i have problem with this case, i have log table that has many same ID with diferent condition. i want to select two max condition from this. i've tried but it just show one record only, not every record in table.
Here's my records table:
order_id seq status____________________
1256 2 4
1256 1 2
1257 0 2
1257 3 1
Here my code:
WITH t AS(
SELECT x.order_id
,MAX(y.seq) AS seq2
,MAX(y.extern_order_status) AS status
FROM t_order_demand x
JOIN t_order_log y
ON x.order_id = y.order_id
where x.order_id like '%12%'
GROUP BY x.order_id)
SELECT *
FROM t
WHERE (t.seq2 || t.status) IN (SELECT MAX(tt.seq2 || tt.status) FROM t tt);
this query works, but sometime it gave wrong value or just show some records, not every records.
i want the result is like this:
order_id seq2 status____________________
1256 2 4
1257 3 2
I think you just want an aggregation:
select d.order_id, max(l.seq2) as seq2, max(l.status) as status
from t_order_demand d join
t_order_log l
on d.order_id = l.order_id
where d.order_id like '%12%'
group by d.order_id;
I'm not sure what your final where clause is supposed to do, but it appears to do unnecessary filtering, compared to what you want.
Related
I am looking for a possibly better approach to this.
I have created a temp table in Oracle 11.2 that I'm using to pre calculate values that I will need in other selects instead of always generating them again with each select.
create global temporary table temp_foo (
DT timestamp(6), --only the date part will be used in this example but for later things I will need the time
Something varchar2(100),
Customer varchar2(100),
MinDate timestamp(6),
MaxDate timestamp(6),
Filecount int,
Errorcount int,
AvgFilecount int,
constraint PK_foo primary key (DT, Customer)
) on commit preserve rows;
I then first insert some fixed values for everything except AvgFilecount. AvgFilecount should contain the average for the Filecount for the 3 previous records (going by the date in DT). It doesn’t matter that the result will be converted to an int, I don’t need the decimal places
DT | Customer | Filecount | AvgFilecount
2019-04-30 | x | 10 | avg(2+3+9)
2019-04-29 | x | 2 | based on values before this
2019-04-28 | x | 3 | based on values before this
2019-04-27 | x | 9 | based on values before this
I thought about using a normal UPDATE statement as this should be faster than looping through the values. I should mention that there are no gaps in the DT field but obviously there is a first one where I won‘t find any previous records. If I would loop through, I could easily calculate AvgFilecount with (the record before previous record/2 + previous record)/3 which I cannot with UPDATE as I cannot guarantee the order of how they are executed. So I‘m fine with just taking the last 3 records (going by DT) and calcuting it from there.
What I thought would be an easy update is giving me headaches. I‘m mostly doing SQL Server where I would just join the 3 other records but it seems is a bit different in Oracle. I have found https://stackoverflow.com/a/2446834/4040068 and wanted to use the second approach in the answer.
update
(select curr.DT, curr.temp_foo, curr.Filecount, curr.AvgFilecount as OLD, (coalesce(Minus1.Filecount, 0) + coalesce(Minus2.Filecount, 0) + coalesce(Minus3.Filecount, 0)) / 3 as NEW
from temp_foo curr
left join temp_foo Minus1 ON Minus1.Customer = curr.Customer and trunc(Minus1.DT) = trunc(curr.DT-1)
left join temp_foo Minus2 ON Minus2.Customer = curr.Customer and trunc(Minus2.DT) = trunc(curr.DT-2)
left join temp_foo Minus3 ON Minus3.Customer = curr.Customer and trunc(Minus3.DT) = curr.DT-3
order by 1, 2
)
set OLD = NEW;
Which gives me an
ORA-01779: cannot modify a column which maps to a non key-preserved
table
01779. 00000 - "cannot modify a column which maps to a non key-preserved table"
*Cause: An attempt was made to insert or update columns of a join view which
map to a non-key-preserved table.
*Action: Modify the underlying base tables directly.
