I need help with a SQL query.
I have a table with a 'state' column. 0 means closed and 1 means opened.
Different users want to be notified after there have been x consecutive 1 events.
With an SQL query, how can I tell if the last x rows of 'state' = 1?
If, for example, you want to check if the last 5 consecutive rows have a state equals to 1, then here's you could probably do it :
SELECT IF(SUM(x.state) = 5, 1, 0) AS is_consecutive
FROM (
SELECT state
FROM table
WHERE Processor = 3
ORDER BY Status_datetime DESC
LIMIT 5
) as x
If is_consecutive = 1, then, yes, there is 5 last consecutive rows with state = 1.
Edit : As suggested in the comments, you'll have to use ORDER BY in your query, to get the last nth rows.
And for more accuracy, since you have a timestamp column, you should use Status_datetime to order the rows.
You should be able to use something like this (replace the number in the HAVING with the value of x you want to check for):
SELECT Processor, OpenCount FROM
(
SELECT TOP 10 Processor, DateTime, Sum(Status) AS OpenCount
FROM YourTable
WHERE Processor = 3
ORDER BY DateTime DESC
) HAVING OpenCount >= 10
Related
What I'm trying to do is get the Next and Previous values in SQL.
In this example I'd always know the current value.
This is how my table is laid out.
id
parentID
appID
Name
19410
18371
2da4
name600
19410
18371
4ac0
name24
19410
18371
348e
name441
So my goal is for example get the next/previous value from the current.
So if the current is test2, I'd get test3 back.
I have looked into using offset + limit but I don't think that allows you to select a current starting point.
I cannot store an array as I don't want it to be slow either.
This differs from other questions as I do not have a iterable value as for example name won't always be test1, test2, test3.
My version is 8.0.19 - MySQL Community Server - GPL
For efficiency, you will need INDEX(name) (or some index starting with name)
To get the next row based on "name":
SELECT ...
FROM ...
WHERE name > 'test2'
ORDER BY name ASC
LIMIT 1
For Previous, change 2 things:
SELECT ...
FROM ...
WHERE name < 'test2'
ORDER BY name DESC
LIMIT 1
To get both at the same time:
( SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE name > 'test2' ORDER BY name ASC LIMIT 1 )
UNION ALL
( SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE name < 'test2' ORDER BY name DESC LIMIT 1 )
This will be a lot faster than LEAD and LAG or Cursors.
I have the following table as an example:
numbers type
--------------
1 1
5 2
6 1
8 2
9 3
14 2
3 1
From this table I would like to select the closest number that is less or equal to 5 AND of type 1 and if there is no such row matching, then (and only then) I would like to return the first closest number larger than 5 of type 2
I can solve this by running two queries:
SELECT number FROM numbers WHERE number <= 5 AND type = 1 ORDER BY number LIMIT 1
and if above query returns 0 results, I simply run the second query:
SELECT number FROM numbers WHERE number > 5 AND type = 2 ORDER BY number LIMIT 1
But is it possible, to achieve the same result by only using one query?
I was thinking something like
SELECT number FROM numbers WHERE (number <= 5 AND type = 1) OR (number > 5 AND type = 2) ORDER BY number LIMIT 1
But that would only work, if mysql first checks the first conditional in the parentheses against all rows and if it finds a match, it returns it, and if not, then it checks all rows against the second parenthesed conditional. It will not work, if it checks each row against both parentheses and only then moves to the next row, which is how I suspect it works.
This query will do what you want. It selects all numbers that match your two query constraints, and orders the results first by type (so that if there is a result for type 1 it will appear first) and then by either -number or number dependent on type (so that numbers <= 5 sort in descending order but numbers > 5 sort in ascending order):
SELECT number
FROM numbers
WHERE ( number <= 5 AND type = 1 )
OR ( number > 5 AND type = 2 )
ORDER BY type, CASE WHEN type = 1 THEN -number ELSE number END
LIMIT 1
Output:
3
Demo on dbfiddle
Combine the two, and you always prefer type 1 over type 2, hence the ORDER BY and LIMIT. The ABS means whichever is first by type, is the closes to the number 5.
SELECT number, type
FROM numbers
WHERE (number <=5 AND type=1) OR
(number > 5 AND type=2)
ORDER BY type ASC, ABS(number-5) ASC
LIMIT 1
I have the following query which takes about 28 seconds on my machine. I would like to optimize it and know if there is any way to make it faster by creating some indexes.
select rr1.person_id as person_id, rr1.t1_value, rr2.t0_value
from (select r1.person_id, avg(r1.avg_normalized_value1) as t1_value
from (select ma1.person_id, mn1.store_name, avg(mn1.normalized_value) as avg_normalized_value1
from matrix_report1 ma1, matrix_normalized_notes mn1
where ma1.final_value = 1
and (mn1.normalized_value != 0.2
and mn1.normalized_value != 0.0 )
and ma1.user_id = mn1.user_id
and ma1.request_id = mn1.request_id
and ma1.request_id = 4 group by ma1.person_id, mn1.store_name) r1
group by r1.person_id) rr1
,(select r2.person_id, avg(r2.avg_normalized_value) as t0_value
from (select ma.person_id, mn.store_name, avg(mn.normalized_value) as avg_normalized_value
from matrix_report1 ma, matrix_normalized_notes mn
where ma.final_value = 0 and (mn.normalized_value != 0.2 and mn.normalized_value != 0.0 )
and ma.user_id = mn.user_id
and ma.request_id = mn.request_id
and ma.request_id = 4
group by ma.person_id, mn.store_name) r2
group by r2.person_id) rr2
where rr1.person_id = rr2.person_id
Basically, it aggregates data depending on the request_id and final_value (0 or 1). Is there a way to simplify it for optimization? And it would be nice to know which columns should be indexed. I created an index on user_id and request_id, but it doesn't help much.
