I inherited a project that has comma separated strings stored in a field called 'subsector' in a table named 'com_barchan_project'. I need to change this horrible design, since it's proving to be an issue trying to parse through this field. See HERE for the full story:
| id | name | sector | subsector |
+----+------+--------+-----------+
| 1 | test | 2 | 3,4,7 |
+----+------+--------+-----------+
| 2 | door | 5 | 2 |
I have created a new table called 'com_barchan_project_subsector_join' with the required fields and would like to move the values stored in 'com_barchan_project' to this new empty table.
Can anyone help me with the SQL statement that would accomplish this?
Here's what the new 'com_barchan_project_subsector_join' table should look like:
| id | project_id | subsector_id |
+----+------------+--------------+
| 1 | 1 | 3 |
+----+------------+--------------+
| 2 | 1 | 4 |
+----+------------+--------------+
| 3 | 1 | 7 |
+----+------------+--------------+
| 4 | 2 | 2 |
Once I move over the data, I will remove the 'subsector' field from the 'com_barchan_project' table and be done with it.
Thanks for your help!!!
John
Using shorter table names for brevity/clarity; and assuming you have (or can easily make) a comprehensive subsectors table...and assuming your csv are stored in a consistent format (no spaces at least).
INSERT INTO `project_subsectors` (project_id, subsector_id)
SELECT p.id, s.id
FROM projects AS p
INNER JOIN subsectors AS s ON p.subsector = s.id
OR p.subsector LIKE CONCAT(s.id, ',%')
OR p.subsector LIKE CONCAT('%,', s.id, ',%')
OR p.subsector LIKE CONCAT('%,', s.id)
;
I can't guarantee it will be fast; I'd be surprised if it was.
ON FIND_IN_SET(s.id, p.subsector) > 0 may work as well, but I am not as familiar with the behavior of that function.
Related
Say I have a table and one of the columns is titled tags with data that is comma separated like this.
"tag1,tag2,new york,tag4"
As you can see, some of tags will have spaces.
Whats the best or most accurate way of querying the table for any tags that are equal to "new york"?
In the past I've used:
SELECT id WHERE find_in_set('new york',tags) <> 0
But find_in_set does not work when the value has a space.
I'm currently using this:
SELECT id WHERE concat(',',tags,',') LIKE concat(',%new york%,')
But I'm not sure if this is the best approach.
How would you do it?
When Item A can be associated with many of item B, and item B can be associated with many of item A. This is called Many to many relationship
Data with these relationship should be stored in separate table and join together only on query.
Examble
Table 1
| product_uid | price | amount |
| 1 | 12000 | 3000 |
| 2 | 30000 | 600 |
Table 2
| tag_uid | tag_value |
| 1 | tag_01 |
| 2 | tag_02 |
| 3 | tag_03 |
| 4 | tag_04 |
Then we use a join table to relate them
Table 3
| entry_uid | product_uid | tag_uid |
| 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 1 | 4 |
| 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | 4 | 2 |
The query will be (If you want to select item one and the tag)
SELECT t1.*, t2.tag_value
FROM Table1 as t1,
JOIN Table3 as join_table ON t1.product_uid = join_table.product_uid
JOIN Table2 as t2 ON t2.tag_uid = join_table.tag_uid
WHERE t1.product_uid = 1
If I needed to ignore the leading spaces before and after the commas in tags.
For example, if tags had a value of:
'atlanta,boston , chicago, los angeles , new york '
and assuming spaces are the only character I want to ignore, and the tag I'm searching for doesn't have any leading or trailing spaces, then I'd likely use a regular expression. Something like this:
SELECT ...
FROM t
WHERE t.tags REGEXP CONCAT('^|, *', 'new york' ,' *,|$')
I recommend Bill Karwin's excellent book "SQL Antipatterns: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming"
https://www.amazon.com/SQL-Antipatterns-Programming-Pragmatic-Programmers/dp/1934356557
Chapter 2 Jaywalking covers the antipattern of comma separated lists.
I'M trying to extract all information into my table, but I need to change id, when available, to the name into another table.