I thought this should work as both join conditions are in the primary key and thus unique. I am currently implementing the first approach in the above mentioned answer but it is getting quite big and it feels like there should be a better solution to this.
Other things I thought about trying:
using a nested subselect (nested because Oracle doesn’t know top(n) and I need to sort the subselect) to select the previous 3 records ordered by DT and then he outer select with rownum <=3 and then I could just use AVG(). However, I was told subselect can be quite slow and joins are better in Oracle performance wise. Dunno if that is really the case, haven‘t done any testing
Edit: My insert right now looks like this. I am already aggregating the Filecount for a day as there can be multiple records per DT per Customer per Something.
insert into temp_foo (DT, Something, Customer, Filecount)
select dates.DT, tbl1.Something, tbl1.Customer, coalesce(sum(tbl3.Filecount),0)
from table(Function_Returning_Daterange(NULL, NULL)) dates
cross join
(SELECT Something,
Code,
Value
FROM Table2 tbl2
WHERE (Something = 'Value')) tbl1
left outer join Table3 tbl3
on tbl3.Customer = tbl1.Customer
and trunc(tbl3.MinDate) = trunc(dates.DT)
group by dates.DT, tbl1.Something, tbl1.Customer;
You could use an analytic average with a window clause:
select dt, customer, filecount,
avg(filecount) over (partition by customer order by dt
rows between 3 preceding and 1 preceding) as avgfilecount
from tmp_foo
order by dt desc;
DT CUSTOMER FILECOUNT AVGFILECOUNT
---------- -------- ---------- ------------
2019-04-30 x 10 4.66666667
2019-04-29 x 2 6
2019-04-28 x 3 9
2019-04-27 x 9
and then do the update part with a merge statement:
merge into tmp_foo t
using (
select dt, customer,
avg(filecount) over (partition by customer order by dt
rows between 3 preceding and 1 preceding) as avgfilecount
from tmp_foo
) s
on (s.dt = t.dt and s.customer = t.customer)
when matched then update set t.avgfilecount = s.avgfilecount;
4 rows merged.
select dt, customer, filecount, avgfilecount
from tmp_foo
order by dt desc;
DT CUSTOMER FILECOUNT AVGFILECOUNT
---------- -------- ---------- ------------
2019-04-30 x 10 4.66666667
2019-04-29 x 2 6
2019-04-28 x 3 9
2019-04-27 x 9
You haven't shown your original insert statement; it might be possible to add the analytic calculation to that, and avoid the separate update step.
Also, if you want the first two date values to be calculated as if the 'missing' extra days before them had zero counts, you could use sum and division instead of avg:
select dt, customer, filecount,
sum(filecount) over (partition by customer order by dt
rows between 3 preceding and 1 preceding)/3 as avgfilecount
from tmp_foo
order by dt desc;
DT CUSTOMER FILECOUNT AVGFILECOUNT
---------- -------- ---------- ------------
2019-04-30 x 10 4.66666667
2019-04-29 x 2 4
2019-04-28 x 3 3
2019-04-27 x 9
It depends what you expect those last calculated values to be.
My tables are as below
MS_ISM_ISSUE
ISSUE_ID ISSUE_DUE_DATE ISSUE_SOURCE_TYPE
I1 25-11-2018 1
I2 25-12-2018 1
I3 27-03-2019 2
MS_ISM_SOURCE_SETUP
SOURCE_ID MODULE_NAME
1 IT-Compliance
2 Risk Assessment
I have written following query.
with rs as
(select
count(ISSUE_ID) as ISSUE_COUNT, src.MODULE_NAME,
case
when ISSUE_DUE_DATE<sysdate then 'Overdue'
when ISSUE_DUE_DATE between sysdate and sysdate + 90 then 'Within 3 months'
when ISSUE_DUE_DATE>sysdate+90 then 'Beyond 90 days'
end as date_range
from MS_ISM_ISSUE issue, MS_ISM_SOURCE_SETUP src
where issue.Issue_source_type = src.source_id
group by src.MODULE_NAME, case
when ISSUE_DUE_DATE<sysdate then 'Overdue'
when ISSUE_DUE_DATE between sysdate and sysdate + 90 then 'Within 3 months'
when ISSUE_DUE_DATE>sysdate+90 then 'Beyond 90 days'
end)
select ISSUE_COUNT,MODULE_NAME, DATE_RANGE,
(select count(ISSUE_COUNT) from rs where rs.MODULE_NAME=MODULE_NAME) as total from rs;
The output of the code is as below.
