I am writing an order fulfillment system in using a MySQL Server which pre-packaged boxes have been filled with items and I need to determine which, if any, combination of boxes to ship to satisfy an order. I am unsure what SQL tools are available to me to efficiently solve query for the boxes required.
An table of order items looks like the following, if I had order 1 be for a fork and spoon:
mysql> select * from order_items;
+----+-------+----------+
| id | name | order_id |
+----+-------+----------+
| 1 | fork | 1 |
| 2 | spoon | 1 |
+----+-------+----------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
while the boxes are arranged as
mysql> select * from boxes;
+----+------+
| id | name |
+----+------+
| 1 | box1 |
| 2 | box2 |
| 3 | box3 |
+----+------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
and
mysql> select * from items;
+----+-------+--------+
| id | name | box_id |
+----+-------+--------+
| 1 | spoon | 1 |
| 2 | knife | 1 |
| 3 | fork | 1 |
| 4 | knife | 2 |
| 5 | fork | 2 |
| 6 | spoon | 3 |
| 7 | knife | 3 |
+----+-------+--------+
7 rows in set (0.00 sec)
As you can see, there is a problem. It could be that boxes may contain an individual fork and another an individual spoon, or both in one box. However, in this case I have boxes with all three utensils, or a mixture of each. It is expected that, in general, a single box will not cover all the requirements for the order but it is acceptable to send a box with extra items if needbe. In this case, a single box would work OR the combination of the other two available boxes. In either case one or two extra knives would be sent. Ideally, we would like to send the minimal number of extra utensils but we do not care about the number of boxes.
What is the appropriate query to efficiently determine what combination of boxes will work? I do not know of a single query, but I think that a series of queries that try and find a match for all N items, then N-1, then N-2 until a match is found and then repeat for the remaining items. This seems fairly inefficient, though.
Edit:
The problem is to find a subset of all boxes B_S such m_i is a member of B_S for all items m_i in order M.
Related
For example, there are three rooms.
1|gold_room|1,2,3
2|silver_room|1,2,3
3|brown_room|2,4,6
4|brown_room|3
5|gold_room|4,5,6
Then, I'd like to get
gold_room|1,2,3,4,5,6
brown_room|2,3,4,6
silver_room|1,2,3
How can I achieve this?
I've tried: select * from room group by name; And it only prints the first row. And I know CONCAT() can combine two string values.
Please use below query,
select col2, GROUP_CONCAT(col3) from data group by col2;
Below is the Test case,
https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=mysql_8.0&fiddle=ab35e8d66ffe3ac6436c17faf97ee9af
I'm not making an assumption that the lists don't have elements in common on separate rows.
First create a table of integers.
mysql> create table n (n int primary key);
mysql> insert into n values (1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6);
You can join this to your rooms table using the FIND_IN_SET() function. Note that this cannot be optimized. It will execute N full table scans. But it does create an interim set of rows.
mysql> select * from n inner join rooms on find_in_set(n.n, rooms.csv) order by rooms.room, n.n;
+---+----+-------------+-------+
| n | id | room | csv |
+---+----+-------------+-------+
| 2 | 3 | brown_room | 2,4,6 |
| 3 | 4 | brown_room | 3 |
| 4 | 3 | brown_room | 2,4,6 |
| 6 | 3 | brown_room | 2,4,6 |
| 1 | 1 | gold_room | 1,2,3 |
| 2 | 1 | gold_room | 1,2,3 |
| 3 | 1 | gold_room | 1,2,3 |
| 4 | 5 | gold_room | 4,5,6 |
| 5 | 5 | gold_room | 4,5,6 |
| 6 | 5 | gold_room | 4,5,6 |
| 1 | 2 | silver_room | 1,2,3 |
| 2 | 2 | silver_room | 1,2,3 |
| 3 | 2 | silver_room | 1,2,3 |
+---+----+-------------+-------+
Use GROUP BY to reduce these rows to one row per room. Use GROUP_CONCAT() to put the integers together into a comma-separated list.
mysql> select room, group_concat(distinct n.n order by n.n) as csv
from n inner join rooms on find_in_set(n.n, rooms.csv) group by rooms.room
+-------------+-------------+
| room | csv |
+-------------+-------------+
| brown_room | 2,3,4,6 |
| gold_room | 1,2,3,4,5,6 |
| silver_room | 1,2,3 |
+-------------+-------------+
I think this is a lot of work, and impossible to optimize. I don't recommend it.
