I have a comma delimited list like this saved in a mysql table:
-----------------
|id | list |
-----------------
| 4 |12,45,65,4 |
Each number in "list" corresponds with an ID in another table.
Is there a way so I can query the other table based on theses IDs and bring up those rows associated with the numbers in "list"?
Not any efficient way with your current schema. The correct and most efficient way to do it is to change the schema to hold multiple rows like this:
-----------------
|id | list |
-----------------
| 4 | 12 |
| 4 | 45 |
| 4 | 65 |
| 4 | 4 |
Then you use JOIN operations to connect 4 to every related row in your other table.
This is called database normalization and is a very important topic in database design. Relational database systems are built to handle just this types of problems in an efficient manner.
Related
In short; we are trying to return certain results from one table based on second level criteria of another table.
I have a number of source data tables,
So:
Table DataA:
data_id | columns | stuff....
-----------------------------
1 | here | etc.
2 | here | poop
3 | here | etc.
Table DataB:
data_id | columnz | various....
-----------------------------
1 | there | you
2 | there | get
3 | there | the
4 | there | idea.
Table DataC:
data_id | column_s | others....
-----------------------------
1 | where | you
2 | where | get
3 | where | the
4 | where | idea.
Table DataD: etc. There are more and more will be added ongoing
And a relational table of visits, where there are "visits" to some of these other data rows in these other tables above.
Each of the above tables holds very different sets of data.
The way this is currently structured is like this:
Visits Table:
visit_id | reference | ref_id | visit_data | columns | notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 | DataC | 2 | some data | etc. | so this is a reference
| | | | | to a visit to row id
| | | | | 2 on table DataC
2 | DataC | 3 | some data | etc. | ...
3 | DataB | 4 | more data | etc. | so this is a reference
| | | | | to a visit to row id
| | | | | 4 on table DataB
4 | DataA | 1 | more data | etc. | etc. etc.
5 | DataA | 2 | more data | etc. | you get the idea
Now we currently list the visits by various user given criteria, such as visit date.
however the user can also choose which tables (ie data types) they want to view, so a user has to tick a box to show they want data from DataA table, and DataC table but not DataB, for example.
The SQL we currently have works like this; the column list in the IN conditional is dynamically generated from user choices:
SELECT visit_id,columns, visit_data, notes
FROM visits
WHERE visit_date < :maxDate AND visits.reference IN ('DataA','DataC')
The Issue:
Now, we need to go a step beyond this and list the visits by a sub-criteria of one of the "Data" tables,
So for example, DataA table has a reference to something else, so now the client wants to list all visits to numerous reference types, and IF the type is DataA then to only count the visits if the data in that table fits a value.
For example:
List all visits to DataB and all visits to DataA where DataA.stuff = poop
The way we currently work this is a secondary SQL on the results of the first visit listing, exampled above. This works but is always returning the full table of DataA when we only want to return a subset of DataA but we can't be exclusive about it outside of DataA.
We can't use LEFT JOIN because that doesn't trim the results as needed, we can't use exclusionary joins (RIGHT / INNER) because that then removes anything from DataC or any other table,
We can't find a way to add queries to the WHERE because again, that would loose any data from any other table that is not DataA.
What we kind of need is a JOIN within an IF/CASE clause.
Pseudo SQL:
SELECT visit_id,columns, visit_data, notes
FROM visits
IF(visits.reference = 'DataA')
INNER JOIN DataA ON visits.ref_id = DataA.id AND DataA.stuff = 'poop'
ENDIF
WHERE visit_date < 2020-12-06 AND visits.reference IN ('DataA','DataC')
All criteria in the WHERE clause are set by the user, none are static (This includes the DataA.stuff criteria too).
So with the above example the output would be:
visit_id | reference | ref_id | visit_data | columns | notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 | DataC | 2 | some data | etc. |
2 | DataC | 3 | some data | etc. |
5 | DataA | 1 | more data | etc. |
We can't use Union because the different Data tables contain lots of different details.
Questions:
There may be a very straightforward answer to this but I can't see it,
How can we approach trying to achieve this sort of partial exclusivity?
I suspect that our overarching architecture structure here could be improved (the system complexity has grown organically over a number of years). If so, what could be a better way of building this?
What we kind of need is a JOIN within an IF/CASE clause.
Well, you should know that's not possible in SQL.
