clause, you don't need distinct.
Let me start by saying, I am very new to Hive, so I'm not sure what information folks will need to help me out. Please let me know what information would be useful. Also, while I'd usually create a small dataset to recreate the problem with, I think this problem has to do with the scale of my dataset, because I can't seem to recreate the problem on a smaller dataset. Let me know if you have suggestions to make this more easy to answer.
Okay now that's out of the way, here's my problem. I have a huge dataset, partitioned by month, with about 500 million rows per month. I have a column with an ID number in it (I'll call it idcol), and I want to closely examine a couple of examples where there's a high number of repeated IDs and a very low number. So, I used this:
SELECT idcol, COUNT(*) FROM table WHERE month = 7 GROUP BY idcol LIMIT 10;
And got:
000005185884381 13
000035323848000 24
000017027256315 531
000010121767109 54
000039844553332 3
000013731352481 309
000024387407996 3
000028461234451 67
000016564844672 1
000032933040806 17
So, I went to investigate the first idvar with a count of 3, with:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE month = 7 AND idcol = '000039844553332';
I expected to see just 3 rows, but ended up with 469 rows found! That was strange enough, but then I just happened to run the original line of code above but with LIMIT 5 instead and ended up with:
000005185884381 13
000017027256315 75
000010121767109 25
000013731352481 59
000024387407996 1
And, it may be hard to see because the idcol is so long, but idvar 000017027256315 ended up with a count of 531 when I did LIMIT 10 and just 75 when I did LIMIT 5.
What am I missing?! How can I get a correct count of just a small number of values so I can investigate further?!
BTW my first thought was to make the counting part a sub-query, but that didn't change a thing. I used:
SELECT * FROM (SELECT idcol, COUNT(*) FROM table WHERE month = 7 GROUP BY idcol) x LIMIT 10;
...same EXACT results
Most likely the counts are being computed from statistics.See here for the bug and the related discussion.
hive.compute.query.using.stats = FALSE
If this doesn't fix it try the ANALYZE command before running the count(*)
ANALYZE TABLE table_name PARTITION(month) COMPUTE STATISTICS;
I have two tables affiliation and customer, in that i have data like this
aff_id From_cus_id
------ -----------
1 10
2 20
3 30
4 40
5 50
cust_id cust_aff_id
------- -------
10
20
30
40
50
i need to update data for cust_aff_id column from affiliation table which is aff_id like below
cust_id cust_aff_id
------- -------
10 1
20 2
30 3
40 4
50 5
could u please give reply if anyone knows......
Oracle doesn't have an UPDATE with join syntax, but you can use a subquery instead:
UPDATE customer
SET customer.cust_aff_id =
(SELECT aff_id FROM affiliation WHERE From_cus_id = customer.cust_id)
merge into customer t2
using affiliation t1 on (t1.From_cus_id =t2.cust_id )
WHEN MATCHED THEN
update set t2.cust_aff_id = t1.aff_id
;
Here is an update with join syntax. This, quite reasonably, works only if from_cus_id is primary key in the first table and cust_id is foreign key in the second table, referencing the first table. Without these conditions, the requirement doesn't make much sense in the first place anyway... but Oracle requires that these constraints be stated explicitly in the tables. This is also reasonable on Oracle's part IMO.
update
( select t1.aff_id, t2.cust_aff_id
from affiliation t1 join customer t2 on t2.cust_id = t1.from_cus_id) j
set j.cust_aff_id = j.aff_id;
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 am facing an issue using connect by.
I have a query through which I retrieve a few columns including these three:
ID
ParentID
ObjectID
Now for the same ID and parentID, there are multiple objects associated e.g.
ID ParentID ObjectID
1 0 112
1 0 113
2 0 111
2 0 112
3 1 111
4 1 112
I am trying to use connect by but I'm unable to get the result in a proper hierarchy. I need it the way it is showed below. Take an ID-parentID combo, display all rows with that ID-parentID and then all the children of this ID i.e. whose parentID=ID
ID ParentID ObjectID
1 0 112
1 0 113
3 1 111
4 1 112
2 0 111
2 0 112
select ID,parent_id, object_id from table start with parent_id=0
connect by prior id=parent_id order by id,parent_id
Above query is not resulting into proper hierarchy that i need.
Well, your problem appears to be that you are using a non-normalized table design. If a given ID always has the same ParentID, that relationship shouldn't be indicated separately in all these rows.
A better design would be to have a single table showing the parent child relationships, with ID as a primary key, and a second table showing the mappings of ID to ObjectID, where I presume both columns together would comprise the primary key. Then you would apply your hierarchical query against the first table, and join the results of that to the other table to get the relevant objects for each row.
You can emulate this with your current table structure ...
with parent_child as (select distinct id, parent_id from table),
tree as (select id, parent_id from parent_child
start with parent_id = 0
connect by prior id = parent_id )
select id, table.parent_id, table.object_id
from tree join table using (id)
Here's a script that runs. Not ideal but will work -
select * from (select distinct test.id,
parent_id,
object_id,
connect_by_root test.id root
from test
start with test.parent_id = 0
connect by prior test.id = parent_id)
order by root,id
First of all Thanks to all who tried helping me.
Finally i changed my approach as applying hierarchy CONNECT BY clause to inner queryw ith multiple joins was not working for me.
I took following approach
Get the hierarchical data from First table i.e. table with ID-ParentID. Select Query table1 using CONNECT BY. It will give the ID in proper sequence.
Join the retrieved List of ID.
Pass the above ID as comma seperated string in select query IN Clause to second table with ID-ObjectID.
select * from table2 where ID in (above Joined string of ID) order by
instr('above Joined string of ID',ID);
ORDER BY INSTR did the magic. It will give me the result ordered by the IN Clause data and IN Clause string is prepared using the hierarchical query. Hence it will obviously be in sequence.
Again Thanks all for the help!
Note: Above approach has one constraint : ID passed as comma separated string in IN Clause. IN Clause has a limit of characters inside it. I guess 1000 chars. Not sure.
But as i am sure on the data of First table that it will not be so much so as to cross limit of 1000 chars. Hence i chose above approach.