I have the following table called questions in HQL Hibernate:
ID | Name
1 | Bread
2 | Bread
3 | Rise
4 | Rise
I want to select each PRODUT only once and if there are multiple PRODUCT with the same name, select the one of the highest id. So, the expected results:
ID | NAME
3 | Bread
4 | Rise
I use the following query:
from Product AS E group by E.producto
So it selects the first 'Product' it encounters instead of the last one.
Thanks
The syntax is almost identical to SQL:
select max(p.id), p.name from Product p group by p.name
Relevant documentation:
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/4.3/manual/en-US/html/ch16.html#queryhql-aggregation
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/4.3/manual/en-US/html/ch16.html#queryhql-grouping
Related
Scenario - I have users who are assigned different restrictions over several items. These restrictions are specified in restriction groups. Sometimes it happens that a user is a part of more than one restriction group. Sometimes, by mistake a user is assigned those restriction groups that have a conflict restriction for a common item. For example, User 123 is a part of restriction group A1 and B1 that have a common item Green Ball wherein restriction group A1 has a restriction that User 123 can access only 3 Green Balls a day while restriction group B1 says that User 123 can access only 2 Green Balls a day, thus leading to a conflict. I have to build a query that will fetch the information in such scenarios where there is a conflict. Every user belongs to a particular region, so the results will be filtered using region ID. My query should output.
UserId, Common Item, Restriction Group Name, Restriction
Tables
user - Id, userregionid
userRestriction - userId, restrictionGroup
restrictions- Item, restrictionGroup, restriction, interval // For example, Green Balls, Group A1, 3 , 1 (means 1 day)
My Effort -
select user.id,
userRestriction.restrictionGroup,
restrictions.Item,
restriction.restriction,
restriction.interval
from user left outer join userRestriction on user.Id = userRestriction.userId
left outer join restrictions on userRestriction.restrictionGroup = restriction.restrictionGroup
where user.useregionid= '12345'
group by userRestriction.userid,
user.id,
userRestriction.restrictionGroup,
restrictions.Item,
restriction.restriction,
restriction.interval,user.userregionid
having count(userRestriction.restrictiongroup)>1
I am getting nothing by running this query. This is not correct as I have data that should get resulted.
In my database, I have UserRestriction Table
UserId | RestrictionGroup
EID-999| A1
EID-888 | B1
EID-999 | C1
In the Restriction table
Item | RestrictionGroup| restriction | interval
GreenBalls| A1 | 1 | 1
Pen | B1 |1 | 7
GreenBalls|C1 |1 |30
The query should output
EID-999 | GreenBalls | A1 | 1 | 1
EID-999 | GreenBalls | C1 | 1 |30
User Table :
Id | userregionid
EID-999 | 12345
EID- 888 | 12345
D-900 | 2322
F-999 | 6767
The query should fetch only those users belonging to the specified userregionid.
I think there are some issues with your query. You can try below query -
select U.id,
UR.restrictionGroup,
R.Item,
R.restriction,
R.interval
from users U
left outer join userRestriction UR on U.Id = UR.userId
left outer join restrictions R on UR.restrictionGroup = R.restrictionGroup
where U.userregionid = 12345
group by U.id,
UR.restrictionGroup,
R.Item,
R.restriction,
R.interval
having count(UR.RestrictionGroup) >= 1
DB Fiddle
I have a section table and class Table
class table is designed in this way
(id,class_name,section_id)
one class has many sections like
--------------------------------------------
| SN | ClassName | Section_id |
--------------------------------------------
| 1 | ClassOne | 1 |
| 2 | ClassOne | 2 |
| 3 | ClassOne | 3 |
| 4 | ClassOne | 4 |
--------------------------------------------
Now i want to groupBy Only ClassName and display all the sections of that class
$data['classes'] = SectionClass::groupBy('class_name')->paginate(10);
i have groupby like this but it only gives me one section id
Try this way...
$things = SectionClass::paginate(10);
$data['classes']= $things->groupBy('class_name');
You are getting just one row because that is what GROUP BY does, groups a set of rows into a set of summary rows and returns one row for each group. In standard SQL, a query that includes a GROUP BY clause cannot refer to nonaggregated columns in the select list that are not named in the GROUP BY clause. For example, in SQL Server if you try the next clause
SELECT * FROM [Class] GROUP BY [ClassName]
You'll get the next error
"Column 'SN' is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause"
Think about it, you are grouping by ClassName, and following your sample data, this will return just one row. Your SELECT clause includes column ClassName, which is easy to get because is the same in every single row, but when you are selecting another, which one should be return if only one has to be selected?