The problem is that you are storing comma-separated lists of numbers, and then you want to query it as if the elements in the list are discrete values. This is a problem for SQL.
It would be much better if you did not store your numbers in a comma-separated list. Store multiple rows per room, with one number per row. You can run a wider variety of queries if you do this, and it will be more flexible.
For example, the query you asked about, to produce a result with numbers in a comma-separated list is more simple, and you don't need the extra n table:
select room, group_concat(n order by n) as csv from rooms group by room
See also my answer to Is storing a delimited list in a database column really that bad?
I created a table (t_subject) like this
| id | description | enabled |
|----|-------------|---------|
| 1 | a | 1 |
| 2 | b | 1 |
| 3 | c | 1 |
And another table (t_place) like this
| id | description | enabled |
|----|-------------|---------|
| 1 | d | 1 |
| 2 | e | 1 |
| 3 | f | 1 |
Right now data from t_subject is used for each of t_place records, to show HTML dropdowns, with all the results from t_subject.
So I simply do
SELECT * FROM t_subject WHERE enabled = 1
Now just for one of t_place records, one record from t_subject should be hidden.
I don't want to simply delete it with javascript, since I want to be able to customize all of the dropdowns if anything changes.
So the first thing I though was to add a place_id column to t_subject.
But this means I have to duplicate all of t_subject records, I would have 3 of each, except one that would have 2.
Is there any way to avoid this??
I thought adding an id_exclusion column to t_subject so I could duplicate records only whenever a record is excluded from another id from t_place.
How bad would that be?? This way I would have no duplicates, so far.
Hope all of this makes sense.
While you only need to exclude one course, I would still recommend setting up a full 'place-course' association. You essentially have a many-to-many relationship, despite not explicitly linking your tables.
I would recommend an additional 'bridging' or 'associative entity' table to represent which courses are offered at which places. This new table would have two columns - one foreign key for the ID of t_subject, and one for the ID of t_place.
For example (t_place_course):
| place_id | course_id |
|----------|-----------|
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 |
As you can see in my example above, place 3 doesn't offer course 2.
From here, you can simply query all of the courses available for a place by querying the place_id:
SELECT * from t_place_course WHERE place_id = 3
The above will return both courses 1 and 3.
You can optionally use a JOIN to get the other information about the course or place, such as the description:
SELECT `t_course`.`description`
FROM `t_course`
INNER JOIN `t_place_course`
ON `t_course`.`id` = `t_place_course`.`course_id`
INNER JOIN `t_place`
ON `t_place`.`id` = `place_id`
Hey I need to make a MySql query and get from it some number of user activities, lets say 10, then after scrolling on page I need to take another portion of activities stored in DB and start from 10 to 20 and so on... As I made this already by loading the whole DB Content for user and then dynamically show it with AJAX and jQuery I need to change the method I am doing this. So my query looks like this:
SELECT some rows FROM table WHERE User_ID = #memberID ORDER By date LIMIT limit
As this query works to take only limited records from DB I have no idea how to make a parameter that would determine which records should we take now. The problem starts when user refreshes the page - we want to start from 0 and again go 10 by 10 down.
EDIT: I am giving the query 2 params (LIMIT and OFFSET) and then in jQuery function gonna try to increase both of them.
you can do it like this
example
mysql> SELECT * FROM MAXWELL;
+------+-------+
| ID | NAME |
+------+-------+
| 3 | TWO |
| 4 | FOUR |
| 5 | FIVE |
| 6 | SIX |
| 7 | SEVEN |
+------+-------+
5 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> SELECT * FROM MAXWELL limit 0,2;
+------+------+
| ID | NAME |
+------+------+
| 3 | TWO |
| 4 | FOUR |
+------+------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> SELECT * FROM MAXWELL limit 2,4;
+------+-------+
| ID | NAME |
+------+-------+
| 5 | FIVE |
| 6 | SIX |
| 7 | SEVEN |
| 10 | ten |
+------+-------+
4 rows in set (0.00 sec)
I have table:
+----+--------+----------+
| id | doc_id | next_req |
+----+--------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
+----+--------+----------+
id - auto incerement primary key.
nex_req - represent an order of records. (next_req = id of record)
How can I build a SQL query get records in this order:
+----+--------+----------+
| id | doc_id | next_req |
+----+--------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
+----+--------+----------+
Explains:
record1 with id=1 and next_req=4 means: next must be record4 with id=4 and next_req=2
record4 with id=5 and next_req=2 means: next must be record2 with id=2 and next_req=3
record2 with id=2 and next_req=3 means: next must be record3 with id=1 and next_req=0
record3 with id=3 and next_req=0: means that this is a last record
I need to store an order of records in table. It's important fo me.
