I just came across this database query and wonder what exactly this query does..Please clarify ..
select * from tablename order by priority='High' DESC, priority='Medium' DESC, priority='Low" DESC;
Looks like it'll order the priority by High, Medium then Low.
Because if the order by clause was just priority DESC then it would do it alphabetical, which would give
Medium
Low
High
It basically lists all fields from the table "tablename" and ordered by priority High, Medium, Low.
So High appears first in the list, then Medium, and then finally Low
i.e.
* High
* High
* High
* Medium
* Medium
* Low
Where * is the rest of the fields in the table
Others have already explained what id does (High comes first, then Medium, then Low). I'll just add a few words about WHY that is so.
The reason is that the result of a comparison in MySQL is an integer - 1 if it's true, 0 if it's false. And you can sort by integers, so this construct works. I'm not sure this would fly on other RDBMS though.
Added: OK, a more detailed explanation. First of all, let's start with how ORDER BY works.
ORDER BY takes a comma-separated list of arguments which it evalutes for every row. Then it sorts by these arguments. So, for example, let's take the classical example:
SELECT * from MyTable ORDER BY a, b, c desc
What ORDER BY does in this case, is that it gets the full result set in memory somewhere, and for every row it evaluates the values of a, b and c. Then it sorts it all using some standard sorting algorithm (such as quicksort). When it needs to compare two rows to find out which one comes first, it first compares the values of a for both rows; if those are equal, it compares the values of b; and, if those are equal too, it finally compares the values of c. Pretty simple, right? It's what you would do too.
OK, now let's consider something trickier. Take this:
SELECT * from MyTable ORDER BY a+b, c-d
This is basically the same thing, except that before all the sorting, ORDER BY takes every row and calculates a+b and c-d and stores the results in invisible columns that it creates just for sorting. Then it just compares those values like in the previous case. In essence, ORDER BY creates a table like this:
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| Some columns here | A | B | C | D | A+B | C-D |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | -1 |
| | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 15 | 1 |
| | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+
And then sorts the whole thing by the last two columns, which it discards afterwards. You don't even see them it your result set.
OK, something even weirder:
SELECT * from MyTable ORDER BY CASE WHEN a=b THEN c ELSE D END
Again - before sorting is performed, ORDER BY will go through each row, calculate the value of the expression CASE WHEN a=b THEN c ELSE D END and store it in an invisible column. This expression will always evaluate to some value, or you get an exception. Then it just sorts by that column which contains simple values, not just a fancy formula.
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------------------------------+
| Some columns here | A | B | C | D | CASE WHEN a=b THEN c ELSE D END |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------------------------------+
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| | 3 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 6 |
| | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------------------------------+
Hopefully you are now comfortable with this part. If not, re-read it or ask for more examples.
Next thing is the boolean expressions. Or rather the boolean type, which for MySQL happens to be an integer. In other words SELECT 2>3 will return 0 and SELECT 2<3 will return 1. That's just it. The boolean type is an integer. And you can do integer stuff with it too. Like SELECT (2<3)+5 will return 6.
OK, now let's put all this together. Let's take your query:
select * from tablename order by priority='High' DESC, priority='Medium' DESC, priority='Low" DESC;
What happens is that ORDER BY sees a table like this:
+-------------------+----------+-----------------+-------------------+----------------+
| Some columns here | priority | priority='High' | priority='Medium' | priority='Low' |
+-------------------+----------+-----------------+-------------------+----------------+
| | Low | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| | High | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | Medium | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | Low | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| | High | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | Low | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| | Medium | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | High | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | Medium | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | Low | 0 | 0 | 1 |
+-------------------+----------+-----------------+-------------------+----------------+
And it then sorts by the last three invisble columns which are discarded later.
Does it make sense now?
(P.S. In reality, of course, there are no invisible columns and the whole thing is made much trickier to get good speed, using indexes if possible and other stuff. However it is much easier to understand the process like this. It's not wrong either.)
