I have a list of locations in a table. The first position begin in '2' and finish in '8', the second position begin in letter 'A' and finish in 'P' . Finally every location has seven elements like this example:
SELECT Location FROM WAREHOUSE_LOCATIONS
Location |
---------|
2A-1 |
2A-2 |
2A-3 |
2A-4 |
2A-5 |
2A-6 |
2A-7 |
2B-1 |
2B-2 |
2B-3 |
2B-4 |
2B-5 |
2B-6 |
2B-7 |
2C-1 |
...
3A-1 |
...
4A-1 |
...
etc...
I want to order this locations like this:
Location |
---------|
2A-1 |
2B-1 |
2C-1 |
2D-1 |
....
2P-1 |
2A-2 |
2B-2 |
2C-2 |
...
2P-2 |
2A-3 |
2B-3 |
2C-3 |
How can i do that?
You could do:
ORDER BY CAST(RIGHT(Location, LEN(Location) - CHARINDEX('-', Location)) AS INT),
LEFT(Location, CHARINDEX('-', Location) - 1)
Related
my google sheet excel document contain data like this
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | A | B | C | D | E |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 | | c | | x | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 2 | | r | | 4 | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 3 | | | | m | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 4 | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Column B and D contain data provided by IMPORTRANGE function, which are store in different files.
And i would like to fill column A with first not empty value in row, in other words: desired result must look like this:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | A | B | C | D | E |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 | c | c | | x | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 2 | r | r | | 4 | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 3 | m | | | m | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 4 | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
I tried ISBLANK function, but apperantly if column is imported then, even if the value is empty, is not blank, so this function dosn't work for my case. Then i tried QUERY function in 2 different variant:
1) =QUERY({B1;D1}; "select Col1 where Col1 is not null limit 1"; 0) but result in this case is wrong when row contain cells with numbers. Result with this query is following:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | A | B | C | D | E |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 | c | c | | x | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 2 | 4 | r | | 4 | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 3 | m | | | m | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 4 | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2) =QUERY({B1;D1};"select Col1 where Col1 <> '' limit 1"; 0) / =QUERY({B1;D1};"select Col1 where Col1 != '' limit 1"; 0) and this dosn't work at all, result is always #N/A
Also i would like to avoid using nested IFs and javascript scripts, if possible, as solution with QUERY function suits for my case best due to easy expansion to another columns without any deeper knowladge about programming. Is there any way how to make it simply, just with QUERY, and i am just missing something, or i have to use IFs/javascript?
try:
=ARRAYFORMULA(SUBSTITUTE(INDEX(IFERROR(SPLIT(TRIM(TRANSPOSE(QUERY(
TRANSPOSE(SUBSTITUTE(B:G, " ", "♦")),,99^99))), " ")),,1), "♦", " "))
selective columns:
I have a SQLite table, in which there are some Rows which differ in just one column.
I want to merge the entrys in this Column with a seperator (line break in my case).
So, this:
| id | block | description|
------------------------------
| 1 | a | foo |
| 1 | a | bar |
| 3 | b | cat |
| 4 | c | mouse |
------------------------------
Should become this:
| id | block | description|
------------------------------
| 1 | a | foo \r\n bar|
| 3 | b | cat |
| 4 | c | mouse |
------------------------------
I don't even have an Idea what to search for (instead of "merge", but I couldn't find anything suitable for my application), so any Input would be appreciated.
Jann
I think you are looking for group_concat():
select id, block, group_concat(description, ' \r\n ')
from t
group by id, block;
I got a problem that I have already created a solution for, but I'm wondering if there's a better way of solving the problem. Basically I have to create a flag for certain scenarios under a partition of ID and date. My solution involved mapping for all the possible scenarios, then creating "case when" statements for all these scenarios with the specific outcome. Basically, I was the one that created the outcomes. I am wondering if there's another way, something around letting SQL create the outcomes instead of myself.
Thanks a lot!