Think of this analogy to function calls in a conventional programming language. You're essentially asking for something like:
What we need is a function call that calls a different function depending on the value you pass as a parameter.
As if you could do this:
call $somefunction(argument);
And which $somefunction you call would be determined by the function called, depending on the value of argument. This doesn't make any sense in any programming language.
It is similar in SQL — the tables and columns are fixed at the time the query is parsed. Rows of data are not read until the query is executed. Therefore one can't change the tables depending on the rows executed.
The simplest answer would be that you must run more than one query:
SELECT visit_id,columns, visit_data, notes
FROM visits
INNER JOIN DataA ON visits.ref_id = DataA.id AND DataA.stuff = 'poop'
WHERE visit_date < 2020-12-06 AND visits.reference = 'DataA';
SELECT visit_id,columns, visit_data, notes
FROM visits
WHERE visit_date < 2020-12-06 AND visits.reference = 'DataC';
Not every task must be done in one SQL query. If it's too complex or difficult to combine two tasks into one query, then leave them separate and write code in the client application to combine the results.
I have a table with a column for agent names and a column for each of the skills those agents could possibly have. Each skill the agent is assigned shows a 1 in the field under that skill.
Columns look like this:
+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Name | 'Skill1' | 'Skill2' | 'Skill3' |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| John | 1 | | 1 |
| Sam | 1 | 1 | |
| Roberta | 1 | | 1 |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+
I would like to make a query that returns a list of all agent names that have a 1 for each particular skill. The query would return something like this:
+-----------+
| Skill 1 |
+-----------+
| John |
| Sam |
| Roberta |
+-----------+
Additionally I would like to be able to query a single name and retrieve all skills that agent has (all rows the Name column has a 1 in) like this:
+-----------+
| John |
+-----------+
| Skill 1 |
| Skill 3 |
+-----------+
I've done this in Excel using an index but I'm new to Access and not sure how to complete this task.
Thanks in advance.
One of the reasons that you are finding this task difficult is because your database is not normalised and so due to the way that your database is structured, you are working against MS Access, not with it.
Consequently, whilst a solution is still possible with the current data, the resulting queries will be painful to construct and will either be full of multiple messy iif statements, or several union queries performing the same operations over & over again, one for each 'skill'.
Then, if you every wish to add another Skill to the database, all of your queries have to be rewritten!
Whereas, if your database was normalised (as Gustav has suggested in the comments), the task would be a simple one-liner; and what's more, if you add a new skill later on, your queries will automatically output the results as if the skill had always been there.
Your data has a many-to-many relationship: an agent may have many skills, and a skill may be known by many agents.
As such, the most appropriate way to represent this relationship is using a junction table.
Hence, you would have a table of Agents such as:
tblAgents
+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
| ID | FirstName | LastName | DOB |
+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
| 1 | John | Smith | 1970-01-01 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
This would only contain information unique to each agent, i.e. minimising the repeated information between records in the table.
You would then have a table of possible Skills, such as:
tblSkills
+-----+---------+---------------------+
| ID | Name | Description |
+-----+---------+---------------------+
| 1 | Skill 1 | Skill 1 Description |
| 2 | Skill 2 | Skill 2 Description |
| ... | ... | ... |
+-----+---------+---------------------+
Finally, you would have a junction table linking Agents to Skills, e.g.:
tblAgentSkills
+----+----------+----------+
| ID | Agent_ID | Skill_ID |
+----+----------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | 3 | 2 |
+----+----------+----------+
Now, say you want to find out which agents have Skill 1, the query is simple:
select Agent_ID from tblAgentSkills where Skill_ID = 1
What if you want to find out the skills known by an agent? Equally as simple:
select Skill_ID from tblAgentSkills where Agent_ID = 1
Of course, these queries will merely return the ID fields as present in the junction table - but since the ID uniquely identifies a record in the tblAgents or tblSkills tables, such ID is all you need to retrieve any other required information:
select
tblAgents.FirstName,
tblAgents.LastName
from
tblAgentSkills inner join tblAgents on
tblAgentSkills.AgentID = tblAgents.ID
where
tblAgentSkills.Skill_ID = 1
To get all agents with skill1, open the query designer and create the following query:
this will generate the following sql
SELECT Skills.AgentName
FROM Skills
WHERE (((Skills.Skill1)=1));
If you adjust the names you can also paste this query into the sql pane of the designer to get the query you want.
