I found problem in writing subquery with limit 1 to get the top record.
Here is my problem example.
Table Master(id,set)
Table Detail(id,set,code)
i am trying to get the latest code for each set in Master table.
Following is the query which i tried but got an error that limit 1 is not supported for correlated subqueries and it should contain GROUP By clause.
select id,set,(select code from detail where set=master.set order by id desc limit 1) from master;
And the result wolud be like
please help me if this is wrong way, i am new to this vertica database.
thnk you.
I'm not sure about that particular error, but you can use the rank() analytic function to produce results like this:
select id, set, code from (
select M.id, D.set, D.code, rank() over (partition by D.set order by D.id desc) as rank
from detail as D
right outer join master as M
on D.set = M.set) as ranks
where rank = 1
order by id;
The inner subquery uses the rank() function to assign a rank to each row within a set. The outer query just picks out rows with rank 1.
Related
Hello I'am very new to writing SQL and I am trying to find the appropriate way to use TOP in Oracle SQl 9:
My example:
select * from example e, test t
where e.id = t.id
and country = 'USA'
order by state ASC;
What I am trying to do is take the bottom 20 % of my query but I know you cannot use TOP. After researching I still have not found an applicable answer. I know you have to first order them but am unsure of how to then take the bottom 20%(which would be TOP since the order is ASC)
In general (like if you want the top or bottom 17.2% of the rows) you can use row_number() and count() (analytic functions) to get the result.
20% is easier - you are looking for the top (or bottom) quintile. For this, you can use the ntile() function, like so:
select [column_names]
from (
select e.*, t.*, ntile(5) over (order by state) as nt
from ..... etc
)
where nt = 1;
The subquery is your query. The column_names in the outer query are whatever you actually need; you could also use select * but that will show the ntile too (which will be 1 in all rows).
If sorting something in ASCending order gives us the top set then surely sorting in DESCending order can give us the bottom set.
This solution uses the function NTILE() to divide the records into five buckets. The first bucket is the set we want (because sorted in descending order). Sorting in ascending order and taking the fifth quintile would have the same outcome.
select * from (
select e.*
, t.*
, ntile(5) over (order by state desc) nt
from example e, test t
where e.id = t.id
and country = 'USA'
)
where nt = 1
order by state desc
/
You don't say what your sort criteria are, so I've guessed.
I have a created a table (movies) in Hive as below(id,name,year,rating,views)
1,The Nightmare Before Christmas,1993,3.9,4568
2,The Mummy,1932,3.5,4388
3,Orphans of the Storm,1921,3.2,9062
4,The Object of Beauty,1991,2.8,6150
5,Night Tide,1963,2.8,5126
6,One Magic Christmas,1985,3.8,5333
7,Muriel's Wedding,1994,3.5,6323
8,Mother's Boys,1994,3.4,5733
9,Nosferatu: Original Version,1929,3.5,5651
10,Nick of Time,1995,3.4,5333
I want to write a hive query to get the name of the movie with highest views.
select name,max(views) from movies;
but it gives me an error
FAILED: Error in semantic analysis: Line 1:7 Expression not in GROUP BY key name
but doing a group by with name gives me the complete list (which is expected).
What changes should I make to my query?
It is very possible that there is a simpler way to do this.
select name
from(
select max(views) as views
, name
, row_number() over (order by max(views) desc) as row_num
from movies
group by name
) m
where row_num = 1
After little bit of digging, I found out that the answer is not so straightforward as we do in SQL. Below query gives the expected result.
select a.name,a.views from movies a left semi join(select max(views) views from movies)b on (a.views=b.views);
I have a table something like this:
ID|Value
01|1
02|4
03|12
01|5
02|14
03|22
01|9
02|32
02|62
01|13
03|92
I want to know how much progress have each id made (from initial or minimal value)
so in sybase I can type:
select ID, (value-min(value)) from table group by id;
ID|Value
01|0
01|4
01|8
01|12
02|0
02|10
02|28
02|58
03|0
03|10
03|80
But monetdb does not support this (I am not sure may be cz it uses SQL'99).
Group by only gives one column or may be average of other values but not the desired result.
Are there any alternative to group by in monetdb?
You can achieve this with a self join. The idea is that you build a subselect that gives you the minimum value for each id, and then join that to the original table by id.
SELECT a.id, a.value-b.min_value
FROM "table" a INNER JOIN
(SELECT id, MIN(value) AS min_value FROM "table" GROUP BY id) AS b
ON a.id = b.id;
I'm having a small issue with sorting the data returned from a query, with the aim of getting the oldest updated value in dataset so that I can update only that record. Here's what I'm doing:
WHERE ROWNUM = 1 AND TABLE1.ID != V_IGNOREID
AND TABLE1.LASTREADTIME = (SELECT MIN(TABLE1.LASTREADTIME) FROM TABLE1)
ORDER BY TABLE1.LASTREADTIME DESC;
It makes no difference as to whether the ORDER BY statement is included or not. If I only use the ROWNUM and equality checks, I get data, but it alternates between only two rows, which is why I'm trying to use the LASTREADTIME data (so that I can modify more than these two rows). Anybody have any thoughts on this, or any suggestions as to how I can use the MIN function effectively?
