I have a scenario. I have say 300 records in my table. I execute a query to get the total count. Then , since i have to implement pagination,
I select the data from the same table using limits according t the count. I was thinking if i can get the count and data in a single query.? .
I tried below code:
Select * ,count(*) as cnt from table;
But this gave me the total count but only 1 record!
Is there a way to save my time exhausted in query and get results in a single query?
something like:
select t1.*,t2.cnt
from table t1
cross join (select count(*) as cnt from table) t2
limit 'your limit for the first page'
or
select *,(select count(*) from table) as cnt
from table
limit 'your limit for the first page'
You can get information in data structure you mentioned, but there is really no reason to do it. There is no performance problem when you do two queries - one for getting rows count and another for data selection. You don't save anything when you try to select all information in one query. Do two simple queries instead, it will be better solution for your app - you will preserve its simplicity and clarity.
Using two queries might not be as bad as you may think, you can read this for more information.
Related
There is a table named STATION.
I want to display half rows of the table.
MYSQL query
SELECT *
FROM STATION
LIMIT (SELECT COUNT(ID) FROM STATION)/2
I tried to perform a query like this but I am getting syntax error.
What is wrong in this query?
How can I perform this query?
One method is to use window functions:
select t.*
from (select t.*,
ntile(2) over (order by id) as tile
from t
) t
where tile = 1;
I have never seen a need of querying exactly half the table.
If you are asking this out of curiosity, that's fair but if there is really a need where you are trying to implement something like this, please revisit the design.
Coming to your question, you can possibly do two things:
Implement a stored procedure and query the count and store in a variable and then pass it on to the actual SELECT query for the LIMIT clause.
From your client code fire 2 different queries - 1 for count and calculate half (non fraction) and then pass it to the limit clause of next select query .
I am trying to do a simple test where I'm pulling from a table the information of a specific part number as such:
SELECT *
FROM table_name
WHERE part_no IN ('abc123')
This returns 25 rows. Now I want to count the number that meet the "accepted" condition in a specific column but the result is limited to only the 10 most recent. My approach is to write it as follows:
Select Count(*)
FROM table_name
WHERE part_no IN ('abc123') AND lot IN ('accepted')
ORDER BY date DESC
LIMIT 10
I'm having a hard time to get the ORDER BY and LIMIT operations to work. I could use help just getting it to limit appropriately, and I can figure out the rest from there.
Edit: I understand that the operations are happening on the COUNT which only returns one row with a value; but I put the second clip to show where I am stuck in my thought process.
Your query SELECT Count(*) FROM ... will always return exactly one row.
It's not 100% clear what exactly you want to do, but if you want to know how many of the last 10 have been accepted, you could use a subquery - something like:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM (
SELECT lot
FROM table_name
WHERE part_no IN ('abc123')
ORDER BY date DESC
LIMIT 10
)
WHERE lot IN ('accepted')
The inner query will return the 10 most recent rows for part abc123, then the outer query will count the accepted ones.
There are also other solution (for example, you could have the inner query output a field that is 0 when the part is not accepted and 1 when the part is accepted, then take the sum). Depending on which exact dialect/database you are using, you may also have more elegant options.
Select count returns ONE ROW therefore the ORDER BY and the LIMIT will not work on the results
Sales :
Q1) Return the name of the agent who had the highest increase in sales compared to the previous year
A) Initially I wrote the following query
Select name, (sales_2018-sales_2017) as increase
from sales
where increase= (select max(sales_2018-sales_2017)
from sales)
I got an error saying I cannot use increase with the keyword where because "increase" is not a column but an alias
So I changed the query to the following :
Select name, (sales_2018-sales_2017) as increase
from sales
where (sales_2018-sales_2017)= (select max(sales_2018-sales_2017)
from sales)
This query did work, but I feel there should be a better to write this queryi.e instead of writing where (sales_2018-sales_2017)= (select max(sales_2018-sales_2017) from sales). So I was wondering if there is a work around to using alias with where.
Q2) suppose the table is as following, and we are asked to return the EmpId, name who got rating A for consecutive 3 years :
I wrote the following query its working :
select id,name
from ratings
where rating_2017='A' and rating_2018='A' and rating_2019='A'
Chaining 3 columns (ratings_2017,rating_2018,rating_2019) with AND is easy, I want know if there is a better way to chain columns with AND when say we want to find a employee who has rating 'A' fro 10 consective years.
Q3) Last but not the least, I'm really interested in learning to write intermediate-complex SQL queries and take my sql skills to next level. Is there a website out there that can help me in this regard ?
1) You are referencing an expression with a table column value, and therefore you would need to define the expression first(either using an inline view/cte for increase). After that you can refer it in the query
Eg:
select *
from ( select name, (sales_2018-sales_2017) as increase
from sales
)x
where x.increase= (select max(sales_2018-sales_2017)
from sales)
Another option would be to use analytical functions for getting your desired results, if you are in mysql 8.0
select *
from ( select name
,(sales_2018-sales_2017) as increase
,max(sales_2018-sales_2017) over(partition by (select null)) as max_increase
from sales
)x
where x.increase=x.max_increase
Q2) There are alternative ways to write this. But the basic issue is with the table design where you are storing each rating year as a new column. Had it been a row it would have been more easy.
