I have the following code in web2py. I am trying to retrieve how many types of items I have in the table and a count of how many of each of them there are.
count = db.table.field1.count()
rows=db((some criteria).select(db.table.field2, count, groupby=db.table.field2)
print rows
The print of this is:
table.field2, COUNT(table.field1)
4,3
6,4
9,2
Now I would like to sort from high to low by the count field, so the outcome would be:
6,4
4,3
9,2
What's the best way to do it? rows=rows.sort(lambda row: row.COUNT(table.field1)) did not work for me.
Instead of row.COUNT(table.field1), use row['COUNT(table.field1)'] or just row[count] (see here).
Note, you can also have the database do the sorting using the orderby argument:
rows = db(query).select(db.table.field2, count,
groupby=db.table.field2, orderby=count)
And for descending order: orderby=~count
Related
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)
If I have a list of names in a sheet for example:
First Name|Last Name|Something else|
Maria|Miller|...|
John|Doe|...|
Maria|Smith|...|
Marc|Meier|...|
Marc|Park|...|
Maria|Muster|...|
Selene|Mills|...|
Adam|Broker|...|
And then I want a second sheet which then shows the list of non-unique first names and their count, and the list being in descending order. So in this example that would be:
First Name|Count
Maria|3
Marc|2
What I found was this example https://infoinspired.com/google-docs/spreadsheet/sort-by-number-of-occurrences-in-google-sheets/
which sorts of partitions the sheet entries by occurrence.
So as of now I have
=UNIQUE(sort(
Names!C3:Names!C12000;
if(len(Names!C3:Names!C12000);countif(Names!C3:Names!C12000;Names!C3:Names!C12000););
0;
2;
1
))
In the first column and
=IF(ISBLANK(A2);;COUNTIF(Names!C3:Names!C12000; A2))
In the second. This does the job somewhat (it still shows the names with count 1), but the second column needs a copying of each cell downwards for each new entry leftwards. Is there a way to tie this up directly in one line? While filtering out the unique occurrences at that.
(Also the formulas are quite slow. The names sheet has about 11k entries so far. These formulas make the sheet crash at times atm. So I kind of want to sorts of comment out the formulas most of the time and only display them by commenting out the formulas. So the second column also just being one formula would be very helpful.)
use:
=QUERY(SORT(QUERY(A2:A, "select A,count(A) group by A"), 2, ), "where Col2>1", )
I think this should work if your headers are in row 1.
=QUERY(QUERY(Sheet1!A:A,"select Col1,COUNT(Col1) where Col1<>'' group by Col1",1),"where Col2>1 label Col2'Count'",1)
I've been trying to do a report about the quantity of breakdonws of products in our company. The problem is that the QUERY function is operating as normal, but the sorting order is well - a bit strange.
The data I'm trying to sort are as follows (quantities are blacked out since I cannot share those informations):
Raw data
First column - name of the product, second, it's EAN code, third, breakdown rate for last year, last column - average breakdown rate. "b/d" means "brak danych" or no data.
What I want to achieve is to get the end table with values sorted by average breakdown rate.
My query is as follows:
=query(Robocze!A2:D;"select A where A is not null and NOT D contains 'b/d' order by D desc")
Final result
As You can see, we have descending order, but there are strange artifacts - like the 33.33% after 4,00% and before 3,92%.
Why is that!?
try:
=INDEX(LAMBDA(x; SORT(x; INDEX(x;; 4)*1; 0))
(QUERY(Robocze!A2:D; "where A is not null and NOT D contains 'b/d'"; 0));; 4)
I am using the Ruby Mongoid gem and trying to create a query to retrieve the last 100 documents from a collection. Rather than using Mongoid, I would like to create the query using the underlying driver (Moped). The Moped documentation only mentions how to retrieve the first 100 records:
session[:my_collection].find.limit(100)
How can I retrieve the last 100?
I have found a solution, but you will need to sort collection in descending order. If you have a field id or date you would do:
Method .sort({fieldName: 1 or -1})
The 1 will sort ascending (oldest to newest), -1 will sort descending (newest to oldest). This will reverse entries of your collection.
session[:my_collection].find().sort({id:-1}) or
session[:my_collection].find().sort({date:-1})
If your collection contain field id (_id) that identifier have a date embedded, so you can use
session[:my_collection].find().sort({_id:-1})
In accordance with your example using .limit() the complete query will be:
session[:my_collection].find().sort({id:-1}).limit(100);
Technically that query isn't finding the first 100, that's essentially finding 100 random documents because you haven't specified an order. If you want the first then you'd have to say explicitly sort them:
session[:my_collection].find.sort(:some_field => 1).limit(100)
and to reverse the order to find the last 100 with respect to :some_field:
session[:my_collection].find.sort(:some_field => -1).limit(100)
# -----------------------------------------------^^
Of course you have decide what :some_field is going to be so the "first" and "last" make sense for you.
If you want them sorted by :some_field but want to peel off the last 100 then you could reverse them in Ruby:
session[:my_collection].find
.sort(:some_field => -1)
.limit(100)
.reverse
or you could use use count to find out how many there are then skip to offset into the results:
total = session[:my_collection].find.count
session[:my_collection].find
.sort(:some_field => 1)
.skip(total - 100)
You'd have to check that total >= 100 and adjust the skip argument if it wasn't of course. I suspect that the first solution would be faster but you should benchmark it with your data to see what reality says.
Ok, say I have a subreport that populates a chart I have from data in a table. I have a summary sum field that adds up the total of each row displayed. I am about to add two new rows that need to be displayed but not totaled up in the sum. There is a field in the table that has a number from 1-7 in it. If I added these new fields into the database, I would assign a negative number to this like -1 and -2 to differentiate it between the other records. How can I set up a formula so that it will sum up all of the amount fields except for the records that have an 'order' number we will call it of either -1 or -2? Thanks!
Use a Running Total Field and set the evaluate formula to something like {new_field} >= 0. So it will only sum the value when it passes that test.
The way to accomplish this without a running total is with a formula like this:
if {OrderNum} >= 0 Then {Amount}