Cheers
select * from (
-- your original select without rownum and with order by
)
WHERE ROWNUM = 1
EDIT some explanation
I think the order by clause is applied on the resultset after the where clause. So if the rownum = 1 is in the same select statement with the order by, then it will be applied first and the order by will order only 1 row, which will be the first row of the unordered resultset.
Recently I fixed the some bug: there was rownum in the join condition.
Something like this: left join t1 on t1.id=t2.id and rownum<2. So it was supposed to return only one row regardless of the “left join”.
When I looked further into this, I realized that I don’t understand how Oracle evaluates rownum in the "left join" condition.
Let’s create two sampe tables: master and detail.
create table MASTER
(
ID NUMBER not null,
NAME VARCHAR2(100)
)
;
alter table MASTER
add constraint PK_MASTER primary key (ID);
prompt Creating DETAIL...
create table DETAIL
(
ID NUMBER not null,
REF_MASTER_ID NUMBER,
NAME VARCHAR2(100)
)
;
alter table DETAIL
add constraint PK_DETAIL primary key (ID);
alter table DETAIL
add constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER foreign key (REF_MASTER_ID)
references MASTER (ID);
prompt Disabling foreign key constraints for DETAIL...
alter table DETAIL disable constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER;
prompt Loading MASTER...
insert into MASTER (ID, NAME)
values (1, 'First');
insert into MASTER (ID, NAME)
values (2, 'Second');
commit;
prompt 2 records loaded
prompt Loading DETAIL...
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (1, 1, 'REF_FIRST1');
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (2, 1, 'REF_FIRST2');
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (3, 1, 'REF_FIRST3');
commit;
prompt 3 records loaded
prompt Enabling foreign key constraints for DETAIL...
alter table DETAIL enable constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER;
set feedback on
set define on
prompt Done.
Then we have this query :
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id
The result set is predictable: we have all the rows from the master table and 3 rows from the detail table that matched this condition d.ref_master_id=t.id.
Result Set
Then I added “rownum=1” to the join condition and the result was the same
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum=1
The most interesting thing is that I set “rownum<-666” and got the same result again!
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum<-666.
Due to the result set we can say that this condition was evaluated as “True” for 3 rows in the detail table. But if I use “inner join” everything goes as supposed to be.
select * from master t
join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum<-666.
This query doesn’t return any row,because I can't imagine rownum to be less then -666 :-)
Moreover, if I use oracle syntax for outer join, using “(+)” everything goes well too.
select * from master m ,detail t
where m.id=t.ref_master_id(+) and rownum<-666.
This query doesn’t return any row too.
Can anyone tell me, what I misunderstand with outer join and rownum?
ROWNUM is a pseudo-attribute of result sets, not of base tables. ROWNUM is defined after rows are selected, but before they're sorted by an ORDER BY clause.
edit: I was mistaken in my previous writeup of ROWNUM, so here's new information:
You can use ROWNUM in a limited way in the WHERE clause, for testing if it's less than a positive integer only. See ROWNUM Pseudocolumn for more details.
SELECT ... WHERE ROWNUM < 10
It's not clear what value ROWNUM has in the context of a JOIN clause, so the results may be undefined. There seems to be some special-case handling of expressions with ROWNUM, for instance WHERE ROWNUM > 10 always returns false. I don't know how ROWNUM<-666 works in your JOIN clause, but it's not meaningful so I would not recommend using it.
In any case, this doesn't help you to fetch the first detail row for each given master row.
To solve this you can use analytic functions and PARTITION, and combine it with Common Table Expressions so you can access the row-number column in a further WHERE condition.
WITH numbered_cte AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY t.id ORDER BY d.something) AS rn
FROM master t LEFT OUTER JOIN detail d ON d.ref_master_id = t.id
)
SELECT *
FROM numbered_cte
WHERE rn = 1;
if you want to get the first three values from the join condition change the select statement like this.
select *
from (select *
from master t left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id)
where rownum<3;
You will get the required output. Take care on unambigiously defined column names when using *
Let me give an absolute answer which u can run directly with out making any changes to the code.
select *
from (select t.id,t.name,d.id,d.ref_master_id,d.name
from master t left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id)
where rownum<3;
A ROWNUM filter doesn't make any sense in a join, but it isn't being rejected as invalid.
The explain plan will either include the ROWNUM filter or exclude it. If it includes it, it will apply the filter to the detail table after applying the other join condition(s). So if you put in ROWNUM=100 (which will never be satisfied) all the detail rows are excluded and then the outer join kicks in.
If you put in ROWNUM=1 it seems to drop the filter.
And if you query
with
a as (select rownum a_val from dual connect by level < 10),
b as (select rownum*2 b_val from dual connect by level < 10)
select * from a left join b on a_val < b_val and rownum in (1,3);
you get something totally weird.
It probably should be rejected as an error, so expect nonsensical things to happen