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)
Related
SELECT column_1 FROM table_1,table_2;
When I ran this on my database it returned huge number of rows with duplicate column_1 values. I could not understand why I got these results. Please explain what this query does.
it gives you a cross product from table 1 and table 2
In more layman's terms, it means that for each record in Table A, you get every record from Table B (all possible combinations).
TableA with 3 records and Table B with 3 records gives 9 total records in the result:
TableA-1/B-1
TableA-1/B-2
TableA-1/B-3
TableA-2/B-1
TableA-2/B-2
TableA-2/B-3
TableA-3/B-1
TableA-3/B-2
TableA-3/B-3
Often used as a basis for Cartesian Queries (which themselves are the means to generate, say, a list of future dates based on a recurrence schedule: give me all possible results for the next 6 months, then restrict that set to those whose factor matches my day of the week)
This is 'valid' way of cross joining two tables; it is not the preferred way though. Cross Join would be much clearer. An on condition would then be helpful to limit results,
Imagine that i have 3 friends named Jhon, Ana, Nick; then i have in the other table 2 are T-shirts a red and a yellow and i wanna know witch is from.
So in the query being tableA:Friends and tableB:Tshirts returns:
1|JHON | t-shirt_YELLOW
2|JHON | t-shirt_RED
3|ANA | t-shirt_YELLOW
4|ANA | t-shirt_RED
5|NICK | t-shirt_YELLOW
6|NICK | t-shirt_RED
As you see this join has no relational logic between friends and Tshirts so by evaluating all the posible combination generates what you call duplicates.
I have very limited experience with MySQL past standard queries, but when it comes to joins and relations between multiple tables I have a bit of an issue.
I've been tasked with creating a job that will pull a few values from a mysql database every 15 minutes but the info it needs to display is pulled from multiple tables.
I have worked with it for a while to figure out the relationships between everything for the phone system and I have discovered how I need to pull everything out but I'm trying to find the right way to create the job to do the joins.
I'm thinking of creating a new table for the info I need, with columns named as:
Extension | Total Talk Time | Total Calls | Outbound Calls | Inbound Calls | Missed Calls
I know that I need to start with the extension ID from my 'user' table and match it with 'extensionID' in my 'callSession'. There may be multiple instances of each extensionID but each instance creates a new 'UniqueCallID'.
The 'UniqueCallID' field then matches to 'UniqueCallID' in my 'CallSum' table. At that point, I just need to be able to say "For each 'uniqueCallID' that is associated with the same 'extensionID', get the sum of all instances in each column or a count of those instances".
Here is an example of what I need it to do:
callSession Table
UniqueCallID | extensionID |
----------------------------
A 123
B 123
C 123
callSum table
UniqueCallID | Duration | Answered |
------------------------------------
A 10 1
B 5 1
C 15 0
newReport table
Extension | Total Talk Time | Total Calls | Missed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
123 30 3 1
Hopefully that conveys my idea properly.
If I create a table to hold these values, I need to know how I would select, join and insert those things based on that diagram but I'm unable to construct the right query/statement.
You simply JOIN the two tables, and do a group by on the extensionID. Also, add formulas to summarize and gather the info.
SELECT
`extensionID` AS `Extension`,
SUM(`Duration`) AS `Total Talk Time`,
COUNT(DISTINCT `UniqueCallID`) as `Total Calls`,
SUM(IF(`Answered` = 1,0,1)) AS `Missed Calls`
FROM `callSession` a
JOIN `callSum` b
ON a.`UniqueCallID` = b.`UniqueCallID`
GROUP BY a.`extensionID`
ORDER BY a.`extensionID`
You can use a join and group by
select
a.extensionID
, sum(b.Duration) as Total_Talk_Time
, count(b.Answered) as Total_Calls
, count(b.Answered) -sum(b.Answered) as Missed_calls
from callSession as a
inner join callSum as b on a.UniqueCallID = b.UniqueCallID
group by a.extensionID
This should do the trick. What you are being asked to do is to aggregate the number of and duration of calls. Unless explicitly requested, you do not need to create a new table to do this. The right combination of JOINs and AGGREGATEs will get the information you need. This should be pretty straightforward... the only semi-interesting part is calculating the number of missed calls, which is accomplished here using a "CASE" statement as a conditional check on whether each call was answered or not.
Pardon my syntax... My experience is with SQL Server.
SELECT CS.Extension, SUM(CA.Duration) [Total Talk Time], COUNT(CS.UniqueCallID) [Total Calls], SUM(CASE CS.Answered WHEN '0' THEN SELECT 1 ELSE SELECT 0 END CASE) [Missed Calls]
FROM callSession CS
INNER JOIN callSum CA ON CA.UniqueCallID = CS.UniqueCallID
GROUP BY CS.Extension
I have the following situation. I have a table with all info of article. I will like to compare the same column with it self. because I have multiple type of article. Single product and Master product. the only way that I have to differences it, is by SKU. for example.
ID | SKU
1 | 11111
2 | 11112
3 | 11113
4 | 11113-5
5 | 11113-8
6 | 11114
7 | 11115
8 | 11115-1-W
9 | 11115-2
10 | 11116
I only want to list or / and count only the sku that are full unique. follow th example the sku that are unique and no have variant are (ID = 1, 2, 6 and 10) I will want to create a query where if 11113 are again on the column not cout it. so in total I will be 4 unique sku and not "6 (on total)". Please let me know. if this are possible.
Assuming the length of master SKUs are 5 characters, try this:
select a.*
from mytable a
left join mytable b on b.sku like concat(a.sku, '%')
where length(a.sku) = 5
and b.sku is null
This query joins master SKUs to child ones, but filters out successful joins - leaving only solitary master SKUs.
You can do this by grouping and counting the unique rows.
First, we will need to take your table and add a new column, MasterSKU. This will be the first five characters of the SKU column. Once we have the MasterSKU, we can then GROUP BY it. This will bundle together all of the rows having the same MasterSKU. Once we are grouping we get access to aggregate functions like COUNT(). We will use that function to count the number of rows for each MasterSKU. Then, we will filter out any rows that have a COUNT() over 1. That will leave you with only the unique rows remaining.
Take that unique list and LEFT JOIN it back into your original table to grab the IDs.
SELECT ID, A.MasterSKU
FROM (
SELECT
MasterSKU = SUBSTRING(SKU,1,5),
MasterSKUCount = COUNT(*)
FROM MyTable
GROUP BY SUBSTRING(SKU,1,5)
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1
) AS A
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT
ID,
MasterSKU = SUBSTRING(SKU,1,5)
FROM MyTable
) AS B
ON A.MasterSKU = B.MasterSKU
Now one thing I noticed from you example. The original SKU column really looks like three columns in one. We have multiple values being joined with hypens.
11115-1-W
There may be a reason for it, but most likely this violates first normal form and will make the database hard to query. It's part of the reason why such a complicated query is needed. If the SKU column really represents multiple things then we may want to consider breaking it out into MasterSKU, Version, and Color or whatever each hyphen represents.
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.
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.