I have three dimensions, a [Transaction], [Trade Date] and [Report Date].
The [Transaction] is related to both, and I would like to define a function for a KPI in which I look for the following:
For each date where there exists a trade in as a transaction, check from this date and a range that goes 30 days back for transactions where the difference between [Trade Date] and [Report Date] is greater than 1.
I want to sum up the [Measure].[N of Transactions] in this range, for each trader on each date.
I've tried the following:
WITH
SET [Filtered] AS FILTER(NONEMPTY({[Trade Date].[Calendar].CurrentMember.lag(30):[Trade Date].[Calendar].CurrentMember}),
DateDiff("d",
CDate([Report Date].[Calendar].CurrentMember.MemberValue),
CDate([Trade Date].[Calendar].CurrentMember.Lag(1).MemberValue)
) > 1
)
MEMBER [Measures].[x] AS SUM([Filtered].CURRENTMEMBER, [Measures].[N of Transactions])
SELECT [Measures].[x] on 0,
[Transaction].[Trader].&[some_id_here] on 1
FROM [Relevant]
WHERE [Trade Date].[Calendar].[2014-02-16]
But this obviously doesn't work.
+----------------+
|factTransaction |
| |
+----+ +----+
+-------------+ | | | | +-------------+
|dimTradeDate | | | | | |dimReportDate|
| | | | | | | |
| +----- | | +----+ |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+-------------+ +----------------+ +-------------+
Above is the structure in the designer. To sum it up, how do I write an MDX query that looks at each date, backtracks 30 days and creates a range. From this, look at all transactions and return the sum of the measure [Measures].[N of Transactions] for that range and [Transaction].[Trader]?
I had a somehow similar question today, and got answered. See if it somehow helps you:
Mdx Using a member property as an argument for a strtomember
Might be the same issue... the set condition is evaluated before the rows definition, so, when you specify currentmember on the Set, it doesn't get the desired argument. I've solved my issue putting the set inside the member definition, and, as I had seen your question before, thought that it might be a similar case ...
CF.
Related
I'm feeling a little rusty with creating queries in MySQL. I thought I could solve this, but I'm having no luck and searching around doesn't result in anything similar...
Basically, I have two tables. I want to select everything from one table and the matching row from the second table. However, I only want to have the first result from the second table. I hope that makes sense.
The rows in the daily_entries table are unique. There will be one row for each day, but maybe not everyday. The second table notes contains many rows, each of which are associated with ONE row from daily_entries.
Below are examples of my tables;
Table One
mysql> desc daily_entries;
+----------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| eid | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| date | date | NO | | NULL | |
| location | varchar(100) | NO | | NULL | |
+----------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
Table Two
mysql> desc notes;
+---------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| task_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| eid | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| notes | text | YES | | NULL | |
+---------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
What I need to do, is select all entries from notes, with only one result from daily_entries.
Below is an example of how I want it to look:
+----------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------+-----+
| notes | task_id | date | location | eid |
+----------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------+-----+
| Another note | 3 | 2014-01-02 | Home | 2 |
| Enter a note. | 1 | 2014-01-01 | Away | 1 |
| This is a test note. To see what happens. | 2 | | Away | 1 |
| Testing another note | 4 | | Away | 1 |
+----------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------+-----+
4 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Below is the query that I currently have:
SELECT notes.notes, notes.task_id, daily_entries.date, daily_entries.location, daily_entries.eid
FROM daily_entries
LEFT JOIN notes ON daily_entries.eid=notes.eid
ORDER BY daily_entries.date DESC
Below is an example of how it looks with my query:
+----------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------+-----+
| notes | task_id | date | location | eid |
+----------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------+-----+
| Another note | 3 | 2014-01-02 | Home | 2 |
| Enter a note. | 1 | 2014-01-01 | Away | 1 |
| This is a test note. To see what happens. | 2 | 2014-01-01 | Away | 1 |
| Testing another note | 4 | 2014-01-01 | Away | 1 |
+----------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------+-----+
4 rows in set (0.00 sec)
At first I thought I could simply GROUP BY daily_entries.date, however that returned only the first row of each matching set. Can this even be done? I would greatly appreciate any help someone can offer. Using Limit at the end of my query obviously limited it to the value that I specified, but applied it to everything which was to be expected.
Basically, there's nothing wrong with your query. I believe it is exactly what you need because it is returning the data you want. You can not look at as if it is duplicating your daily_entries you should be looking at it as if it is return all notes with its associated daily_entry.
Of course, you can achieve what you described in your question (there's an answer already that solve this issue) but think twice before you do it because such nested queries will only add a lot of noticeable performance overhead to your database server.
I'd recommend to keep your query as simple as possible with one single LEFT JOIN (which is all you need) and then let consuming applications manipulate the data and present it the way they need to.
