I am Newbie to mysql....it may look dump question....but i have been trying this from 3 hours...here what i am trying to do....
SELECT
MERCHANT_ID,
IFNULL(COUNT(SUBSCRIBE_ID),0)
FROM SUBSCRIBE_TABLE
WHERE
MERCHANT_ID IS NULL OR
MERCHANT_ID IN(1000000000066,1000000000104,1000000000103,1000000000105)
GROUP BY MERCHANT_ID
ORDER BY
FIND_IN_SET(MERCHANT_ID,'1000000000066,1000000000104,1000000000103,1000000000105');
AND the output is...
+------------------+---------------------------------+
| MERCHANT_ID | IFNULL(COUNT(SUBSCRIBE_ID),0) |
+------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1000000000066 | 2 |
| 1000000000103 | 1 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+
but i am expecting in following manner...
+------------------+---------------------------------+
| MERCHANT_ID | IFNULL(COUNT(SUBSCRIBE_ID),0) |
+------------------+---------------------------------+
| 1000000000066 | 2 |
| 1000000000104 | 0 |
| 1000000000103 | 1 |
| 1000000000105 | 0 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+
i tried adding MERCHANT_ID IS NULL... but not able get the result with default value... :(
You will only get records that are actually in SUBSCRIBE_TABLE. If you want to get records for all your ids, you have to "create a temporary table" (or use a subquery with UNION in thise case) with those values first, and then join your results to it.
Your query could look like this:
SELECT
merchant_id,
COUNT(subscribe_id)
FROM
(SELECT 1000000000066 AS merchant_id, 1 AS SortKey
UNION ALL
SELECT 1000000000104 AS merchant_id, 2 AS SortKey
UNION ALL
SELECT 1000000000103 AS merchant_id, 3 AS SortKey
UNION ALL
SELECT 1000000000105 AS merchant_id, 4 AS SortKey
) AS temp
LEFT JOIN subscribe_table USING (merchant_id)
GROUP BY merchant_id
ORDER BY SortKey ASC
I replaced your FIND_IN_SET with the column SortKey in the subquery. COUNT will only count non-null rows and will return 0 if none are found. You don't need the IFNULL around it.
If you have more than those 4 merchant_ids you might want to look into doing the same thing with a temporary table. See here for examples:
Mysql: Create inline table within select statement?
Related
class_table
+----+-------+--------------+
| id |teac_id| student_id |
+----+-------+--------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1,2,3,4 |
+----+-------+--------------+
student_mark
+----+----------+--------+
| id |student_id| marks |
+----+----------+--------+
| 1 | 1 | 12 |
+----+----------+--------+
| 2 | 2 | 80 |
+----+----------+--------+
| 3 | 3 | 20 |
+----+----------+--------+
I have these two tables and i want to calculate the total marks of student and my sql is:
SELECT SUM(`marks`)
FROM `student_mark`
WHERE `student_id` IN
(SELECT `student_id` FROM `class_table` WHERE `teac_id` = '1')
But this will return null, please help!!
DB fiddle
Firstly, you should never store comma separated data in your column. You should really normalize your data. So basically, you could have a many-to-many table mapping teacher_to_student, which will have teac_id and student_id columns.
In this particular case, you can utilize Find_in_set() function.
From your current query, it seems that you are trying to getting total marks for a teacher (summing up marks of all his/her students).
Try:
SELECT SUM(sm.`marks`)
FROM `student_mark` AS sm
JOIN `class_table` AS ct
ON FIND_IN_SET(sm.`student_id`, ct.`student_id`) > 0
WHERE ct.`teac_id` = '1'
In case, you want to get total marks per student, you would need to add a Group By. The query would look like:
SELECT sm.`student_id`,
SUM(sm.`marks`)
FROM `student_mark` AS sm
JOIN `class_table` AS ct
ON FIND_IN_SET(sm.`student_id`, ct.`student_id`) > 0
WHERE ct.`teac_id` = '1'
GROUP BY sm.`student_id`
Just in case you want to know why, The reason it returned null is because the subquery returned as '1,2,3,4' as a whole. What you need is to make it returned 1,2,3,4 separately.
What your query returned
SELECT SUM(`marks`)
FROM `student_mark`
WHERE `student_id` IN ('1,2,3,4')
What you expect is
SELECT SUM(`marks`)
FROM `student_mark`
WHERE `student_id` IN (1,2,3,4)
The best way is it normalize as #madhur said. In your case you need to make the teacher and student as one to many link
+----+-------+--------------+
| id |teac_id| student_id |
+----+-------+--------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
+----+-------+--------------+
| 2 | 1 | 2 |
+----+-------+--------------+
| 3 | 1 | 3 |
+----+-------+--------------+
| 4 | 1 | 4 |
+----+-------+--------------+
If you want to filter your table based on a comma separated list with ID, my approach is to
append extra commas at the beginning and at the end of a list as well as at the beginning and at the end of an ID, eg.