Background:
+----+-----------+--------+-------+------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ID | Month | Status | Value | Flag | Scenario Number | Scenario Description |
+----+-----------+--------+-------+------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | 1/01/2016 | First | 123 | No | 1 | First, second and blank exists. Do not flag |
| 1 | 1/01/2016 | Second | 456 | No | 1 | First, second and blank exists. Do not flag |
| 1 | 1/01/2016 | | 789 | No | 1 | First, second and blank exists. Do not flag |
| 1 | 1/02/2016 | Second | 123 | Yes | 2 | First does not exist, two second but have different values. Flag these as Yes |
| 1 | 1/02/2016 | Second | 456 | Yes | 2 | First does not exist, two second but have different values. Flag these as Yes |
| 1 | 1/02/2016 | Second | 123 | No | 3 | First does not exist, two second have same values. Do not flag |
| 1 | 1/02/2016 | Second | 123 | No | 3 | First does not exist, two second have same values. Do not flag |
| 1 | 1/03/2016 | Second | 123 | No | 4 | Only one entry of Second exist. Do no flag |
| 1 | 1/04/2016 | | 123 | Yes | 5 | Two blanks for the partition. Flag these as Yes |
| 1 | 1/04/2016 | | 123 | Yes | 5 | Two blanks for the partition. Flag these as Yes |
| 1 | 1/05/2016 | | | No | 6 | Only one entry of blank exist. Do not flag these |
| 1 | 1/06/2016 | First | 123 | Yes | 7 | First exist for the partition. Do not flag |
| 1 | 1/06/2016 | | 456 | Yes | 7 | First exist for the partition. Do not flag |
| 1 | 1/07/2016 | Second | 123 | Yes | 8 | First does not exist and second and blank do not have the same value. Flag these. |
| 1 | 1/07/2016 | | 456 | Yes | 8 | First does not exist and second and blank do not have the same value. Flag these. |
| 1 | 1/07/2016 | Second | 123 | Yes | 8 | First does not exist and second and blank have the same value. Flag these. |
| 1 | 1/07/2016 | | 123 | Yes | 8 | First does not exist and second and blank have the same value. Flag these. |
+----+-----------+--------+-------+------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Data:
+----+-----------+-------+----------+---------------+
| ID | Month | Value | Priority | Expected_Flag |
+----+-----------+-------+----------+---------------+
| 1 | 1/01/2016 | 96.01 | | Yes |
| 1 | 1/01/2016 | 96.01 | | Yes |
| 1 | 1/02/2016 | 65.2 | First | No |
| 1 | 1/02/2016 | 3.47 | Second | No |
| 1 | 1/02/2016 | 45.99 | | No |
| 11 | 1/01/2016 | 25 | | No |
| 11 | 1/02/2016 | 74.25 | Second | No |
| 11 | 1/02/2016 | 74.25 | Second | No |
| 11 | 1/02/2016 | 23.25 | | No |
| 24 | 1/01/2016 | 1.25 | First | No |
| 24 | 1/01/2016 | 1.365 | | No |
| 24 | 1/04/2016 | 1.365 | First | No |
| 24 | 1/04/2016 | 1.365 | | No |
| 24 | 1/05/2016 | 1.365 | First | No |
| 24 | 1/05/2016 | 1.365 | First | No |
| 24 | 1/06/2016 | 1.365 | Second | No |
| 24 | 1/06/2016 | 1.365 | Second | No |
| 24 | 1/07/2016 | 1.365 | Second | Yes |
| 24 | 1/07/2016 | 1.365 | | Yes |
| 24 | 1/08/2016 | 1.365 | First | No |
| 24 | 1/08/2016 | 1.365 | | No |
| 24 | 1/09/2016 | 1.365 | Second | No |
| 24 | 1/09/2016 | 1.365 | | No |
| 27 | 1/01/2016 | 0 | Second | Yes |
| 27 | 1/01/2016 | 0 | Second | Yes |
| 27 | 1/02/2016 | 45.25 | Second | No |
| 3 | 1/01/2016 | 96.01 | First | No |
| 3 | 1/01/2016 | 96.01 | First | No |
| 3 | 1/03/2016 | 96.01 | First | No |
| 3 | 1/03/2016 | 96.01 | First | No |
| 35 | 1/01/2016 | | | Yes |
| 35 | 1/01/2016 | | | Yes |
| 35 | 1/02/2016 | | First | No |
| 35 | 1/02/2016 | | Second | No |
| 35 | 1/02/2016 | | | No |
| 35 | 1/02/2016 | | | No |
| 35 | 1/03/2016 | | Second | Yes |
| 35 | 1/03/2016 | | Second | Yes |
| 35 | 1/04/2016 | | Second | No |
| 35 | 1/04/2016 | | Second | No |
+----+-----------+-------+----------+---------------+
I have this table of stage-wise activities and their corresponding flags.
STAGE | ACTIVITY | FLAG | STATUS |
S1 | A1 |S1_A1_FLAG | ST_S1_A1 |
S1 | A2 |S1_A2_FLAG | ST_S1_A2 |
: : : :
SN | A1 |SN_A1_FLAG | ST_SN_A1 |
SN | A2 |SN_A2_FLAG | ST_SN_A2 |
: | : | : | : |
SN | AN |SN_AN_FLAG | ST_SN_AN |
I have to create a view that will have following structure...