Here is another way
select id,name
from ratings
where length(concat(rating_2017,rating_2018,rating_2019))-
length(replace(concat(rating_2017,rating_2018,rating_2019)),'A','')=3
Q3) Check out some example of problems from hackerrank or https://msbiskills.com/tsql-puzzles-asked-in-interview-over-the-years/. You can also search for the questions and answers from stackoverflow to get solutions to tough problems people faced
Q1 : you can simply order and limit the query results (hence no subquery is necessary) ; also, column aliases are allowed in the ORDER BY clause
SELECT
name,
sales_2018-sales_2017 as increase
FROM sales
ORDER BY increase DESC
LIMIT 1
Q2 : your query is fine ; other options exists, but they will not make it faster or easier to maintain.
Finally, please note that your best option overall would be to modify your database layout : you want to have yearly data in rows, not in columns ; there should be only one column to store the year instead of several. That would make your queries simpler to write and to maintain (and you wouldn’t need to create a new column every new year...)
I am running the below query to retrive the unique latest result based on a date field within a same table. But this query takes too much time when the table is growing. Any suggestion to improve this is welcome.
select
t2.*
from
(
select
(
select
id
from
ctc_pre_assets ti
where
ti.ctcassettag = t1.ctcassettag
order by
ti.createddate desc limit 1
) lid
from
(
select
distinct ctcassettag
from
ctc_pre_assets
) t1
) ro,
ctc_pre_assets t2
where
t2.id = ro.lid
order by
id
Our able may contain same row multiple times, but each row with different time stamp. My object is based on a single column for example assettag I want to retrieve single row for each assettag with latest timestamp.
It's simpler, and probably faster, to find the newest date for each ctcassettag and then join back to find the whole row that matches.
This does assume that no ctcassettag has multiple rows with the same createddate, in which case you can get back more than one row per ctcassettag.
SELECT
ctc_pre_assets.*
FROM
ctc_pre_assets
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT
ctcassettag,
MAX(createddate) AS createddate
FROM
ctc_pre_assets
GROUP BY
ctcassettag
)
newest
ON newest.ctcassettag = ctc_pre_assets.ctcassettag
AND newest.createddate = ctc_pre_assets.createddate
ORDER BY
ctc_pre_assets.id
EDIT: To deal with multiple rows with the same date.
You haven't actually said how to pick which row you want in the event that multiple rows are for the same ctcassettag on the same createddate. So, this solution just chooses the row with the lowest id from amongst those duplicates.
SELECT
ctc_pre_assets.*
FROM
ctc_pre_assets
WHERE
ctc_pre_assets.id
=
(
SELECT
lookup.id
FROM
ctc_pre_assets lookup
WHERE
lookup.ctcassettag = ctc_pre_assets.ctcassettag
ORDER BY
lookup.createddate DESC,
lookup.id ASC
LIMIT
1
)
This does still use a correlated sub-query, which is slower than a simple nested-sub-query (such as my first answer), but it does deal with the "duplicates".
You can change the rules on which row to pick by changing the ORDER BY in the correlated sub-query.
It's also very similar to your own query, but with one less join.
Nested queries are always known to take longer time than a conventional query since. Can you append 'explain' at the start of the query and put your results here? That will help us analyse the exact query/table which is taking longer to response.
Check if the table has indexes. Unindented tables are not advisable(until unless obviously required to be unindented) and are alarmingly slow in executing queries.
On the contrary, I think the best case is to avoid writing nested queries altogether. Bette, run each of the queries separately and then use the results(in array or list format) in the second query.
First some questions that you should at least ask yourself, but maybe also give us an answer to improve the accuracy of our responses:
Is your data normalized? If yes, maybe you should make an exception to avoid this brutal subquery problem
Are you using indexes? If yes, which ones, and are you using them to the fullest?
Some suggestions to improve the readability and maybe performance of the query:
- Use joins
- Use group by
- Use aggregators
Example (untested, so might not work, but should give an impression):
SELECT t2.*
FROM (
SELECT id
FROM ctc_pre_assets
GROUP BY ctcassettag
HAVING createddate = max(createddate)
ORDER BY ctcassettag DESC
) ro
INNER JOIN ctc_pre_assets t2 ON t2.id = ro.lid
ORDER BY id
Using normalization is great, but there are a few caveats where normalization causes more harm than good. This seems like a situation like this, but without your tables infront of me, I can't tell for sure.
Using distinct the way you are doing, I can't help but get the feeling you might not get all relevant results - maybe someone else can confirm or deny this?
It's not that subqueries are all bad, but they tend to create massive scaleability issues if written incorrectly. Make sure you use them the right way (google it?)
