I have a SELECT query that returns some fields like this:
Date | Campaign_Name | Type | Count_People
Oct | Cats | 1 | 500
Oct | Cats | 2 | 50
Oct | Dogs | 1 | 80
Oct | Dogs | 2 | 50
The query uses aggregation and I only want to include results where when Type = 1 then ensure that the corresponding Count_People is greater than 99.
Using the example table, I'd like to have two rows returned: Cats. Where Dogs is type 1 it's excluded because it's below 100, in this case where Dogs = 2 should be excluded also.
Put another way, if type = 1 is less than 100 then remove all records of the corresponding campaign name.
I started out trying this:
HAVING CASE WHEN type = 1 THEN COUNT(DISTINCT Count_People) > 99 END
I used Teradata earlier int he year and remember working on a query that used an analytic function "Qualify PartitionBy". I suspect something along those lines is what I need? I need to base the exclusion on aggregation before the query is run?
How would I do this in MySQL? Am I making sense?
Now that I understand the question, I think your best bet will be a subquery to determine which date/campaign combinations of a type=1 have a count_people greater than 99.
SELECT
<table>.date,
<table>.campaign_name,
<table>.type,
count(distinct count_people) as count_people
FROM
(
SELECT
date,
campaign_name
FROM
<table>
WHERE type=1
HAVING count(distinct count_people) > 99
GROUP BY 1,2
) type1
LEFT OUTER JOIN <table> ON
type1.campaign_name = <table>.campaign_name AND
type1.date = <table>.date
WHERE <table>.type IN (1,2)
GROUP BY 1,2,3
The subquery here only returns campaign/date combinations when both the type=1 AND it has greater than 99 count_people. It uses a LEFT JOIN back to the to insure that only those campaign/date combinations make it into the result set.
The WHERE on the main query keeps the results to only Types 1 and 2, which you stated was already a filter in place (though not mentioned in the question, it was stated in a comment to a previous answer).
Based on your comments to answer by #JNevill I think you will have no option but to use subselects to pre-filter the record set you are dealing with, as working with HAVING is going to limit you only to the current record being evaluated - there is no way to compare against previous or subsequent records in the set in this manner.
So have a look at something like this:
SELECT
full_data.date AS date,
full_data.campaign_name AS campaign_name,
full_data.type AS type,
COUNT(full_data.people) AS people_count
FROM
(
SELECT
date,
campaign_name,
type,
COUNT(people) AS people_count
FROM table
WHERE type IN (1,2)
GROUP BY date, campaign_name, type
) AS full_data
LEFT JOIN
(
SELECT
date,
campaign_name,
COUNT(people) AS people_count
FROM table
WHERE type = 1
GROUP BY date, campaign_name
HAVING people_count < 100
) AS filter
ON
full_data.date = filter.date
AND full_data.campaign_name = filter.campaign_name
WHERE
filter.date IS NULL
AND filter.campaign_name IS NULL
The first subselect is basically your current query without any attempt at using HAVING to filter out results. The second subselect is used to find all date/campaign name combos which have people_count > 100 and use those as a filter for against the full data set.
Related
I am trying to get the amount of records on specific dates. The problem is that when a date has no records it doesnt show the date.
$asksome= mysqli_query("
SELECT COUNT(worker_id) AS amount, problem.datter AS datum
FROM problem
WHERE worker_id = $idmed
GROUP BY datter"
);
The structure looks like this:
worker_id | datter | note
1 |2018-02-25 |
1 |2018-02-26 |
3 |2018-02-25 |
This is the query I am using. I want the query to show the dates even if the COUNT is 0. what i mean by this is i want the result to be like this:
count result | date
0 | 2018-02-24
2 | 2018-02-25
1 | 2018-02-26
0 | 2018-02-27
- - For people finding this post not knowing what to do: i fixed my issue by making another table that simply contained the specific dates that i want to check.