1 becomes ,1, and list would become ,1,2,3,4,. The reason for that is to avoid ambigious matches like 1 matches 21 or 12 in a list.
Also, EXISTS is well-suited in that situation, which together with INSTR function should work:
SELECT SUM(`marks`)
FROM `student_mark` sm
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM `class_table`
WHERE `teac_id` = '1' AND
INSTR(CONCAT(',', student_id, ','), CONCAT(',', sm.student_id, ',')) > 0)
Demo
BUT you shouldn't store related IDs in one cell as comma separated list - it should be foreign key column to form proper relation. Joins would become trivial then.
I have this table structure:
product_skus table
| id |
| 1 |
...
product_sku_values table
| product_sku_id | value_id |
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
...
I need the query to find the product_sku_id, having the three values ID's (1, 2, and 3).
I'm trying with this query:
select product_sku_id from product_sku_values
where product_sku_values.value_id = 1
or product_sku_values.value_id = 2
or product_sku_values.value_id = 3
group by product_sku_id
having product_sku_id = 1
How can I do that? I'm trying lot of possibilities but no one give me the ID that I need. Can somebody help me?
Thanks.
This is a canonical method:
select psv.product_sku_id
from product_sku_values psv
where psv.value_id in (1, 2, 3)
group by psv.product_sku_id
having count(distinct psv.value_id) = 3;
If you know that product_sku_values have no duplicates, then use count(*) in the having clause.
You can simply use group by clause to get all the possible values, e.g.:
select product_sku_id, group_concat(value_id)
from product_sku_values
group by product_sku_id;
If you are only interested in value_id 1,2 and 3 then you can add one where clause, e.g:
select product_sku_id, group_concat(value_id)
from product_sku_values
where value_id in (1,2,3)
group by product_sku_id;
Suppose we have a table like the one below.
Id | Name | Group
-----------------
1 | John | 1
2 | Zayn | 2
3 | Four | 2
4 | Ben_ | 3
5 | Joe_ | 2
6 | Anna | 1
The query below will select all of them.
SELECT `Name` FROM `Table` WHERE 1;
How would I select only one person from each group? Who it is doesn't really matter, as long as there's only one name from group 1 and one name from group 2 etc.
The GROUP BY clause isn't fit for this (according to my error console) because I am selecting non aggregated values, which makes sense.
The DISTINCT clause isn't great here either, since I don't want to select the "Group" and definitely not group by their names.
If is not important the resulting name You can anawy leverage some group functions eg with max or min..
leverage the group functions
select max(name) from your_table
group by Group;
otherwise you can use subquery
select name from your_table
where Id in (select min(Id) from your_table group by Group);
I have a table like this:
Table: p
+----------------+
| id | w_id |
+---------+------+
| 5 | 8 |
| 5 | 10 |
| 5 | 8 |
| 5 | 10 |
| 5 | 8 |
| 6 | 5 |
| 6 | 8 |
| 6 | 10 |
| 6 | 10 |
| 7 | 8 |
| 7 | 10 |
+----------------+
What is the best SQL to get the following result? :
+-----------------------------+
| id | most_used_w_id |
+---------+-------------------+
| 5 | 8 |
| 6 | 10 |
| 7 | 8 |
+-----------------------------+
In other words, to get, per id, the most frequent related w_id.
Note that on the example above, id 7 is related to 8 once and to 10 once.
So, either (7, 8) or (7, 10) will do as result. If it is not possible to
pick up one, then both (7, 8) and (7, 10) on result set will be ok.
I have come up with something like:
select counters2.p_id as id, counters2.w_id as most_used_w_id
from (
select p.id as p_id,
w_id,
count(w_id) as count_of_w_ids
from p
group by id, w_id
) as counters2
join (
select p_id, max(count_of_w_ids) as max_counter_for_w_ids
from (
select p.id as p_id,
w_id,
count(w_id) as count_of_w_ids
from p
group by id, w_id
) as counters
group by p_id
) as p_max
on p_max.p_id = counters2.p_id
and p_max.max_counter_for_w_ids = counters2.count_of_w_ids
;
but I am not sure at all whether this is the best way to do it. And I had to repeat the same sub-query two times.
Any better solution?
