I have a table with following structure
SubId Status
---------------------------------------
001 Active
001 Partially Active
While displaying this record, I need to display this like this
SubId Status
---------------------------------------
001 Active/Partially active
I tried using distinct, but this returns both rows.
Any idea how can I get only 1 row instead of 2. I know it would be simple. I just cannot find it.
select subid,
listagg(status, '/') within group (order by null) as status
from the_table
group by subid;
Related
I want to put the value of checked name from a checkbox in oracle apex into a table, but unable to do that.
I tried taking help from google but the steps mentioned didn't work too.
Could you please advise how to do that if I have taken a blank form and then added a checkbox to it, also I fetched the checkbox value from LOV.
As I understand, you are using a List of Values as a source of your checkboxes. Let's say you have following values there:
return value display value
----------------------------
123 andAND
456 Dibya
789 Anshul
321 aafirst
555 Anuj
When you select several values, APEX puts their return values into a string and separate them with :. So for the case in your screenshot the value in item P12_NEW will be 123:555. To split this values you can use the following query:
select regexp_substr(:P12_NEW, '[^:]+', 1, level) values
from dual
connect by regexp_substr(:P12_NEW, '[^:]+', 1, level) is not null
The result will be:
values
------
123
555
Next, you need to put these values into table usr_amt (let's say with columns user_id and amount, and the amount is entered into item P12_AMOUNT):
merge into usr_amt t
using (select regexp_substr(:P12_NEW, '[^:]+', 1, level) user_id
from dual
connect by regexp_substr(:P12_NEW, '[^:]+', 1, level) is not null
) n on (n.user_id = t.user_id)
when matched then update
set t.amount = :P12_AMOUNT
when not matched then insert (user_id, amount)
values (n.user_id, :P12_AMOUNT)
This query will search for the each user_id selected in the table, and if the user presents there, updates the corresponding value to the value of item :P12_AMOUNT, if not present - inserts a row with user_id and the value.
Apologies if this seems simple to some, I am still in the (very) early stages of learning!
Basically I've got a table database that has multiple users (Users_ID), each with a corresponding access name(NAME). The problem is, some Users have multiple access names, meaning when the data is pulled, there is duplicates in the User_ID column.
I need to remove the duplicates in the User column and join their corresponding access names in the NAME column, so it only takes up 1 row and no data is lost.
The current SQL query I'm using is :
select Table1_user_id, Table2.name,
from Table1
inner join Table2
on Table1.role_id = Table2.role_id
An example of what this would return:
USER_ID | NAME
------- --------------
Tim Level_1 Access
John Level 2 Access
Tim Level 2 Access
Mark Level 3 Access
Tim Level 3 Access
Ideally, I would remove the duplicates for Tim and display as following:
USER_ID | NAME
------- ----------------------------------------------
Tim Level_1 Access, Level 2 Access, Level 3 Access
John Level 2 Access
Mark Level 3 Access
Thanks in advance for any help regarding this and sorry if something similar has been asked before!
Use GROUP_CONCAT with SEPARATOR :
SELECT Table1.user_id, GROUP_CONCAT(Table2.name SEPARATOR ',') AS Ename
FROM Table1
INNER JOIN Table2 ON Table1.role_id = Table2.role_id
GROUP BY Table1.user_id
select Table1_user_id, LISTAGG(Table2.name,', ') WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY Table2.name) as Name
from Table1
inner join Table2
on Table1.role_id = Table2.role_id
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
For example, I have a table tbl like
values
10
20
30
40
on this table by the condition I have GROUP BY like this:
SELECT ???
FROM tbl
GROUP BY values
I need to check that group has some value, for example 30
UPD:
In real task a have a table with many columns and other operations on them and in one column i need to check whether value in every group of this column.
UPD2:
I need something like this:
select
min(created_timestamp),
max(resource_id),
max(price),
CASE WHEN event_type has (1704 or 1701 or 1703) THEN return found value END
CASE WHEN event_type has (1707) THEN return 1707 END
from subscriptions
group by guid
SELECT
MIN(created_timestamp),
MAX(resource_id),
MAX(price),
MIN(CASE WHEN event_type IN (1704, 1701, 1703)
THEN found_value
WHEN event_type = 1707
THEN 1707
ELSE NULL
END)
FROM subscriptions
GROUP BY guid ;
I did not get what you have in the select clause .. but if you want to see the values also in the out put when you run the group by query try this
select function(), values from tbl group by values
function() -- could be any function like -- count or sum
and if you want only specific to value 30 .. then add a where clause values = 30.
You dont need to use group by clause if your aim is to find if some value exists.
Use this method if you also consider the performance.
SELECT DECODE (COUNT(1),0,'Not Exist','Yes has some values')
FROM dual
WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM tbl
WHERE VALUES='&Your_Value_To_Check'
)
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.