I used the following query:
SELECT weeks.week_id AS datum, COUNT(problem.datter) AS amount
FROM weeks
LEFT JOIN problem ON problem.datter = weeks.week_id
GROUP BY weeks.week_id
You should make clear for the sql of how to handle the count when it is 0. In general, when using SQL's SUM() and COUNT() along with the GROUP BY statement, 0 is never output. And that is because, the GROUP BY clause has nothing to group with when no records for your count of 0 exist.
For that you can use the COALESCE expression.
You can see its documentation here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/language-elements/coalesce-transact-sql
So in your example, the sql query should be:
SELECT COALESCE (SELECT COUNT(worker_id) AS amount, problem.datter AS datum
FROM problem
WHERE worker_id = $idmed
GROUP BY datter"), 0);
I want to retrieve all rows from a table that have their first entry on or after 01/01/2014 but no later than 31/12/2014
Example of the table:
OID FK_OID Treatment Trt_DATE
1 100 19304 2011-05-24
2 100 19304 2011-08-01
3 100 19306 2014-03-05
4 200 19305 2012-02-02
5 300 19308 2014-01-20
6 400 19308 2014-06-06
For example. I would like to pull all entries that have STARTED treatment in 2014. So above i would to extract FK_OID's 300 and 400 because their first entry is in 2014, but i would like to omit FK_OID 100 because they have 2 entries prior to 2014.
How do i go about this? I can extract all entries within a date range etc but that brings back all entries for that date and doesn't omit anyone who has an entry prior to the start of the date range. It just returns their first entry in 2014.
For the ones who need to see that i have tried something. See below.
I am not an experienced coder and this is the best i can get because i don't have the knowledge.
SELECT
mod,
(select NHSNum from person p
WHERE
p.oid = t.fk_oid) as 'NHS'
FROM
timeline t
Where trt_date BETWEEN '2014-01-01' AND '2014-12-31'
ORDER BY trt_date ASC
This returns every treatment for 2014 regardless of whether it is the first ever one for that person. I want to omit anyone from this list who has had treatment before 01/01/2014 as well as only return the first treatment per person. For example, this code returns all treatments for all people in 2014. I only want their first one and only if it is their first one ever.
Thanks.
create table aThing
( oid int auto_increment primary key,
fk_oid int not null,
treatment int not null,
trt_date date not null
);
insert aThing (fk_oid,treatment,trt_date) values
(100, 19304, '2011-05-24'),
(100, 19304, '2011-08-01'),
(100, 19306, '2014-03-05'),
(200, 19305, '2012-02-02'),
(300, 19308, '2014-01-20'),
(400, 19308, '2014-06-06');
select fk_oid,dt
from
( select fk_oid,min(trt_date) as dt
from aThing
group by fk_oid
) xDerived
where year(dt)=2014;
+--------+------------+
| fk_oid | dt |
+--------+------------+
| 300 | 2014-01-20 |
| 400 | 2014-06-06 |
+--------+------------+
The inner part, the nested one, become a derived table, and is given a name xDerived. This means that even though it is just a result set, by making it a derived table, it can be referred to by name. So it is not a physical table, but a derived one, or virtual one.
So that derived table is a very simple group by with an aggregate function. It says, for every fk_oid, bring back one row and only 1 row, with its minimum value for trt_date.
So if you have 10 million rows in that table called aThing, but only 17 distinct values for fk_oid, it will return only 17 rows. Each row being the minimum of trt_date for its fk_oid.
So now that that is achieved, the outer wrapper says just show me those two columns (but with a year check). There is a complicated to explain reason why I had to do that, so I will try to do it here.
But I might need a little time to explain it well, so bear with me.
This will be a shortcut way to say it. I had to get the min into an alias, and I only had access to that alias if resolved in a derived table, to cleanse it so to speak, and then access it with an outer wrapper.
