How to print out a whole table in relational algebra - relational-algebra

I want to print out all the columns of a table which meet a certain criteria in another table. Is there a shorter way to do it than π(column1, column2, .... ,column8)?

I'm not sure if I get you. You have some relation and wrap a projection of all the attributes around it? In this case you can just skip the projection.
R = {a1,..,an}
πa1,..,an(R) = R

Related

How do I sort a data range but only return one column? (Sheets)

I have a data range in Google Sheets where I want to sort the data by column B, but only return column A. If it matters, column A is a string, column B is integers.
Using =SORT(A1:B10,2,FALSE) returns both columns A and B, sorted by column B...but I only want it to return column A.
I've also tried:
=QUERY((SORT(A1:B10,2,FALSE)),"select *") <- does exactly the same as sort, tried just for testing
=QUERY((SORT(A1:B10,2,FALSE)),"select col1") <- #value error
=QUERY((SORT(A1:B10,2,FALSE)),"select A") <- #value error (also tried "select A:A" and "select A1:A10")
=QUERY((SORT(A1:B10,2,FALSE)),"select Stat") <- #value error
I've also tried all of the above, but starting with =QUERY(A1:B10,SORT(...
Am I using QUERY wrong? Is SORT not what I want? I could just use SORT in a hidden part of the sheet, then reference the column I want but that feels cheaty, I want to know if there's a way to do what I want to do.
You can set in the first part the column you want to be returned, then the column you want to be sorted with, and then if it's ascending or not (you can then add other columns, obviously. They don't need to be included nor contiguous, but of the same size). Try this:
=SORT(A1:A10,B1:B10,FALSE)
use:
=INDEX(SORT(A1:A10,2,),,1)

Power BI DAX measure: Count occurences of a value in a column considering the filter context of the visual

I want to count the occurrences of values in a column. In my case the value I want to count is TRUE().
Lets say my table is called Table and has two columns:
boolean value
TRUE() A
FALSE() B
TRUE() A
TRUE() B
All solutions I found so far are like this:
count_true = COUNTROWS(FILTER(Table, Table[boolean] = TRUE()))
The problem is that I still want the visual (card), that displays the measure, to consider the filters (coming from the slicers) to reduce the table. So if I have a slicer that is set to value = A, the card with the count_true measure should show 2 and not 3.
As far as I understand the FILTER function always overwrites the visuals filter context.
To further explain my intent: At an earlier point the TRUE/FALSE column had the values 1/0 and I could achieve my goal by just using the SUM function that does not specify a filter context and just acts within the visuals filter context.
I think the DAX you gave should work as long as it's a measure, not a calculated column. (Calculated columns cannot read filter context from the report.)
When evaluating the measure,
count_true = COUNTROWS ( FILTER ( Table, Table[boolean] = TRUE() ) )
the first argument inside FILTER is not necessarily the full table but that table already filtered by the local filter context (including report/page/visual filters along with slicer selections and local context from e.g. rows/column a matrix visual).
So if you select Value = "A" via slicer, then the table in FILTER is already filtered to only include "A" values.
I do not know for sure if this will fix your problem but it is more efficient dax in my opinion:
count_true = CALCULATE(COUNTROWS(Table), Table[boolean])
If you still have the issue after changing your measure to use this format, you may have an underlying issue with the model. There is also the function KEEPFILTERS that may apply here but I think using KEEPFILTERS is overcomplicating your case.

In pyspark, is df.select(column1, column2....) impact performance

for example, I have a dataframe with 10 columns, and later I need use this dataframe join with other dataframes. But in the dataframe only column1, and column2 are used, others are not useful.
If I do this:
df1 = df.select(['column1', 'column2'])
...
...
result = df1.join(other_df)....
Is this good for the performance?
If yes, why this is good, is there any document?
Thanks.
Spark is distributed lazily evaluated framework, which means either you select all columns or some of the columns they will be brought into the memory only when an action is applied to it.
So if you run
df.explain()
at any stage, it'll show you the projection of the column. So if the column is required only then it'll be available in memory else it'll not be selected.
It's better to specify the required column as it comes under best practices and also will improve your code in terms of understanding the logic.
To understand more about action and transformation visit here
Especially for a join, the least columns you have to use (and therefore select), the maximum it will be efficient.
Of course, Spark is lazy & optimized, which means as long as you don't call a triggering function like show() or count() for example, it won't change anything.
So doing :
df = df.select(["a", "b"])
df = df.join(other_df)
df.show()
OR join first and select after :
df = df.join(other_df)
df = df.select(["a", "b"])
df.show()
doesn't change anything because it will optimize and choose the select first, when compiling the query with a count() or show() after.
On the other hand and to answer your question,
Doing a show() or count() in between will definitely impact performances and the one with the lowest column will be definitely faster.
Try comparing :
df = df.select(["a", "b"])
df.count()
df = df.join(other_df)
df.show()
and
df = df.join(other_df)
df.count()
df = df.select(["a", "b"])
df.show()
You will see the difference in time.
The difference will might not be huge, but if you're using filters (df = df.filter("b" == "blabla"), it can be really really big, especially if you're working with joins.