Try to use User defined variables
select id,w_id
FROM
( select T.*,
if(#id<>id,1,0) as row,
#id:=id FROM
(
select id,W_id, Count(*) as cnt FROM p Group by ID,W_id
) as T,(SELECT #id:=0) as T1
ORDER BY id,cnt DESC
) as T2
WHERE Row=1
SQLFiddle demo
Formal SQL
In fact - your solution is correct in terms of normal SQL. Why? Because you have to stick with joining values from original data to grouped data. Thus, your query can not be simplified. MySQL allows to mix non-group columns and group function, but that's totally unreliable, so I will not recommend you to rely on that effect.
MySQL
Since you're using MySQL, you can use variables. I'm not a big fan of them, but for your case they may be used to simplify things:
SELECT
c.*,
IF(#id!=id, #i:=1, #i:=#i+1) AS num,
#id:=id AS gid
FROM
(SELECT id, w_id, COUNT(w_id) AS w_count
FROM t
GROUP BY id, w_id
ORDER BY id DESC, w_count DESC) AS c
CROSS JOIN (SELECT #i:=-1, #id:=-1) AS init
HAVING
num=1;
So for your data result will look like:
+------+------+---------+------+------+
| id | w_id | w_count | num | gid |
+------+------+---------+------+------+
| 7 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| 6 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| 5 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
+------+------+---------+------+------+
Thus, you've found your id and corresponding w_id. The idea is - to count rows and enumerate them, paying attention to the fact, that we're ordering them in subquery. So we need only first row (because it will represent data with highest count).
This may be replaced with single GROUP BY id - but, again, server is free to choose any row in that case (it will work because it will take first row, but documentation says nothing about that for common case).
One little nice thing about this is - you can select, for example, 2-nd by frequency or 3-rd, it's very flexible.
Performance
To increase performance, you can create index on (id, w_id) - obviously, it will be used for ordering and grouping records. But variables and HAVING, however, will produce line-by-line scan for set, derived by internal GROUP BY. It isn't such bad as it was with full scan of original data, but still it isn't good thing about doing this with variables. On the other hand, doing that with JOIN & subquery like in your query won't be much different, because of creating temporery table for subquery result set too.
But to be certain, you'll have to test. And keep in mind - you already have valid solution, which, by the way, isn't bound to DBMS-specific stuff and is good in terms of common SQL.
Try this query
select p_id, ccc , w_id from
(
select p.id as p_id,
w_id, count(w_id) ccc
from p
group by id,w_id order by id,ccc desc) xxx
group by p_id having max(ccc)
here is the sqlfidddle link
You can also use this code if you do not want to rely on the first record of non-grouping columns
select p_id, ccc , w_id from
(
select p.id as p_id,
w_id, count(w_id) ccc
from p
group by id,w_id order by id,ccc desc) xxx
group by p_id having ccc=max(ccc);
I have read that grouping happens before ordering, is there any way that I can order first before grouping without having to wrap my whole query around another query just to do this?
Let's say I have this data:
id | user_id | date_recorded
1 | 1 | 2011-11-07
2 | 1 | 2011-11-05
3 | 1 | 2011-11-06
4 | 2 | 2011-11-03
5 | 2 | 2011-11-06
Normally, I'd have to do this query in order to get what I want:
SELECT
*
FROM (
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY date_recorded DESC
) t1
GROUP BY t1.user_id
But I'm wondering if there's a better solution.
Your question is somewhat unclear but I have a suspicion what you really want is not any GROUP aggregates at all, but rather ordering by date first, then user ID:
SELECT
id,
user_id,
date_recorded
FROM tbl
ORDER BY date_recorded DESC, user_id ASC
Here would be the result. Note reordering by date_recorded from your original example
id | user_id | date_recorded
1 | 1 | 2011-11-07
3 | 1 | 2011-11-06
2 | 1 | 2011-11-05
5 | 2 | 2011-11-06
4 | 2 | 2011-11-03
Update
To retrieve the full latest record per user_id, a JOIN is needed. The subquery (mx) locates the latest date_recorded per user_id, and that result is joined to the full table to retrieve the remaining columns.
SELECT
mx.user_id,
mx.maxdate,
t.id
FROM (
SELECT
user_id,
MAX(date_recorded) AS maxdate
FROM tbl
GROUP BY user_id
) mx JOIN tbl t ON mx.user_id = t.user_id AND mx.date_recorded = t.date_recorded
Iam just using the technique
"Using order clause before group by inserting it in group_concat clause"
SELECT SUBSTRING_INDEX(group_concat(cast(id as char)
ORDER BY date_recorded desc),',',1),
user_id,
SUBSTRING_INDEX(group_concat(cast(`date_recorded` as char)
ORDER BY `date_recorded` desc),',',1)
FROM data
GROUP BY user_id