I have 1 table like that:
|------------------------------|
|-id-|-systems-|-remote-|-deco-|
| 1 | NULL | 3 | |
| 2 | 21 | NULL | 2 |
|-------------------------------
each column like "systems" / "remote" / "deco" refer to an id into another table
I know how to use INNER JOIN. But if I use that, I got an empty result because the value need to be appears into the others tables.
ex.:
SELECT qd.id,s.name as systems,r.name as remote, d.name as deco
FROM `quote_data` qd
INNER JOIN systems s ON qd.systems=s.id
INNER JOIN remote r ON qd.remote=r.id
INNER JOIN deco d ON qd.deco=d.id
I got empty result.
In the best words, I need to do something like:
|------------------------------|
|-id-|-systems-|-remote-|-deco-|
| 1 | | R42 | |
| 2 | GTV | | B21 |
|-------------------------------
Also, I use innoDB table
Any Idea how to fix that?
I have a table with the following (simplified) structure:
INT id,
INT type,
INT sort
What I need is a SELECT that sorts my data in a way, so that:
all rows of the same type are in sequency, sorted ascendingly by sort internally, and
all "blocks" of one type are sorted by their minimum sort.
Example:
If the table looks like this:
| id | type | sort |
| 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 |
| 6 | 2 | 6 |
The query should sort the result like this:
| id | type | sort |
| 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 |
| 6 | 2 | 6 |
I hope this makes it clear enough.
Looks to me, as this should be a very common requirement, but I didn't find any examples close enough to be able to transfer it to my use case on my own. I suppose I can't avoid at least one subquery, but I didn't figure it out on my own.
Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance.
By the way: I'm going to use this query with CakePHP 2.1, so if you know of a comfortable way to do it with Cake, please let me know.
This is simpler than it initially sounds. I believe the following should do the trick:
SELECT a.id, a.type, a.sort
FROM Some_Table as a
JOIN (SELECT type, MIN(sort) as min
FROM Some_Table
GROUP BY type) as b
ON b.type = a.type
ORDER BY b.min, a.type, a.sort
For best (fastest) results, you're probably going to want an index on (type, sort).
You want an additional sort by a.type (instead of (b.min, a.sort)), in case there are two groups with the same sort value (would result in mixed rows). If there are no duplicate values, you can remove it.
sort and type are reserved words on some databases and can cause you problems.
Have you tried?
ORDER BY TYPE DESC, SORT ASC
I am trying to do multiple joins on the same MySQL table, but am not getting the results that I expect to get. Hopefully someone can point out my mistake(s).
Table 1 - cpe Table
|id | name
|----------
| 1 | cat
| 2 | dog
| 3 | mouse
| 4 | snake
-----------
Table 2 - AutoSelect
|id | name | cpe1_id | cpe2_id | cpe3_id |
|-----------------------------------------------
| 1 | user1 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 2 | user2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | user3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | user4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
------------------------------------------------
I would like to see an output of
user1 | cat | mouse | snake |
user2 | mouse | snake | dog |
..etc
Here is what I have tried
SELECT * FROM AutoSelect
LEFT JOIN cpe ON
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe1_id ) AND
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe2_id ) AND
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe3_id )
I get blank results. I thought i knew how to do these joins, but apparently when I'm trying to match cpe?_id with the name of the cpe table.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
You need left join 3 times as well. Currently your query only joins 1 time with 3 critieria as to the join. This should do:
SELECT a.name, cpe1.name, cpe2.name, cpe3.name FROM AutoSelect as a
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe1 ON ( cpe1.id = a.cpe1_id )
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe2 ON ( cpe2.id = a.cpe2_id )
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe3 ON ( cpe3.id = a.cpe3_id )
And you probably mean to INNER JOIN rather than LEFT JOIN unless NULL values are allowed in your AutoSelect table.
I think your design is wrong.