To get all the skills an agent has I chose a parameterized query. Open the query designer and create a new query:
When you run this query it will ask you for the name of the agent. Make sure to type the agent name exactly. Here is the resulting sql:
SELECT Skills.AgentName, Skills.Skill1, Skills.Skill2, Skills.Skill3
FROM Skills
WHERE (((Skills.AgentName)=[Agent]));
If you continue working with this query I would improve the table design by breaking your table into a skills table, agents table, skills&agents table. Then link the skills and agents tables to the skills&agents table in a many to many relationship. The query to get all an agents skills would then look like this in the designer:
I have a database in mysql which has three rows, these rows has concatenated multiples values(values separated by a comma) already in it. I want to strike the rank using find_in_set function or any better function to get the positions.
Table
id | NUMBERS |
1 | 30,40,10 |
2 | 58,29,21 |
3 | 18,25,51 |
I want to rank each row in this format
id | NUMBERS | POSITION |
1 | 30,40,10 | 2,1,3 |
2 | 58,29,21 | 1,2,3 |
3 | 18,25,51 | 3,2,1 |
I Know the data representation and structure is wrong, but the data i have currently is made like the above and has a lot of data in it, meaning changing the structure would take me a lot of time, although I would change it later.
I need a workaround idea as to how to do this. I would be grateful for your support thanks.
I need help with a Query, i have a table like this:
| ID | codehwos |
| --- | ----------- |
| 1 | 16,17,15,26 |
| 2 | 15,32,12,23 |
| 3 | 53,15,21,26 |
I need an outpout like this:
| codehwos | number_of_this_code |
| -------- | ---------------------- |
| 15 | 3 |
| 17 | 1 |
| 26 | 2 |
I want to sum all the time a code is used in a row.
Can anyone make a query for doing it for all the code in one time?
Thanks
You have a very poor data format. You should not store lists in strings and never store lists of numbers in strings. SQL has a great data structure for storing lists. Hint: it is called a "table" not a "string".
That said, sometimes one is stuck with other people's really poor design choices. We wouldn't make them ourselves, but we still need to get something done. Assuming you have a list of codes, you can do what you want with:
select c.code, count(*)
from codes c join
table t
on find_in_set(c.code, t.codehwos) > 0
group by c.code;
If you have any influence over the data structure, then advocate for a junction table, the right way to store this data in a relational database.
By referring table in the link, I have table category and another table name "package" to store category id.
http://ftp.nchu.edu.tw/MySQL/tech-resources/articles/hierarchical-data.html
Category
+-------------+----------------------+--------+
| category_id | name | parent |
+-------------+----------------------+--------+
| 1 | ELECTRONICS | NULL |
| 2 | TELEVISIONS | 1 |
| 3 | TUBE | 2 |
| 4 | LCD | 2 |
| 5 | PLASMA | 2 |
| 6 | PORTABLE ELECTRONICS | 1 |
| 7 | MP3 PLAYERS | 6 |
| 8 | FLASH | 7 |
| 9 | CD PLAYERS | 6 |
| 10 | 2 WAY RADIOS | 6 |
+-------------+----------------------+--------+
Is there anyway I can left join until there is no parent left without knowing how many times I have to join?
And second question, my table "package" is only storing the last/smallest category id, for example in the table is "7 - FLASH", is that a good practices to only store the last/smallest category id and refer it back by joining the table? Will this action making the database heavy by query it back every time?
Thanks in advance!
It is not possible to do such queries in MySQL.
If you need to keep this database structure, then the fastest approach is likely to select the relevant data from the table and then process the data client-side into the approach array/join.
The above may not work well if you cannot sufficiently narrow down the number of rows to SELECT out, in which case, recursively running multiple queries may be faster. On your second query, the best approach is to do something like WHERE id IN (list_of_parent_values) rather than 1 query per parent.
Lastly if you can change your data structure, there is a way of using special tree column values to efficiently select all of the nodes out with a single SQL query. Some more work is required to insert and re-organise the tree however.
There are a number of slightly differing implementations of this, see here for one such discussion:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110606032941/http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/hierarchical-data.html
awesome_nested_set is also a ruby implementation of this pattern:
https://github.com/collectiveidea/awesome_nested_set