An alias of aggregate column, like as dt, is not available (as a pseudo like column name which is what an alias is) ... it is not available in a where clause. But by wrapping it in a derived table name, I cleanse it so to speak, and then I can access it in a where clause.
So I can't access it directly in its own query in the where clause, but when I wrap it in an envelope (a derived table), I can access it on the outside.
I will try better to explain it later, maybe, but I would have to show alternative attempts to gain access to results, and the syntax errors that would result.
There's probably a more elegant solution, but this seems to satisfy the requirement...
SELECT x.*
FROM my_table x
JOIN
( SELECT fk_oid
, MIN(trt_date) min_date
FROM my_table
GROUP
BY fk_oid
HAVING min_date > '2014-01-01'
) a
ON a.fk_oid = x.fk_oid
LEFT
JOIN my_table b
ON b.fk_oid = a.fk_oid
AND b.trt_date > '2014-12-31'
WHERE b.oid IS NULL;
Having a few years a experience with this, i decided to revisit it. The solution i now use regularly is:
SELECT t1.column1, t1.column2
FROM MyTable AS t1
LEFT OUTER JOIN MyTable AS t2
ON t1.fkoid = t2.fkoid
AND (t1.date > t2.date
OR (t1.date = t2.date AND t1.oid > t2.oId))
WHERE t2.fkoid IS NULL and t1.date >= '2014-01-01'
I think it will be easiest to start with the table I have and the result I am aiming for.
Name | Date
A | 03/01/2012
A | 03/01/2012
B | 02/01/2012
A | 02/01/2012
B | 02/01/2012
A | 02/01/2012
B | 01/01/2012
B | 01/01/2012
A | 01/01/2012
I want the result of my query to be:
Name | 01/01/2012 | 02/01/2012 | 03/01/2012
A | 1 | 2 | 2
B | 2 | 2 | 0
So basically I want to count the number of rows that have the same date, but for each individual name. So a simple group by of dates won't do because it would merge the names together. And then I want to output a table that shows the counts for each individual date using php.
I've seen answers suggest something like this:
SELECT
NAME,
SUM(CASE WHEN GRADE = 1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS GRADE1,
SUM(CASE WHEN GRADE = 2 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS GRADE2,
SUM(CASE WHEN GRADE = 3 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS GRADE3
FROM Rodzaj
GROUP BY NAME
so I imagine there would be a way for me to tweak that but I was wondering if there is another way, or is that the most efficient?
I was perhaps thinking if the while loop were to output just one specific name and date each time along with the count, so the first result would be A,01/01/2012,1 then the next A,02/01/2012,2 - A,03/01/2012,3 - B,01/01/2012,2 etc. then perhaps that would be doable through a different technique but not sure if something like that is possible and if it would be efficient.
So I'm basically looking to see if anyone has any ideas that are a bit outside the box for this and how they would compare.
I hope I explained everything well enough and thanks in advance for any help.
You have to include two columns in your GROUP BY:
SELECT name, COUNT(*) AS count
FROM your_table
GROUP BY name, date
This will get the counts of each name -> date combination in row-format. Since you also wanted to include a 0 count if the name didn't have any rows on a certain date, you can use:
SELECT a.name,
b.date,
COUNT(c.name) AS date_count
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT name FROM your_table) a
CROSS JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT date FROM your_table) b
LEFT JOIN your_table c ON a.name = c.name AND
b.date = c.date
GROUP BY a.name,
b.date
SQLFiddle Demo
You're asking for a "pivot". Basically, it is what it is. The real problem with a pivot is that the column names must adapt to the data, which is impossible to do with SQL alone.
Here's how you do it:
SELECT
Name,
SUM(`Date` = '01/01/2012') AS `01/01/2012`,
SUM(`Date` = '02/01/2012') AS `02/01/2012`,
SUM(`Date` = '03/01/2012') AS `03/01/2012`
FROM mytable
GROUP BY Name
Note the cool way you can SUM() a condition in mysql, becasue in mysql true is 1 and false is 0, so summing a condition is equivalent to counting the number of times it's true.