ISSUE_COUNT MODULE_NAME DATE_RANGE Total
1 IT-Compliance Overdue 3
1 IT-Compliance Within 3 months 3
1 Risk Assessment Beyond 90 days 3
The result is correct till 3rd column. In 4th column what I want is, total of Issue count for given module name. Hence in above case Total column will have value as 2 for first and second row (since there are 2 Issues for IT-Compliance) and value 1 for the third row (since one issue is present for Risk Assessment).
Essentially, I want to achieve is to replace current row's MODULE_NAME in last where clause. How do I achieve this using query?
OK, this condition
where rs.MODULE_NAME=MODULE_NAME
is essentially the same as if you wrote
where MODULE_NAME = MODULE_NAME
which is simply always true (if there are no nulls in module_name).
Try using different table alias for inner query and outer query, e.g.
select count(ISSUE_COUNT) from rs rs2 where rs2.MODULE_NAME=rs.MODULE_NAME
You can also try to use analytic function here, something like
select ISSUE_COUNT,
MODULE_NAME,
DATE_RANGE,
COUNT(ISSUE_COUNT) OVER (PARTITION BY RS.MODULE_NAME) AS TOTAL
from rs
instead of your subquery
I have been working with an application that is integrated with spring and Hibernate 4.X.X and its transaction is managed by JTA in Weblogic application server. After 3 years, there are about 40 million records only into one table from 100 tables that exist in my DB. The DB is Oracle 11g. The response time of a query is about 5 minutes because of increasing the count of records of this tables.
I customized the query and put it into Sql Developer and run the query advisor plan for suggestion some Index. Totally after doing such this, its response time is reduced to 2 minute. But even so, this response time does not satisfy the Custumer. To further clarify I put the query, It is as following:
select *
from (select (count(storehouse0_.ID) over()) as col_0_0_,
storehouse3_.storeHouse_ID as col_1_0_,
(DBPK_PUB_STOREHOUSE.get_Storehouse_Title(storehouse5_.id, 1)) as col_2_0_,
storehouse5_.Organization_Code as col_3_0_,
publicgood1_.Goods_Item_Id as col_4_0_,
storehouse0_.storeHouse_Inventory_Id as col_5_0_,
storehouse0_.Id as col_6_0_,
storehouse3_.samapel_Item_Id as col_7_0_,
samapelite10_.MAINNAME as col_8_0_,
publicgood1_.serial_Number as col_9_0_,
publicgood1_1_.production_Year as col_10_0_,
samapelpar2_.ID_SourceInfo as col_11_0_,
samapelpar2_.Pn as col_12_0_,
storehouse3_.expire_Date as col_13_0_,
publicgood1_1_.Status_Id as col_14_0_,
baseinform12_.Topic as col_15_0_,
publicgood1_.public_Num as col_16_0_,
cast(publicgood1_1_.goods_Status as number(10, 0)) as col_17_0_,
publicgood1_1_.goods_Status as col_18_0_,
publicgood1_1_.deleted as col_19_0_
from amd.Core_StoreHouse_Inventory_Item storehouse0_,
amd.Core_STOREHOUSE_INVENTORY storehouse3_,
amd.Core_STOREHOUSE storehouse5_,
amd.SMP_SAMAPEL_CODE samapelite10_
cross join amd.Core_Goods_Item_Public publicgood1_
inner join amd.Core_Goods_Item publicgood1_1_
on publicgood1_.Goods_Item_Id = publicgood1_1_.Id
left outer join amd.SMP_SOURCEINFO samapelpar2_
on publicgood1_1_.Samapel_Part_Number_Id =
samapelpar2_.ID_SourceInfo, amd.App_BaseInformation
baseinform12_
where not exists
(select ssec.samapelITem_id
from core_security_samapelitem ssec
inner join core_goods_item g
on ssec.samapelitem_id = g.samapel_item_id
where not exists (SELECT aa.groupid
FROM app_actiongroup aa