Now, things change a little bit in MySQL. MySQL extends the standard SQL use of GROUP BY so that the select list can refer to nonaggregated columns not named in the GROUP BY clause. This means that the preceding query is legal in MySQL. However, this is useful primarily when all values in each nonaggregated column not named in the GROUP BY are the same for each group. The server is free to choose any value from each group, so unless they are the same, the values chosen are nondeterministic. You can find a complete explanation about this topic here https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/group-by-handling.html
If you are expecting a result in one row, you can use GROUP_CONCAT() function to get something like
--------------------------------
| ClassName | Sections |
--------------------------------
| ClassOne | 1,2,3,4 |
--------------------------------
Your query must be something like:
select `ClassName`, group_concat(Section_id) from `class` group by `ClassName`
You can get this with a raw query in laravel or its up to you to find a way to get the same result using query builder ;)
Let's say i have a table structure like this :
ID | Name | SCHOOLNAME | CODESCHOOL
1 DARK Kindergarten 123 1
2 DARK Kindergarten 111 1
3 Knight NY University 3
4 Knight LA Senior HS 2
5 JOHN HARVARD 3
so, how to diplay all of the data above into like this :
ID | Name | SCHOOLNAME | CODESCHOOL
1 DARK Kindergarten 123 1
3 Knight NY University 3
5 JOHN HARVARD 3
my purpose is want to display data with the max of codeschool, but when i tried with my query below :
SELECT NAME, SCHOOLNAME, MAX(CODESCHOOL) FROM TABLE GROUP BY NAME, SCHOOLNAME
but the result is just like this :
ID | Name | SCHOOLNAME | CODESCHOOL
1 DARK Kindergarten 123 1
2 DARK Kindergarten 111 1
3 Knight NY University 3
4 Knight LA Senior HS 2
5 JOHN HARVARD 3
maybe it caused by the GROUP BY SCHOOLNAME, when i tried to not select SCHOOLNAME, the data displayed just like what i expected, but i need the SCHOOLNAME field for search condition in my query
hope you guys can help me out of this problem
any help will be appreciated
thanks
Using some wacky joins you can get a functional get max rows per category query.
What you essentially need to do is to join the table to itself and make sure that the joined values only contain the top values for the CODESCHOOL column.
I've also added a :schoolname parameter because you wanted to search by schoolname
Example:
SELECT
A.*
FROM
TABLE1 A
LEFT OUTER JOIN TABLE1 B ON B.NAME = A.NAME
AND B.CODESCHOOL < A.CODESCHOOL
WHERE
B.CODESCHOOL IS NULL AND
(
(A.SCHOOLNAME = :SCHOOLNAME AND :SCHOOLNAME IS NOT NULL) OR
(:SCHOOLNAME IS NULL)
);
this should create this output, note that dark has 2 outputs because it has 2 rows with the same code school which is the max in the dark "category"/name.
ID|NAME |SCHOOLNAME |CODESCHOOL
--| -----|----------------|----------
4|Knight|LA Senior HS | 2
5|JOHN |HARVARD | 3
2|DARK |Kindergarten 111| 1
1|DARK |Kindergarten 123| 1
It's not the most effective query but it should be more than good enough as a starting point.
Sidenote: I've been blatantly stealing this logic for a while from https://www.xaprb.com/blog/2007/03/14/how-to-find-the-max-row-per-group-in-sql-without-subqueries/
I am using an analytical window function ROW_NUMBER().
This will group (or partition) by NAME then select the top 1 CODESCHOOL in DESC order.
Select NAME,
SCHOOLNAME,
CODESCHOOL
From (
Select NAME,
SCHOOLNAME,
CODESCHOOL,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY NAME ORDER BY CODESCHOOL DESC) as rn
from myTable)
Where rn = 1;
I have a dataset looks like this:
---------------------------
cust | cost | cat | name
---------------------------
1 | 2.5 | apple | pkLady
---------------------------
1 | 3.5 | apple | greenGr
---------------------------
1 | 1.2 | pear | yelloPear
----------------------------
1 | 4.5 | pear | greenPear
-------------------------------
my hive query should now compare the cheapest price of each item the customer bought. So I want now to get the 2.5 and 1.2 into one row to get its difference. Since I am new to Hive I don't now how to ignore everything else until I reach next category of item while I still kept the cheapest price in the previous category.
you can use like below:
select cat,min(cost) from table group by cost;
Given your options (brickhouse UDFs, hive windowing functions or a self-join) in Hive, a self-join is the worst way to do this.
select *
, (cost - min(cost) over (partition by cust)) cost_diff
from table
You could create a subquery containing the minimum cost for each customer, and then join it to the original table:
select
mytable.*,
minCost.minCost,
cost - minCost as costDifference
from mytable
inner join
(select
cust,
min(cost) as minCost
from mytable
group by cust) minCost
on mytable.cust = minCost.cust
I created an interactive SQLFiddle example using MySQL, but it should work just fine in Hive.
I think this is really a SQL question rather than a Hive question: If you just want the cheapest cost per customer you can do
select cust, min(cost)
group by cust
Otherwise if you want the cheapest cost per customer per category you can do:
select cust, cat, min(cost)
from yourtable
groupby cust, cat
I am using the following LINQ query for my profile page:
var userData = from u in db.Users
.Include("UserSkills.Skill")
.Include("UserIdeas.IdeaThings")
.Include("UserInterests.Interest")
.Include("UserMessengers.Messenger")
.Include("UserFriends.User.UserSkills.Skill")
.Include("UserFriends1.User1.UserSkills.Skill")
.Include("UserFriends.User.UserIdeas")
.Include("UserFriends1.User1.UserIdeas")
where u.UserId == userId
select u;
It has a long object graph and uses many Includes. It is running perfect right now, but when the site has many users, will it impact performance much?