It is not more efficient to use an inner group by first.
Just in case anyone is interested in what was the best method:
Zane's second suggestion was the slowest, I loaded in a third of the data I did for the other two and it took quite a while. Perhaps on smaller tables it would be more efficient, and although I am not working with a huge table roughly 28,000 rows was enough to create significant lag, with the between clause dropping the result to about 4000 rows.
Bohemian's answer gave me the least amount to code, I threw in a loop to create all the case statements and it worked with relative ease. The benefit of this method was the simplicity, besides creating the loop for the cases, the results come in without the need for any php tricks, just simple foreach to get all the columns. Recommended for those not confident with php.
However, I found Zane's first suggestion the quickest performing and despite the need for extra php coding it seems I will be sticking with this method. The disadvantage of this method is that it only gives the dates that actually have data, so creating a table with all the dates becomes a bit more complicated. What I did was create a variable that keeps track of what date it is supposed to be compared to the table column which is reset on each table row, when the result of the query is equal to that date it echoes the value otherwise it does a while loop echoing table cells with 0 until the dates do match. It also had to do a check to see if the 'Name' value is still the same and if not it would switch to the next row after filling in any missing cells with 0 to the end of that row. If anyone is interested in seeing the code you can message me.
Results of the two methods over 3 months of data (a column for each day so roughly 90 case statements) ~ 12,000 rows out of 28,000:Bohemian's Pivot - ~0.158s (highest seen ~0.36s)Zane's Double Group by - ~0.086s (highest seen ~0.15s)
I am HAVING trouble with my GROUP BY query (the trickiest of them all at least for me).
What I want to do is retrieve the most recent modified records grouped by another column. The problem as I see it is that grouping returns the only first record it finds (in the group) disregarding the ORDER BY (except when returning the final result).
Here is a simplified version of my code.
SELECT events.id, events.name, events.type, events.modified_time
FROM events
GROUP BY events.type
ORDER BY event.modified_time DESC
Which will return:
1 | Event One | Birthday | Jan 1, 2012
2 | Event Two | Graduation | Jan 1, 2012
When in fact there is a 3rd record with a modified time that is later:
3 | Event Three | Birthday | Jan 2, 2012
I've tried using a HAVING clause of MAX(modified_time) but it doesn't return the correct results either. Maybe I just need to discuss this more with someone who is knowledgeable but if the question makes enough sense and you can tell what I need then maybe there is an easy answer.
BONUS QUESTION:
Is it possible to do this without a sub query?
This, among many other methods, may work for you:
SELECT a.id, a.name, a.[type], a.modified_time
FROM [events] AS a
JOIN (
SELECT MAX([events].id) AS id, [events].[type]
FROM [events]
GROUP BY [events].[type]
) AS b ON a.id = b.id AND a.[type] = b.[type]
ORDER BY a.modified_time DESC
GROUP BY/HAVING is not what you want. What you want is either:
WHERE
events.modified_time = ( select max(modified_time) from events e2 where e2.type = events.type )
... or else a solution like Tim linked to using an analytic function like ROW_NUMBER
I have a watchlist system that I've coded, in the overview of the users' watchlist, they would see a list of records, however the list shows duplicates when in the database it only shows the exact, correct number.
I've tried GROUP BY watch.watch_id, GROUP BY rec.record_id, none of any types of group I've tried seems to remove duplicates. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.
SELECT watch.watch_date,
rec.street_number,
rec.street_name,
rec.city,
rec.state,
rec.country,
usr.username
FROM
(
watchlist watch
LEFT OUTER JOIN records rec ON rec.record_id = watch.record_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN members usr ON rec.user_id = usr.user_id
)
WHERE watch.user_id = 1
GROUP BY watch.watch_id
LIMIT 0, 25
The watchlist table looks like this:
+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| watch_id | user_id | record_id | watch_date |
+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
| 13 | 1 | 22 | 1314038274 |
| 14 | 1 | 25 | 1314038995 |
+----------+---------+-----------+------------+
GROUP BY does not "remove duplicates". GROUP BY allows for aggregation. If all you want is to combine duplicated rows, use SELECT DISTINCT.