STAGE| A1 | A2 | ... | AN |
---------------------------------------------------
S1 |S1_A1_FLAG| S1_A2_FLAG | ... | S1_AN_FLAG |
| ST_S1_A1 | ST_S1_A2 | ... | ST_S1_AN |
----------------------------------------------------
S2 |S2_A1_FLAG| S2_A2_FLAG | ... | S2_AN_FLAG |
| ST_S2_A1 | ST_S2_A2 | ... | ST_S2_AN |
----------------------------------------------------
: : : : :
----------------------------------------------------
SN |SN_A1_FLAG| SN_A2_FLAG | ... | SN_AN_FLAG |
| ST_SN_A1 | ST_SN_A2 | ... | ST_SN_AN |
Here 'flag' and 'status' are string values and have to be displayed in a single cell.
Also, using "hard-coded" case-when statements are not a viable option as there are a few hundred stages each containing at least a dozen activities.
As I am new to pivots in sql, any help regarding the same would be welcome
SELECT * from
(select Stage,Activity, flag+' ' + astatus as AStatus
FROM tblStage
)tb
PIVOT
(
Min(AStatus)
FOR Activity IN([A1],[A2])
)p;
Check these :
To Pivot on dynamic columns.
Also Check Pivot on Varchar Values.
I have implemented the A* algorithm in AS3 and it works great except for one thing.
Often the resulting path does not take the most “natural” or smooth route to the target.
In my environment the object can move diagonally as inexpensively as it can move horizontally or vertically.
Here is a very simple example; the start point is marked by the S, and the end (or finish) point by the F.
| | | | | | | | | |
|S| | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
|F| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
As you can see, during the 1st round of finding, nodes [0,2], [1,2], [2,2] will all be added to the list of possible node as they all have a score of N.
The issue I’m having comes at the next point when I’m trying to decide which node to proceed with. In the example above I am using possibleNodes[0] to choose the next node. If I change this to possibleNodes[possibleNodes.length-1] I get the following path.
| | | | | | | | | |
|S| | | | | | | | |
| |x| | | | | | | |
| | |x| | | | | | |
| | | |x| | | | | |
| | |x| | | | | | |
| |x| | | | | | | |
|F| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
And then with possibleNextNodes[Math.round(possibleNextNodes.length / 2)-1]
| | | | | | | | | |
|S| | | | | | | | |
|x| | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
x| | | | | | | | | |
|F| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
All these paths have the same cost as they all contain the same number of steps but, in this situation, the most sensible path would be as follows...
| | | | | | | | | |
|S| | | | | | | | |
|x| | | | | | | | |
|x| | | | | | | | |
|x| | | | | | | | |
|x| | | | | | | | |
|x| | | | | | | | |
|F| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Is there a formally accepted method of making the path appear more sensible rather than just mathematically correct?
You need to add a Tie-breaker to your heuristic function. The problem here is that there are many paths with the same costs.
For a simple Tie-breaker that favors the direct route you can use the cross-product. I.e. if S is the start and E is the end, and X is the current position in the algorithm, you could calculate the cross-products of S-E and X-E and add a penalty to the heuristic the further it deviates from 0 (= the direct route).
In code:
dx1 = current.x - goal.x
dy1 = current.y - goal.y
dx2 = start.x - goal.x
dy2 = start.y - goal.y
cross = abs(dx1*dy2 - dx2*dy1)
heuristic += cross*0.001
See also http://theory.stanford.edu/~amitp/GameProgramming/Heuristics.html#S12, which is an excellent tutorial about A* in general.
If you want paths that look natural, you need to make sure that your costs correspond to the length on a cartesian coordinate system. That means the cost of moving diagonally should be sqrt(2) times the cost of moving vertically or horizontally.
You can add 'control effort' to the cost calculations for each square. The actor will try not to turn or change direction too much as that will add a cost to the path:
http://angryee.blogspot.com/2009/03/better-pathfinding.html
If I remember correctly, the trick to this is to add an extra parameter to the cost function (for every step between adjacent nodes, or squares in your case) that penalises turns slightly more than normal (for example, having a relative cost of greater than sqrt(2) for digonal moves). Now, there's probably a fine line between smoothing out the path and actually decreasing the optimality of the route (elongating it), however, and you're not going to be able to avoid this in any way. There's a certain trade-off you'll need to discover specific to your own application, and this can only really be achieved by testing.
There was an article on a game dev site, I believe, that detailed exactly how this could be done, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. Have a play around with your cost function anyway and see what results you get - I'm pretty sure that's the way to go.
What is more 'sensible'? Straighter? You need to quantify it properly if the algorithm is going to do anything about it.
Since moving diagonally is as inexpensive as moving horizontally/vertically, all the paths are equivalent according to all the criterion available to A*. If you want a more 'sensible' path, you need to tell the algorithm that some paths are more desirable than others, effectively weighting horizontal/vertical as 'better' than diagonal. As far as I can see, that would be altering the parameters of your environment.