Use mysql's non-standard group by functionality:
SELECT n.notes, n.task_id, de.date, de.location, de.eid
FROM notes n
LEFT JOIN (select * from
(select * from daily_entries ORDER BY date DESC) x
group by eid) de ON de.eid = n.eid
You need to do these queries with explicit filtering for the last row. This example uses a join to do this:
SELECT n.notes, n.task_id, de.date, de.location, de.eid
FROM daily_entries de LEFT JOIN
notes n
ON de.eid = n.eid LEFT JOIN
(select n.eid, min(task_id) as min_task_id
from notes n
group by n.eid
) nmin
on n.task_id = nmin.min_task_id
ORDER BY de.date DESC;
I have a data table that I use to do some calculations. The resulting data set after calculations looks like:
+------------+-----------+------+----------+
| id_process | id_region | type | result |
+------------+-----------+------+----------+
| 1 | 4 | 1 | 65.2174 |
| 1 | 5 | 1 | 78.7419 |
| 1 | 6 | 1 | 95.2308 |
| 1 | 4 | 1 | 25.0000 |
| 1 | 7 | 1 | 100.0000 |
+------------+-----------+------+----------+
By other hand I have other table that contains a set of ranges that are used to classify the calculations results. The range tables looks like:
+----------+--------------+---------+
| id_level | start | end | status |
+----------+--------------+---------+
| 1 | 0 | 75 | Danger |
| 2 | 76 | 90 | Alert |
| 3 | 91 | 100 | Good |
+----------+--------------+---------+
I need to do a query that add the corresponding 'status' column to each value when do calculations. Currently, I can do that adding the following field to calculation query:
select
...,
...,
[math formula] as result,
(select status
from ranges r
where result between r.start and r.end) status
from ...
where ...
It works ok. But when I have a lot of rows (more than 200K), calculation query become slow.
My question is: there is some way to find that 'status' value without do that subquery?
Some one have worked on something similar before?
Thanks
Yes, you are looking for a subquery and join:
select s.*, r.status
from (select s.*
from <your query here>
) s left outer join
ranges r
on s.result between r.start and r.end
Explicit joins often optimize better than nested select. In this case, though, the ranges table seems pretty small, so this may not be the performance issue.
I have a set of MySQL data similar to the following:
| id | type | start | end |
===============================================================
| 1 | event | 2011-11-01T00:00:00 | 2012-01-02T00:00:00 |
| 2 | showing | 2012-11-04T00:00:00 | 2012-11-04T00:00:00 |
| 3 | conference | 2012-12-01T00:00:00 | 2012-12-04T00:00:00 |
| 4 | event2 | 2012-01-01T00:00:00 | 2012-01-01T00:00:00 |
I want to retrieve events within a certain date range, but I also want to return individual results for each row that has a time span of more than one day. What's the best way to achieve this?
EDIT: In other words, I want to return two results from the event row, four results from the conference row and a single result for all the others.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Try this statement:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE START BETWEEN '2012-01-01' AND '2012-01-03'
OR END BETWEEN '2012-01-01' AND '2012-01-03'
OR TO_DAYS(end) - TO_DAYS(start) > 1
I have created it for testing on SQL Fiddle
I've a query that I need some help with -
As part of a form I've got a serial number field that is populated if there is a serial number, blank if it's not, or no result if it's an invalid serial number.
select *
from cust_site_contract as cs
where cs.serial_no = 'C20050' or (cs.serial_no <> 'C20050' and if(cs.serial_no = 'C20050',1,0)=0)
limit 10;
Here's a sample of the regular data:
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------
| idcust_site_contract | system_id | serial_no | end_date
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------
| 561315 | SH001626 | C19244 | 2009-12-21
| 561316 | SH001626 | C19244 | 2010-06-30
| 561317 | SH002125 | C19671 | 2010-05-31
| 561318 | SH001766 | C14781 | 2010-09-25
| 561319 | SH001766 | C14781 | 2011-02-15
| 561320 | SH002059 | C19020 | 2008-07-09
| 561321 | SH002639 | C18889 | 2008-03-31
| 561322 | SH002639 | C18889 | 2008-06-30
| 561323 | SH002715 | C20051 | 2010-04-30
| 561324 | SH002719 | C20057 | 2010-04-30
And an exact result would look something like this:
| 561487 | SH002837 | C20050 | 2012-07-04
I was writing this as a subquery so I could match the system_ids to customer and contract names, but realised I was getting garbage pretty early on.
I'm tempted to try and simplify it by saying the third case might not hold true (i.e. if it's an invalid serial number, allow the choice of any customer name and simply flag it in the data)
Has anyone got any ideas of where I'm going wrong? The combination of conditions is clearly wrong, and I can't work out how to make each side of the or statement mutually exclusive
Even if I try to evaluate only the if(sn = 'blah') I get the wrong result for obvious reasons, but can't think of a sane way to express it.