where aa.groupid in
(select au.groupid
from app_usergroup au
where au.userid = 1)
and aa.actionid = 9054)
and ssec.isenable = 1
and storehouse0_.goods_Item_ID = g.id)
and not exists
(select *
from CORE_POWER_SECURITY cps
where not exists (SELECT aa.groupid
FROM app_actiongroup aa
where aa.groupid in
(select au.groupid
from app_usergroup au
where au.userid = 1)
and aa.actionid = 9055)
and cps.inventory_id =
storehouse0_.storeHouse_Inventory_Id
and cps.goodsitemtype = 6)
and storehouse0_.storeHouse_Inventory_Id = storehouse3_.Id
and storehouse3_.storeHouse_ID = storehouse5_.Id
and storehouse3_.samapel_Item_Id = samapelite10_.MAINCODE
and publicgood1_1_.Status_Id = baseinform12_.ID
and 1 <> 2
and storehouse0_.goods_Item_ID = publicgood1_.Goods_Item_Id
and publicgood1_1_.edited = 0
and publicgood1_1_.deleted = 0
and (exists (select storehouse13_.Id
from amd.Core_STOREHOUSE storehouse13_
cross join amd.core_power power16_
cross join amd.core_power power17_
where storehouse5_.powerID = power16_.Id
and storehouse13_.powerID = power17_.Id
and (storehouse13_.Id in (741684217))
and storehouse13_.storeHouseType = 2
and (power16_.hierarchiCode like
power17_.hierarchiCode || '%')) or
(storehouse3_.storeHouse_ID in (741684217)) and
storehouse5_.storeHouseType = 1)
and (storehouse5_.storeHouse_Status not in (2, 3))
order by storehouse3_.samapel_Item_Id)
where rownum <= 10
[Note: This query is generated by Hibernate].
It is clear that order by 40 million holds so much time.
I find the main issue of this query. I omitted the “order by” and run the query, its response time was reduced to about 5 second. I was wonderful why the “order by” affects so much the response time.
(Some body may think that if this table is partitioned or use another facility of oracle, it may get better response time. Ok it may be right but my emphasis is the “order by” performance. If there is a way that do the “order by” responsibility, why not to do it). Any way I am not able to omit the “order by” because the Customer needs to order and it is necessary for paging. I find a solution that is explained by an example. This solution I order only some records that is needed. How, I will explain later. It is clear when oracle wants to sort 40 million records, it naturally takes so much time. I replace “order by” with “where clause”. With doing this replacement the response time was reduces from 2 minute to about 5 second and this is very exciting for me.
I explain my solution via an example, anybody that read this Post tells me whether this solution is good or there are another solution that I do not know exists.
Another hand I have a solution that is explained later, if it is ok or not. Whether I use it or not.
I explain my solution:
Let’s assumed that there are two table as below:
Post table
Id Others fields
1
2
3
4
5
… …
Post_comment table
Id post_id
1 5
2 5
3 5
4 5
6 5
7 2
8 2
9 2
10 3
11 1
12 1
13 1
14 1
15 1
16 1
17 1
18 1
19 1
20 1
21 1
22 1
23 1
24 1
25 1
26 4
27 4
There is a form that shows the result of join between POST table and POST_COMMENT table.
I explain both query with “order by” all records of that table and “order by” only specific records that are needed. The result of two query are exactly the same but the response time of second approach is the better than that one.
You assume that the page size is 10 and you are in page 3.