If you can, change your table format. Rather than naming the next record, mark the records in order so you can use a natural SQL sort:
+----+--------+------+
| id | doc_id | sort |
+----+--------+------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 |
+----+--------+------+
Then you can even cluster-index on doc_id,sort for if you need to for performance issues. And honestly, if you need to re-order rows, it is not any more work than a linked-list like you were working with.
Am able to give you a solution in Oracle,
select id,doc_id,next_req from table2
start with id =
(select id from table2 where rowid=(select min(rowid) from table2))
connect by prior next_req=id
fiddle_demo
I'd suggest to modify your table and add another column OrderNumber, so eventually it would be easy to order by this column.
Though there may be problems with this approach:
1) You have existing table and need to set OrderNumber column values. I guess this part is easy. You can simply set initial zero values and add a CURSOR for example moving through your records and incrementing your order number value.
2) When new row appears in your table, you have to modify your OrderNumber, but here it depends on your particular situation. If you only need to add items to the end of the list then you can set your new value as MAX + 1. In another situation you may try writing TRIGGER on inserting new items and calling similar steps to point 1). This may cause very bad hit on performance, so you have to carefully investigate your architecture and maybe modify this unusual construction.
Some background: an 'image' is part of one 'photoshoot', and may be a part of zero or many 'galleries'. My tables:
'shoots' table:
+----+--------------+
| id | name |
+----+--------------+
| 1 | Test shoot |
| 2 | Another test |
| 3 | Final test |
+----+--------------+
'images' table:
+----+-------------------+------------------+
| id | original_filename | storage_location |
+----+-------------------+------------------+
| 1 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
| 2 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
| 3 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
+----+-------------------+------------------+
'shoot_images' table:
+----------+----------+
| shoot_id | image_id |
+----------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
+----------+----------+
'gallery_images' table:
+------------+----------+
| gallery_id | image_id |
+------------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 |
+------------+----------+
What I'd like to get back, so I can say 'For this photoshoot, there are X images in total, and these images are featured in Y galleries:
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| id | name | image_count | gallery_count |
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| 3 | Final test | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Another test | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | Test shoot | 2 | 4 |
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
I'm currently trying the SQL below, which appears to work correctly but only ever returns one row. I can't work out why this is happening. Curiously, the below also returns a row even when 'shoots' is empty.
SELECT shoots.id,
shoots.name,
COUNT(DISTINCT shoot_images.image_id) AS image_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT gallery_images.gallery_id) AS gallery_count
FROM shoots
LEFT JOIN shoot_images ON shoots.id=shoot_images.shoot_id
LEFT JOIN gallery_images ON shoot_images.image_id=gallery_images.image_id
ORDER BY shoots.id DESC
Thanks for taking the time to look at this :)
You are missing the GROUP BY clause:
SELECT
shoots.id,
shoots.name,
COUNT(DISTINCT shoot_images.image_id) AS image_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT gallery_images.gallery_id) AS gallery_count
FROM shoots
LEFT JOIN shoot_images ON shoots.id=shoot_images.shoot_id
LEFT JOIN gallery_images ON shoot_images.image_id=gallery_images.image_id
GROUP BY 1, 2 -- Added this line
ORDER BY shoots.id DESC
Note: The SQL standard allows GROUP BY to be given either column names or column numbers, so GROUP BY 1, 2 is equivalent to GROUP BY shoots.id, shoots.name in this case. There are many who consider this "bad coding practice" and advocate always using the column names, but I find it makes the code a lot more readable and maintainable and I've been writing SQL since before many users on this site were born, and it's never cause me a problem using this syntax.
FYI, the reason you were getting one row before, and not getting and error, is that in mysql, unlike any other database I know, you are allowed to omit the group by clause when using aggregating functions. In such cases, instead of throwing a syntax exception, mysql returns the first row for each unique combination of non-aggregate columns.
Although at first this may seem abhorrent to SQL purists, it can be incredibly handy!
You should look into the MySQL function group by.