If you need to combine rows that are duplicate in some columns, use GROUP BY but you need to to specify what to do with the other columns. You can either omit them (by not listing them in the SELECT clause) or aggregate them (using functions like SUM, MIN, and AVG). For example:
SELECT watch.watch_id, COUNT(rec.street_number), MAX(watch.watch_date)
... GROUP by watch.watch_id
EDIT
The OP asked for some clarification.
Consider the "view" -- all the data put together by the FROMs and JOINs and the WHEREs -- call that V. There are two things you might want to do.
First, you might have completely duplicate rows that you wish to combine:
a b c
- - -
1 2 3
1 2 3
3 4 5
Then simply use DISTINCT
SELECT DISTINCT * FROM V;
a b c
- - -
1 2 3
3 4 5
Or, you might have partially duplicate rows that you wish to combine:
a b c
- - -
1 2 3
1 2 6
3 4 5
Those first two rows are "the same" in some sense, but clearly different in another sense (in particular, they would not be combined by SELECT DISTINCT). You have to decide how to combine them. You could discard column c as unimportant:
SELECT DISTINCT a,b FROM V;
a b
- -
1 2
3 4
Or you could perform some kind of aggregation on them. You could add them up:
SELECT a,b, SUM(c) "tot" FROM V GROUP BY a,b;
a b tot
- - ---
1 2 9
3 4 5
You could add pick the smallest value:
SELECT a,b, MIN(c) "first" FROM V GROUP BY a,b;
a b first
- - -----
1 2 3
3 4 5
Or you could take the mean (AVG), the standard deviation (STD), and any of a bunch of other functions that take a bunch of values for c and combine them into one.
What isn't really an option is just doing nothing. If you just list the ungrouped columns, the DBMS will either throw an error (Oracle does that -- the right choice, imo) or pick one value more or less at random (MySQL). But as Dr. Peart said, "When you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
While SELECT DISTINCT may indeed work in your case, it's important to note why what you have is not working.
You're selecting fields that are outside of the GROUP BY. Although MySQL allows this, the exact rows it returns for the non-GROUP BY fields is undefined.
If you wanted to do this with a GROUP BY try something more like the following:
SELECT watch.watch_date,
rec.street_number,
rec.street_name,
rec.city,
rec.state,
rec.country,
usr.username
FROM
(
watchlist watch
LEFT OUTER JOIN est8_records rec ON rec.record_id = watch.record_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN est8_members usr ON rec.user_id = usr.user_id
)
WHERE watch.watch_id IN (
SELECT watch_id FROM watch WHERE user_id = 1
GROUP BY watch.watch_id)
LIMIT 0, 25
I Would never recommend using SELECT DISTINCT, it's really slow on big datasets.
Try using things like EXISTS.
You are grouping by watch.watch_id and you have two results, which have different watch IDs, so naturally they would not be grouped.
Also, from the results displayed they have different records. That looks like a perfectly valid expected results. If you are trying to only select distinct values, then you don't want ot GROUP, but you want to select by distinct values.
SELECT DISTINCT()...
If you say your watchlist table is unique, then one (or both) of the other tables either (a) has duplicates, or (b) is not unique by the key you are using.
To suppress duplicates in your results, either use DISTINCT as #Laykes says, or try
GROUP BY watch.watch_date,
rec.street_number,
rec.street_name,
rec.city,
rec.state,
rec.country,
usr.username
It sort of sounds like you expect all 3 tables to be unique by their keys, though. If that is the case, you are simply masking some other problem with your SQL by trying to retrieve distinct values.