With tables like that, you get it the way it's meant to be in relational databases :
table 1 : animal
id name
1 cat
2 dog
3 mouse
4 snake
table 2 : user
|id | name |
|--------------
| 1 | user1 |
| 2 | user2 |
| 3 | user3 |
| 4 | user4 |
table 3 : association
|id_user | id_animal|
|--------------------
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 3 |
| 1 | 4 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 2
| 4 | 4 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 |
---------------------
Then :
select u.name, a.name from user u, animal a, association ass where ass.user_id = u.id and ass.animal_id = a.id;
In this case, your solution won't produce a good dynamic database. There are other ways to make combinations of multiple tables. I can show you by my own database what you should use and when you should use this solution. The scheme is in dutch, but you'll probably understand the keywords.
Like you, I had to combine my windmills with a kWh-meter, which has to measure the energyproduction of my windmills. What you should do, is this case, is making another table(in my case molenkWhlink). Make sure your tables are INNODB-types(for making Foreign keys). What I've done is combining my meters and mills by putting a pointer(a foreign key) of their ID(in Dutch Volgnummer) in the new table. An advantage you may not need, but I certainly did, is the fact I was able to extend the extra table with connection and disconnection info like Timestamps and metervalues when linking or unlinking. This makes your database way more dynamic.
In my case, I Also had a table for meassurements(metingoverzicht). As you can see in the scheme, I've got 2 lines going from Metingoverzicht to molenkwhlink. The reason for this is quite simple. All meassurements I take, will be saved in table Metingoverzicht. Daily meassurements(which are scheduled) will have a special boolean put on, but unscheduled meassurements, will also me saved here, with the bollean turned off. When switching meters, I need the endvalue from the leaving meter and the startvalue from the new meter, to calculate the value of todays eneryproduction. This is where your solution comes in and an extra table won't work. Usually, when you need just one value from another table a JOIN will be used. The problem in this case is, I've got 2 meassurementIDs in 1 link(1 for connecting and 1 for disconnecting). They both point to the same tablecolumn, because they both need to hold the same type of information. That is when you can use a double JOIN from one table towards the other. Because, both values will only be used once, and just needed to be saved in a different place to avoid having 1 action stored on different locations, which should always be avoided.
http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Manuel_Barcelona/media/schemedatabase.jpg.html
Imagine the following (very bad) table design in MSSQL2008R2:
Table "Posts":
| Id (PK, int) | DatasourceId (PK, int) | QuotedPostIds (nvarchar(255)) | [...]
| 1 | 1 | | [...]
| 2 | 1 | 1 | [...]
| 2 | 2 | 1 | [...]
[...]
| 102322 | 2 | 123;45345;4356;76757 | [...]
So, the column QuotedPostIds contains a semicolon-separated list of self-referencing PostIds (Kids, don't do that at home!). Since this design is ugly as a hell, I'd like to extract the values from the QuotedPostIds table to a new n:m relationship table like this:
Desired new table "QuotedPosts":
| QuotingPostId (int) | QuotedPostId (int) | DatasourceId (int) |
| 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 |
[...]
| 102322 | 123 | 2 |
| 102322 | 45345 | 2 |
| 102322 | 4356 | 2 |
| 102322 | 76757 | 2 |
The primary key for this table could either be a combination of QuotingPostId, QuotedPostId and DatasourceID or an additional artificial key generated by the database.
It is worth noticing that the current Posts table contains about 6,300,000 rows but only about 285,000 of those have a value set in the QuotedPostIds column. Therefore, it might be a good idea to pre-filter those rows. In any case, I'd like to perform the normalization using internal MSSQL functionality only, if possible.
I already read other posts regarding this topic which mostly dealt with split functions but neither could I find out how exactly to create the new table and also copying the appropriate value from the Datasource column, nor how to filter the rows to touch accordingly.
Thank you!
€dit: I thought it through and finally solved the problem using an external C# program instead of internal MSSQL functionality. Since it seems that it could have been done using Mikael Eriksson's suggestion, I will mark his post as an answer.
From comments you say you have a string split function that you you don't know how to use with a table.
The answer is to use cross apply something like this.
select P.Id,
S.Value
from Posts as P
cross apply dbo.Split(';', P.QuotedPostIds) as S