There are about 4907424 rows on matrix_report1 and 335740 rows on matrix_normalized_notes table. These tables will grow as we have more requests.
First, the others are right about knowing better how to format your samples. Also, trying to explain in plain language what you are trying to do is also a benefit. With sample data and sample result expectations is even better.
However, that said, I think it can be significantly simplified. Your queries are almost completely identical with the exception of the one field of "final_value" = 1 or 0 respectively. Since each query will result in 1 record per "person_id", you can just do the average based on a CASE/WHEN AND remove the rest.
To help optimize the query, your matrix_report1 table should have an index on ( request_id, final_value, user_id ). Your matrix_normalized_notes table should have an index on ( request_id, user_id, store_name, normalized_value ).
Since your outer query is doing the average based on an per stores averages, you do need to keep it nested. The following should help.
SELECT
r1.person_id,
avg(r1.ANV1) as t1_value,
avg(r1.ANV0) as t0_value
from
( select
ma1.person_id,
mn1.store_name,
avg( case when ma1.final_value = 1
then mn1.normalized_value end ) as ANV1,
avg( case when ma1.final_value = 0
then mn1.normalized_value end ) as ANV0
from
matrix_report1 ma1
JOIN matrix_normalized_notes mn1
ON ma1.request_id = mn1.request_id
AND ma1.user_id = mn1.user_id
AND NOT mn1.normalized_value in ( 0.0, 0.2 )
where
ma1.request_id = 4
AND ma1.final_Value in ( 0, 1 )
group by
ma1.person_id,
mn1.store_name) r1
group by
r1.person_id
Notice the inner query is pulling all transactions for the final value as either a zero OR one. But then, the AVG is based on a case/when of the respective value for the normalized value. When the condition is NOT the 1 or 0 respectively, the result is NULL and is thus not considered when the average is computed.
So at this point, it is grouped on a per-person basis already with each store and Avg1 and Avg0 already set. Now, roll these values up directly per person regardless of the store. Again, NULL values should not be considered as part of the average computation. So, if Store "A" doesn't have a value in the Avg1, it should not skew the results. Similarly if Store "B" doesnt have a value in Avg0 result.
I have a table with the following columns:
id | revisit (bool) | FL (decimal) | FR (decimal) | RL (decimal) | RR (decimal) | date
I need to write a SELECT statement that will ORDER BY on multiple columns, depending on the value of the 'revisit' field.
ORDER BY 'revisit' DESC - records with this field having the value 1 will be first, and 0 will be after
If 'revisit' = 1 order by the lowest value that exists in FL, FR, RL and RR. So if record 1 has values 4.6, 4.6, 3.0, 5.0 in these fields, and record 2 has values 4.0, 3.1, 3.9, and 2.8 then record 2 will be returned first as it holds a lowest value within these four columns.
If 'revisit' = 0 then order by date - oldest date will be first.
So far I have the 'revisit' alone ordering correctly, and ordering by date if 'revisit' = 0, but ordering by the four columns simultaneously when 'revisit' = 1 does not.
SELECT *
FROM vehicle
ORDER BY
`revisit` DESC,
CASE WHEN `revisit` = 1 THEN `FL` + `FR` + `RR` + `RL` END ASC,
CASE WHEN `revisit` = 0 THEN `date` END ASC
Instead it seems to be ordering by the total of the four columns (which would make sense given addition symbols), so how do I ORDER BY these columns simultaneously, as individual columns, rather than a sum.
I hope this makes sense and thanks!
In your current query, you order by the sum of the four columns. You can use least to get the lowest value, so your order by clause could look like:
SELECT *
FROM vehicle
ORDER BY
`revisit` DESC,
CASE WHEN `revisit` = 1 THEN LEAST(`FL`, `FR`, `RR`, `RL`) END ASC,
CASE WHEN `revisit` = 0 THEN `date` END ASC
Of course this would sort only by the lowest value. If two rows would both share the same lowest value, there is no sorting on the second-lowest value. To do that is quite a bit harder, and I didn't really get from your question whether you need that.
I want to count from the row with the least value to the row with a specific value.
For example,
Name / Point
--------------------
Pikachu / 7
Voltorb / 1
Abra / 4
Sunflora / 3
Squirtle / 8
Snorlax / 12
I want to count to the 7, so I get the returned result of '4' (counting the rows with values 1, 3, 4, 7)
I know I should use count() or mysql_num_rows() but I can't think of the specifics.
Thanks.
I think you want this :
select count(*) from mytable where Point<=7;
Count(*) counts all rows in a set.
If you're working with MySQL, then you could ORDER BY Point:
SELECT count(*) FROM table WHERE Point < 7 ORDER BY Point ASC
If you want to know all about ORDER BY, check out the w3schools page: http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_orderby.asp
Just in case you want to only count the rows based on the Point values:
SELECT count(*) FROM table WHERE Point < 7 GROUP BY Point
This may help you to get rows falling between range of values :
select count(*) from table where Point >= least_value and Point<= max_value