Oracle 9i Sub query

Hi Can any one help me out of this query forming logic
SELECT C.CPPID, c.CPP_AMT_MANUAL
FROM CPP_PRCNT CC,CPP_VIEW c
WHERE
CC.CPPYR IN (
SELECT C.YEAR FROM CPP_VIEW_VIEW C WHERE UPPER(C.CPPNO) = UPPER('123')
AND C.CPP_CODE ='CPP000000000053'
and TO_CHAR(c.CPP_DATE,'YYYY/Mon')='2012/Nov'
)
AND UPPER(C.CPPNO) = UPPER('123')
AND C.CPP_CODE ='CPP000000000053'
and TO_CHAR(c.CPP_DATE,'YYYY/Mon') = '2012/Nov';
Please Correct me if i formed wrong query structure, in terms of query Performance and Standards. Thanks in Advance
If you have some indexes or partitioned tables I would not use functions on columns but on variables, to be able to use indexes/select partitions.
Also I use ANSI 92 SQL syntax. You don't specify(or not directly) a join contition between cpp_prcnt and cpp_view so it is actually a cartesian product(cross join)
SELECT C.CPPID, c.CPP_AMT_MANUAL
FROM CPP_PRCNT CC
CROSS JOIN CPP_VIEW c
WHERE
CC.CPPYR IN (
SELECT C.YEAR
FROM CPP_VIEW_VIEW C
WHERE C.CPPNO = '123'
AND C.CPP_CODE ='CPP000000000053'
AND trunc(c.CPP_DATE,'MM')=to_date('2012/Nov','YYYY/Mon')
)
AND C.CPPNO = '123'
AND C.CPP_CODE ='CPP000000000053'
AND trunc(c.CPP_DATE,'MM')=to_date('2012/Nov','YYYY/Mon')
If you show us the definition of cpp_view_view(seems to be a view over cpp_view), the definition(if simple) of CPP_VIEW and what you're trying to achieve, I bet there are more things to be improved/fixed.
There are a couple of things you could improve:
if possible, get rid of the UPPER() in the comparison - this will render any indices useless. If that's not possible, consider a function-based index on UPPER(CPPNO)
do not convert your DATE column to a string to compare it with a string - do it the other way round (i.e. convert your string to a date => only one conversion needed instead of one per table row, use of indices possible)
play around with EXISTS instead of IN, as suggested by Dileep - might be faster

SQL to Relational Algebra

How do I go about writing the relational algebra for this SQL query?
Select patient.name,
patient.ward,
medicine.name,
prescription.quantity,
prescription.frequency
From patient, medicine, prescription
Where prescription.frequency = "3perday"
AND prescription.end-date="08-06-2010"
AND canceled = "Y"
Relations...
prescription
prescription-ref
patient-ref
medicine-ref
quantity
frequency
end-date
cancelled (Y/N))
medicine
medicine-ref
name
patient
Patient-ref
name
ward
I will just point you out the operators you should use
Projection (π)
π(a1,...,an): The result is defined as the set that is obtained when all tuples in R are restricted to the set {a1,...,an}.
For example π(name) on your patient table would be the same as SELECT name FROM patient
Selection (σ)
σ(condition): Selects all those tuples in R for which condition holds.
For example σ(frequency = "1perweek") on your prescription table would be the same as SELECT * FROM prescription WHERE frequency = "1perweek"
Cross product(X)
R X S: The result is the cross product between R and S.
For example patient X prescription would be SELECT * FROM patient,prescription
You can combine these operands to solve your exercise. Try posting your attempt if you have any issues.
Note: I did not include the natural join as there are no joins. The cross product should be enough for this exercise.
An example would be something like the following. This is only if you accidentally left out the joins between patient, medicine, and prescription. If not, you will be looking for cross product (which seems like a bad idea in this case...) as mentioned by Lombo. I gave example joins that may fit your tables marked as "???". If you could include the layout of your tables that would be helpful.
I also assume that canceled comes from prescription since it is not prefixed.
Edit: If you need it in standard RA form, it's pretty easy to get from a diagram.
alt text http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/8589/diagram1b.jpg

Resources