The first query with the “order by” all records of that table:
select *
from (Select res.*, rownum as rownum_
from (Select * from POST_COMMENT Order by post_id asc) res
Where rownum <= 30)
where rownum_ > 20
The second solution:
Before execution the query, I query as below:
select *
from (select post_id, count(id) from POST_COMMENT group by post_id)
order by post_id asc
So the result of it is the below:
Post_id Count(id) Sum(count(id))
1 15 15
2 3 18
3 1 19
4 2 21
5 5 26
It needs to say that the third column that is "Sum(count(id))" is calculated after that query.Any entry of this column is sum all before records.
So there is a formula that specifics which post_id must be selected. The formula is the below:
pageSize = 10, pageNumber = 3
from : (pageNumber – 1) * pageCount 2 * 10 = 20
to : (pageNumber – 1) * pageCount + pageCount 20 + 10 = 30
So I need the posts that are between (20, 30] of Sum(count(id)). According to this, I need only two post_id that have value 4,5. According to this the main query of second approach is:
select *
from (select rownum as rownum_, res.*
from (select *
from (select * from POST_COMMENT where post_id in (4, 5))
order by post_id asc) res
where rownum <= 30)
where rownum_ > 20
If you look at both query, you will see the biggest difference. The second query only selects the records of POST_COMENT that have post_id that are 4 and 5. After that, orders this records not all records of that table.
After posting this post, I have searched. finally I am redirected to HERE . I can reach to the response time that is very excited for me. It is reduced from 3 minutes to less than 3 seconds. It is necessary to know, I only use one tip from all of the query optimization guidelines that are in that site that is Duplicate constant condition for different tables whenever possible.
Note: Before doing this tip, there are some indexs on fields that are in where-clause and order-by.
I have one table scores where I have saving users scores. It's looks like this
table `scores`
id | points | user_id
1 5 1
2 2 1
3 4 1
4 1 3
5 10 2
I want to select each user, sum his points and show as a ranking. The result from above should be
user_id | points
1 11
2 10
3 1
The query with which I came up is
$sumPoints = Scores::select( \DB::raw("sum(points) as numberOfPoints"), \DB::raw("count(id) as numberId"))->groupBy("user_id")->first();
The problem is in ->first() because it's return only one result.. it is working as must. If I try to use ->get() instead I've got Undefined property error. How should I use this?
The query which is working in phpmyadmin
SELECT count(id) as numberId, sum(points) as numberOfPoints FROM `points` GROUP BY `user_id`
You can use something like this
$sumPoints = Scores::select( \DB::raw("sum(points) as numberOfPoints"), \DB::raw("count(id) as numberId"))->groupBy("user_id")->get();
foreach($sumPoints as $point){
dd($point); //OR dd($point->numberOfPoints)
}
I have a very large table that I need to retrieve data from. The table looks like this:
A B C D
1 foo 4 q
1 fool 2 p
1 fools 13 a
2 pho 5 d
3 phone 14 g
3 phones 6 f
I'm trying to run something like:
select max(B) from table where A = 1 union
select max(B) from table where A = 2 union
.
.
.
select max(B) from table where A = 50000;
What I want is to get:
1 -> fools
2 -> pho
3 -> phones
I have about 50,000 records to run this query for.
This above approach theoretically works (I tried on a small subset), but I think it's inefficient to have one select query for each of the 50000 values.
This also resulted in a process out of memory error.
Is there a way I can run this in a single query?
I tried:
select max(B) from table where A in (first group of 1000) union
select max(B) from table where A in (1000...2000) union
.
.
.
select max(B) from table where A in (40000...50000)
But this gives me only one max value per select query (and I understand why)
What I really want is 50000 max values.
Is there a way for me to get the value of max(B) for each item in the list if I use
select max(B) from table where A in (...)
Thank you!
It looks like you just need to use GROUP BY, like this:
select A, max(B)
from table
group by A
order by A
Let me know if I'm missing something.