Related
I have this table structure:
// mytable
+----+------+-------+-------------+
| id | type | score | unix_time |
+----+------+-------+-------------+
| 1 | 1 | 5 | 1463508841 |
| 2 | 1 | 10 | 1463508842 |
| 3 | 2 | 5 | 1463508843 |
| 4 | 1 | 5 | 1463508844 |
| 5 | 2 | 15 | 1463508845 |
| 6 | 1 | 10 | 1463508846 |
+----+------+-------+-------------+
And here is my query:
SELECT SUM(score), unix_time
FROM mytable
WHERE 1
GROUP BY type
And here is the output:
+-------+-------------+
| score | unix_time |
+-------+-------------+
| 30 | 1463508841 |
| 20 | 1463508843 |
+-------+-------------+
Ok, all fine .. Just there is a thing: Professional people suggest me to write unix_time into GROUP BY. They believe doing that is the base of grouping and aggregate function.
Well why really should I write a (almost) unique column into GROUP BY? If I do that then each row will be a separated group and there will be a lot of extra rows which are useless:
+-------+-------------+
| score | unix_time |
+-------+-------------+
| 30 | 1463508841 |
| 30 | 1463508842 |
| 20 | 1463508843 |
| 30 | 1463508844 |
| 20 | 1463508845 |
| 30 | 1463508846 |
+-------+-------------+
See? There is a lot of extra rows. So why doing that is an standard thing? Why everybody tell me MySQL does work without doing that but no database else doesn't .. Well I really don't understand why should I do that ..!
May please someone make it clear for me and explain me how GROUP BY works exactly? Is that different than my understanding?
Not having unix_time in the GROUP BY clause is a non-standard MySQL hack that I would totally stay away from. The values for unix_type across all the rows with the same type are completely different. How do you know which unix_time should appear?
In your example, you seem perfectly content to use a completely arbitrary value of unix_time per group.
However this is a recipe for disaster. What does it even mean to pick some totally arbitrary value from a group? What if the unix_times were spread out by days or weeks or even years? Which one would you take then?
The reason the pros are telling you to put it in the group by clause is so that the result makes sense! Another approach is to leave unix_time out of the select completely, as the result you are getting shouldn't be relied upon.
Maybe you need something like this:
SELECT type,
SUM(score) as sum_of_score,
MIN(unix_time) as start_unix_time,
MAX(unix_time) as end_unix_time
FROM mytable
WHERE 1
GROUP BY type
Given a structure like this in a MySQL database
#data_table
(id) | user_id | time | (...)
#relations_table
(id) | user_id | user_coach_id | (...)
we can select all data_table rows belonging to a certain user_coach_id (let's say 1) with
SELECT rel.`user_coach_id`, dat.*
FROM `relations_table` rel
LEFT JOIN `data_table` dat ON rel.`uid` = dat.`uid`
WHERE rel.`user_coach_id` = 1
ORDER BY val.`time` DESC
returning something like
| user_coach_id | id | user_id | time | data1 | data2 | ...
| 1 | 9 | 4 | 15 | foo | bar | ...
| 1 | 7 | 3 | 12 | oof | rab | ...
| 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | ofo | abr | ...
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | foo | bra | ...
(And so on. Of course time are not integers in reality but to keep it simple.)
But now I would like to query (ideally) only up to an arbitrary number of rows from data_table per distinct user_id but still have those ordered (i.e. newest first). Is that even possible?
I know I can use GROUP BY user_id to only return 1 row per user, but then the ordering doesn't work and it seems kind of unpredictable which row will be in the result. I guess it's doable with a subquery, but I haven't figured it out yet.
To limit the number of rows in each GROUP is complicated. It is probably best done with an #variable to count, plus an outer query to throw out the rows beyond the limit.
My blog on Groupwise Max gives some hints of how to do such.
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.