Indexes can potentially save you for a bunch of time - if you actually use them. It's not enough to set them up, you have to create queries that actually uses your indexes. Google this as well.
I have a simple report sending framework that basically does the following things:
It performs a SELECT query, it makes some text-formatted tables based on the results, it sends an e-mail, and it performs an UPDATE query.
This system is a generalization of an older one, in which all of the operations were hard coded. However, in pushing all of the logic of what I'd like to do into the SELECT query, I've run across a problem.
Before, I could get most of the information for my text tables by saying:
SELECT Name, Address FROM Databas.Tabl WHERE Status='URGENT';
Then, when I needed an extra number for the e-mail, also do:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Databas.Tabl WHERE Status='URGENT' AND TimeLogged='Noon';
Now, I no longer have the luxury of multiple SELECT queries. What I'd like to do is something like:
SELECT Tabl.Name, Tabl.Address, COUNT(Results.UID) AS Totals
FROM Databas.Tabl
LEFT JOIN Databas.Tabl Results
ON Tabl.UID = Results.UID
AND Results.TimeLogged='Noon'
WHERE Status='URGENT';
This, at least in my head, says to get a total count of all the rows that were SELECTed and also have some conditional.
In reality, though, this gives me the "1140 - Mixing of GROUP columns with no GROUP columns illegal if no GROUP BY" error. The problem is, I don't want to GROUP BY. I want this COUNT to redundantly repeat the number of results that SELECT found whose TimeLogged='Noon'. Or I want to remove the AND clause and include, as a column in the result of the SELECT statement, the number of results that that SELECT statement found.
GROUP BY is not the answer, because that causes it to get the COUNT of only the rows who have the same value in some column. And COUNT might not even be the way to go about this, although it's what comes to mind. FOUND_ROWS() won't do the trick, since it needs to be part of a secondary query, and I only get one (plus there's no LIMIT involved), and ROW_COUNT() doesn't seem to work since it's a SELECT statement.
I may be approaching it from the wrong angle entirely. But what I want to do is get COUNT-type information about the results of a SELECT query, as well as all the other information that the SELECT query returned, in one single query.
=== Here's what I've got so far ===
SELECT Tabl.Name, Tabl.Address, Results.Totals
FROM Databas.Tabl
LEFT JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS Totals, 0 AS Bonus
FROM Databas.Tabl
WHERE TimeLogged='Noon'
GROUP BY NULL) Results
ON 0 = Results.Bonus
WHERE Status='URGENT';
This does use sub-SELECTs, which I was initially hoping to avoid, but now realize that hope may have been foolish. Plus it seems like the COUNTing SELECT sub-queries will be less costly than the main query since the COUNT conditionals are all on one table, but the real SELECT I'm working with has to join on multiple different tables for derived information.
The key realizations are that I can GROUP BY NULL, which will return a single result so that COUNT(*) will actually catch everything, and that I can force a correlation to this column by just faking a Bonus column with 0 on both tables.
It looks like this is the solution I will be using, but I can't actually accept it as an answer until tomorrow. Thanks for all the help.
SELECT Tabl.Name, Tabl.Address, Results.Totals
FROM Databas.Tabl
LEFT JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS Totals, 0 AS Bonus
FROM Databas.Tabl
WHERE TimeLogged='Noon'
GROUP BY NULL) Results
ON 0 = Results.Bonus
WHERE Status='URGENT';
I figured this out thanks to ideas generated by multiple answers, although it's not actually the direct result of any one. Why this does what I need has been explained in the edit of the original post, but I wanted to be able to resolve the question with the proper answer in case anyone else wants to perform this silly kind of operation. Thanks to all who helped.
You could probably do a union instead. You'd have to add a column to the original query and select 0 in it, then UNION that with your second query, which returns a single column. To do that, the second query must also select empty fields to match the first.
SELECT Cnt = 0, Name, Address FROM Databas.Tabl WHERE Status='URGENT'
UNION ALL
SELECT COUNT(*) as Cnt, Name='', Address='' FROM Databas.Tabl WHERE Status='URGENT' AND TimeLogged='Noon';
It's a bit of a hack, but what you're trying to do isn't ideal...
Does this do what you need?
SELECT Tabl.Name ,
Tabl.Address ,
COUNT(Results.UID) AS GrandTotal,
COUNT(CASE WHEN Results.TimeLogged='Noon' THEN 1 END) AS NoonTotal
FROM Databas.Tabl
LEFT JOIN Databas.Tabl Results
ON Tabl.UID = Results.UID
WHERE Status ='URGENT'
GROUP BY Tabl.Name,
Tabl.Address
WITH ROLLUP;
The API you're using to access the database should be able to report to you how many rows were returned - say, if you're running perl, you could do something like this:
my $sth = $dbh->prepare("SELECT Name, Address FROM Databas.Tabl WHERE Status='URGENT'");
my $rv = $sth->execute();
my $rows = $sth->rows;
Grouping by Tabl.id i dont believe would mess up the results. Give it a try and see if thats what you want.