Should I do it in some other way?
A query with includes returns a single result set and the number of includes affect how big data set is transfered from the database server to the web server. Example:
Suppose we have an entity Customer (Id, Name, Address) and an entity Order (Id, CustomerId, Date). Now we want to query a customer with her orders:
var customer = context.Customers
.Include("Orders")
.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Id == 1);
The resulting data set will have the following structure:
Id | Name | Address | OrderId | CustomerId | Date
---------------------------------------------------
1 | A | XYZ | 1 | 1 | 1.1.
1 | A | XYZ | 2 | 1 | 2.1.
It means that Cutomers data are repeated for each Order. Now lets extend the example with another entities - 'OrderLine (Id, OrderId, ProductId, Quantity)andProduct (Id, Name)`. Now we want to query a customer with her orders, order lines and products:
var customer = context.Customers
.Include("Orders.OrderLines.Product")
.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Id == 1);
The resulting data set will have the following structure:
Id | Name | Address | OrderId | CustomerId | Date | OrderLineId | LOrderId | LProductId | Quantity | ProductId | ProductName
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | A | XYZ | 1 | 1 | 1.1. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | AA
1 | A | XYZ | 1 | 1 | 1.1. | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | BB
1 | A | XYZ | 2 | 1 | 2.1. | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | AA
1 | A | XYZ | 2 | 1 | 2.1. | 4 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | CC
As you can see data become quite a lot duplicated. Generaly each include to a reference navigation propery (Product in the example) will add new columns and each include to a collection navigation property (Orders and OrderLines in the example) will add new columns and duplicate already created rows for each row in the included collection.
It means that your example can easily have hundreds of columns and thousands of rows which is a lot of data to transfer. The correct approach is creating performance tests and if the result will not satisfy your expectations, you can modify your query and load navigation properties separately by their own queries or by LoadProperty method.
Example of separate queries:
var customer = context.Customers
.Include("Orders")
.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Id == 1);
var orderLines = context.OrderLines
.Include("Product")
.Where(l => l.Order.Customer.Id == 1)
.ToList();
Example of LoadProperty:
var customer = context.Customers
.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Id == 1);
context.LoadProperty(customer, c => c.Orders);
Also you should always load only data you really need.
Edit: I just created proposal on Data UserVoice to support additional eager loading strategy where eager loaded data would be passed in additional result set (created by separate query within the same database roundtrip). If you find this improvement interesting don't forget to vote for the proposal.
(You can improve performance of many includes by creating 2 or more small data request from data base like below.
According to my experience,Only can give maximum 2 includes per query like below.More than that will give really bad performance.
var userData = from u in db.Users
.Include("UserSkills.Skill")
.Include("UserIdeas.IdeaThings")
.FirstOrDefault();
userData = from u in db.Users
.Include("UserFriends.User.UserSkills.Skill")
.Include("UserFriends1.User1.UserSkills.Skill")
.FirstOrDefault();
Above will bring small data set from database by using more travels to the database.
Yes it will. Avoid using Include if it expands multiple detail rows on a master table row.
I believe EF converts the query into one large join instead of several queries. Therefore, you'll end up duplicating your master table data over every row of the details table.
For example: Master -> Details. Say, master has 100 rows, Details has 5000 rows (50 for each master).
If you lazy-load the details, you return 100 rows (size: master) + 5000 rows (size: details).
If you use .Include("Details"), you return 5000 rows (size: master + details). Essentially, the master portion is duplicated over 50 times.
It multiplies upwards if you include multiple tables.
Check the SQL generated by EF.
I would recommend you to perform load tests and measure the performance of the site under stress. If you are performing complex queries on each request you may consider caching some results.
The result of include may change: it depend by the entity that call the include method.
Like the example proposed from Ladislav Mrnka, suppose that we have an entity
Customer (Id, Name, Address)
that map to this table:
Id | Name | Address
-----------------------
C1 | Paul | XYZ
and an entity Order (Id, CustomerId, Total)
that map to this table:
Id | CustomerId | Total
-----------------------
O1 | C1 | 10.00
O2 | C1 | 13.00
The relation is one Customer to many Orders
Esample 1: Customer => Orders
var customer = context.Customers
.Include("Orders")
.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Id == "C1");
Linq will be translated in a very complex sql query.
In this case the query will produce two record and the informations about the customer will be replicated.
Customer.Id | Customer.Name | Order.Id | Order.Total
-----------------------------------------------------------
C1 | Paul | O1 | 10.00
C1 | Paul | O2 | 13.00
Esample 2: Order => Customer
var order = context.Orders
.Include("Customers")
.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Id == "O1");
Linq will be translated in a simple sql Join.
In this case the query will produce only one record with no duplication of informations:
Order.Id | Order.Total | Customer.Id | Customer.Name
-----------------------------------------------------------
O1 | 10.00 | C1 | Paul