Some background: an 'image' is part of one 'photoshoot', and may be a part of zero or many 'galleries'. My tables:
'shoots' table:
+----+--------------+
| id | name |
+----+--------------+
| 1 | Test shoot |
| 2 | Another test |
| 3 | Final test |
+----+--------------+
'images' table:
+----+-------------------+------------------+
| id | original_filename | storage_location |
+----+-------------------+------------------+
| 1 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
| 2 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
| 3 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
+----+-------------------+------------------+
'shoot_images' table:
+----------+----------+
| shoot_id | image_id |
+----------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
+----------+----------+
'gallery_images' table:
+------------+----------+
| gallery_id | image_id |
+------------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 |
+------------+----------+
What I'd like to get back, so I can say 'For this photoshoot, there are X images in total, and these images are featured in Y galleries:
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| id | name | image_count | gallery_count |
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| 3 | Final test | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Another test | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | Test shoot | 2 | 4 |
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
I'm currently trying the SQL below, which appears to work correctly but only ever returns one row. I can't work out why this is happening. Curiously, the below also returns a row even when 'shoots' is empty.
SELECT shoots.id,
shoots.name,
COUNT(DISTINCT shoot_images.image_id) AS image_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT gallery_images.gallery_id) AS gallery_count
FROM shoots
LEFT JOIN shoot_images ON shoots.id=shoot_images.shoot_id
LEFT JOIN gallery_images ON shoot_images.image_id=gallery_images.image_id
ORDER BY shoots.id DESC
Thanks for taking the time to look at this :)
You are missing the GROUP BY clause:
SELECT
shoots.id,
shoots.name,
COUNT(DISTINCT shoot_images.image_id) AS image_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT gallery_images.gallery_id) AS gallery_count
FROM shoots
LEFT JOIN shoot_images ON shoots.id=shoot_images.shoot_id
LEFT JOIN gallery_images ON shoot_images.image_id=gallery_images.image_id
GROUP BY 1, 2 -- Added this line
ORDER BY shoots.id DESC
Note: The SQL standard allows GROUP BY to be given either column names or column numbers, so GROUP BY 1, 2 is equivalent to GROUP BY shoots.id, shoots.name in this case. There are many who consider this "bad coding practice" and advocate always using the column names, but I find it makes the code a lot more readable and maintainable and I've been writing SQL since before many users on this site were born, and it's never cause me a problem using this syntax.
FYI, the reason you were getting one row before, and not getting and error, is that in mysql, unlike any other database I know, you are allowed to omit the group by clause when using aggregating functions. In such cases, instead of throwing a syntax exception, mysql returns the first row for each unique combination of non-aggregate columns.
Although at first this may seem abhorrent to SQL purists, it can be incredibly handy!
You should look into the MySQL function group by.
I have a table with the following (simplified) structure:
INT id,
INT type,
INT sort
What I need is a SELECT that sorts my data in a way, so that:
all rows of the same type are in sequency, sorted ascendingly by sort internally, and
all "blocks" of one type are sorted by their minimum sort.
Example:
If the table looks like this:
| id | type | sort |
| 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 |
| 6 | 2 | 6 |
The query should sort the result like this:
| id | type | sort |
| 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 |
| 6 | 2 | 6 |
I hope this makes it clear enough.
Looks to me, as this should be a very common requirement, but I didn't find any examples close enough to be able to transfer it to my use case on my own. I suppose I can't avoid at least one subquery, but I didn't figure it out on my own.
Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance.
By the way: I'm going to use this query with CakePHP 2.1, so if you know of a comfortable way to do it with Cake, please let me know.
This is simpler than it initially sounds. I believe the following should do the trick:
SELECT a.id, a.type, a.sort
FROM Some_Table as a
JOIN (SELECT type, MIN(sort) as min
FROM Some_Table
GROUP BY type) as b
ON b.type = a.type
ORDER BY b.min, a.type, a.sort
For best (fastest) results, you're probably going to want an index on (type, sort).
You want an additional sort by a.type (instead of (b.min, a.sort)), in case there are two groups with the same sort value (would result in mixed rows). If there are no duplicate values, you can remove it.
sort and type are reserved words on some databases and can cause you problems.
Have you tried?
ORDER BY TYPE DESC, SORT ASC