Many thanks
Scott
If there is is no contract with a serial number of C20050, this query will return all rows, otherwise, it will return only one row where serial_no is C20050:
SELECT a.*
FROM cust_site_contract a
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT COUNT(*) AS rowexists
FROM cust_site_contract
WHERE serial_no = 'C20050'
) b ON b.rowexists = 0
UNION ALL
(
SELECT *
FROM cust_site_contract
WHERE serial_no = 'C20050'
LIMIT 1
)
If you just write the query as below you will get blank if doesn't exists or it's an invalid serial number.
select cs.serial_no from cust_site_contract as cs where cs.serial_no = 'C20050'
I have a table with pairs of matching records that I query like this:
select id,name,amount,type from accounting_entries
where name like "%05" and amount != 0 order by name limit 10;
Results:
+------+----------------------+--------+-------+
| id | name | amount | type |
+------+----------------------+--------+-------+
| 786 | D-1194-838HELLUJP-05 | -5800 | DEBIT |
| 785 | D-1194-838HELLUJP-05 | -5800 | DEBIT |
| 5060 | D-1195-UOK4HS5POF-05 | -5000 | DEBIT |
| 5059 | D-1195-UOK4HS5POF-05 | -5000 | DEBIT |
| 246 | D-1196-0FUCJI66BX-05 | -7000 | DEBIT |
| 245 | D-1196-0FUCJI66BX-05 | -7000 | DEBIT |
| 9720 | D-1197-W2J0EC1BOB-05 | -6500 | DEBIT |
| 9719 | D-1197-W2J0EC1BOB-05 | -6500 | DEBIT |
| 2694 | D-1198-MFKIKHGW0S-05 | -5500 | DEBIT |
| 2693 | D-1198-MFKIKHGW0S-05 | -5500 | DEBIT |
+------+----------------------+--------+-------+
10 rows in set (0.01 sec)
I need to perform an update so that the resulting data will look like this:
+------+----------------------+--------+--------+
| id | name | amount | type |
+------+----------------------+--------+--------+
| 786 | D-1194-838HELLUJP-05 | -5800 | DEBIT |
| 785 | C-1194-838HELLUJP-05 | 5800 | CREDIT |
| 5060 | D-1195-UOK4HS5POF-05 | -5000 | DEBIT |
| 5059 | C-1195-UOK4HS5POF-05 | 5000 | CREDIT |
| 246 | D-1196-0FUCJI66BX-05 | -7000 | DEBIT |
| 245 | C-1196-0FUCJI66BX-05 | 7000 | CREDIT |
| 9720 | D-1197-W2J0EC1BOB-05 | -6500 | DEBIT |
| 9719 | C-1197-W2J0EC1BOB-05 | 6500 | CREDIT |
| 2694 | D-1198-MFKIKHGW0S-05 | -5500 | DEBIT |
| 2693 | C-1198-MFKIKHGW0S-05 | 5500 | CREDIT |
+------+----------------------+--------+--------+
10 rows in set (0.01 sec)
One entry should negate the other entry. It doesn't matter if I update the first or second matching record, what matters is that one has a positive amount and the other has a negative amount. And the type and name need to be updated.
Any clues on how to do this? What would the update command look like? Maybe using a group by clause? I have some ideas on how to do it with a stored procedure, but can I do it with a simple update?
Try this:
UPDATE accounting_entries as ae
SET name = 'C' + SubString(name, 1, Length(name) - 1))
amount = amount * -1
type = 'Credit'
WHERE id =
(SELECT MIN(id) FROM
(SELECT * FROM accounting_entries) as temp
GROUP BY name)
The key is the subquery in the WHERE section that limits the updates to the lowest ID of each name value. The assumption is that the lower ID is the one that you will always want to update. If this is not correct, then update the subquery based on whatever rule you would use.
Edit: Update to subquery based on technique found here, due to limitation on mysql defined here.
This query gives a method for updating all records at once (as it seemed like this is what the OP was looking for. However, the most efficient way to do this would be to enumerate through all records in code (php, asp.net, etc), and through code-based methods update the rows that needed to change. This would eliminate the performance issues inherent with running updates off of subqueries in mysql.
If the ID:s for a pair always match the formula x and x+1, you could say something like
WHERE MOD(`id`, 2) = 1
EDIT: I haven't tested this code, so I can't guarantee that it's possible to put a column name into a MOD like this, but it might be worth a try, and/or further investigation.
Does this constraint hold true all the time (D == -C) ?
If so, you do not need to keep redundant data in your table, store only one "amount" value (for example the debit):
786 | 1194-838HELLUJP-05 | -5800
and then, on the application level, append a D- to the name and get the raw amount or append a C- and get the - amount.