TRADE_SIDE values are stored in DB with values 1 or 2.
On the other hand, SPOT_SIDE values are stored with equivalent A and B values in DB.
I need to find a way to compare these values in the where clause when querying the DB. 1 for A and 2 for B.
Do you have an idea?
Simple CASE EXPRESSION will do the trick :
SELECT * FROM trade_side t
INNER JOIN spot_side s
ON(CASE WHEN t.<YourColumn> = 1 THEN 'A' ELSE 'B' END = s.<YourColumn>)
This query will join both tables together on(1 = a,2 = b) . If you have more then 2 values, you should add another WHEN .
Related
I'm looking for help on converting an Excel formula to SQL Server.
=If(AND(N3="A", R3>O3),
R3,If(AND(N3="P",S3>O3),S3,If(N3="D","",If(OR(Q3="P",Q3="A")*AND(P3>TODAY(),P3>O3),P3,O3))))
SQL formula I tried ....Colum N & Q consists of varchar and other fields are datetime in SQL Server. In below SQL statement, I have replaced and (BOLD) with OR condition. When I use "AND"(bold) am getting right data in few cases if I use (OR), am getting right data in few other cases. Here is database structure with insert statements.
https://www.db-fiddle.com/f/iHYxufV2NuyXwHeBM832NS/4
create table dbo.test (id int, N varchar(10), O datetime, P datetime, Q varchar(10), R datetime, S datetime)
select case when N='A' and R>O THEN R
when N='P' and S>O then S
when N='D' then ''
when (Q='P' or Q='Á') **and** p>getdate() and P>O then P else O end data
from test
output for above fiddler =
id-data
1-2020-11-20 00:00:00
2-2021-02-15 00:00:00
3-2021-04-11 00:00:00
4-2021-04-16 00:00:00
5-2021-04-30 00:00:00
The problem is * is a multiplication operator, but both sides of the expression are boolean rather than numeric. I think what's going on is Excel is converting the boolean true/false values to 1 and 0 for the multiplication operation.
If this is correct, then AND is the correct operator and almost everything else in the translation is correct.
There is one other mistake. when N='D' then '' is wrong, because the other result values all appear to be DateTime columns. You can't mix strings and dates. Instead, you need when N='D' then NULL.
CASE WHEN N = 'A' AND R > O THEN R
WHEN N = 'P' AND S > O THEN S
WHEN N = 'D' THEN NULL
WHEN Q IN ('P', 'A') AND P > current_timestamp AND P > O THEN P
ELSE O END
If you really need an empty string, you can convert the result and coalesce to empty string at a different level, but don't do it inside the CASE expression.
It's also worth noting the DateTime/String mismatch could entirely explain the strange results. If you have a sample somewhere for testing with the columns represented as Varchar values instead of Date or DateTime, then the comparisons could be wrong, throwing off the results. For example, O comes before S in the third row of sample data if they are compared as strings instead of dates.
If this is your verbatim code, you have an accented A in this line:
when (Q='P' or Q='Á') and p>getdate() and P>O then P else O end data
A and Á are not equivalent, so that may be short circuiting your OR and failing to return values for any Q = 'A' values that aren't handled further up in the logic.
Other than that your logic looks equivalent. The use of OR(...)*AND(...) is odd but does produce a 1/0 value, and your conversion into SQL has the correct boolean operators to match that logic.
I need to make a comparison for ratings in two points in time and indicate if the change was upwards,downwards or stayed the same.
For example:
This would be a table with four columns:
ID T0 T0+1 Status
1 AAA AA Lower
2 BB A Higher
3 C C Same
However, this does not work when applying regular string comparison, because in SQL
A<B
B<BBB
I need
A>B
B<BBB
So my order(highest to lowest): AAA,AA,A,BBB,BB,B
SQL order(highest to lowest): BBB,BB,B,AAA,AA,A
Now I have 2 options in mind, but I wonder if someone know a better one:
1) Use CASE WHEN statements for all the possibilities of ratings going up and down ( I have more values than indictaed above)
CASE WHEN T0=T0+1 then 'Same'
WHEN T0='AAA' and To+1<>'AAA' then 'Lower'
....adress all other options for rating going down
ELSE 'Higher'
However, this generates a very large number of CASE WHEN statements.
2) My other option requires generating 2 tables. In table 1 I use case when statements to assign values/rank to the ratings.
For example:
CASE WHEN T0='AAA' then 6
CASE WHEN T0='AA' then 5
CASE WHEN T0='A' then 4
CASE WHEN T0='BBB' then 3
CASE WHEN T0='BB' then 2
CASE WHEN T0='B' then 1
The same for T0+1.
Then in table 2 I use a regular compariosn between column T0 and Column T0+1 on the numeric values.
However, I am looking for a solution where I can do it in one table (with as little lines as possible), and optimally never really show the ranking column.
I think a nested statement would be the best option, but it did now work for me.
Anybody has suggestions?
I use SQL Server 2008.
If you are using Credit Rating, this is very likely that this is not just about AAA > AA or BBB > BB.
Whether you are using one agency or another, it could also be AA+ or Aa1 for long term, F1+ for short term or something else in different contexts or with other agencies.
It is also often requiered to convert data from one agency to other agencies Rating.
Therefore it is better to use a mapping table such as:
Id | Rating
0 | AAA
1 | AA+
2 | AA
3 | AA-
4 | A+
5 | A
6 | A-
7 | BBB+
Using this table, you only have to join the rating in your data table with the rating in the mapping table:
SELECT d.Rating_T0, d.Rating_T1
CASE WHEN d.Rating_T0 = d.Rating_T1 THEN '='
WHEN m0.id < m1.id THEN '<'
WHEN m0.id > m1.id THEN '>'
END
FROM yourData d
INNER JOIN RatingMapping m0
ON m0.Rating= d.Rating_T0
INNER JOIN RatingMapping m1
ON m1.Rating= d.Rating_T1
If you only store the Rating id in you data table, you will not only save space (1 byte for tinyint versus up to 4 chars) but will also be able to compare without the JOIN to the mapping table.
SELECT d.Rating_Id0, d.Rating_Id1
CASE WHEN d.Rating_Id0 = d.Rating_Id1 THEN '='
WHEN d.Rating_Id0 < d.Rating_Id1 THEN '<'
WHEN d.Rating_Id0 > d.Rating_Id1 THEN '>'
END
FROM yourData d
The JOIN would only be requiered when you want to display the actual Rating value such as AAA for Rating_ID = 0.
You could also add an agency_Id to the Mapping table. This way, you can easily choose which Notation agency you want to display and easily convert between Agency 1 and Agency 2 or Agency 3 (ie. Id 1 => S&P and Id 2 => Fitch, Id 3 => ...)
I have a report with two tables. The first table is a list of clients, detailing each client that falls into one category of three with different items for each client. The SQL joins up a client_table with the client_items table (there can be multiple items per client) the SQL results looks like so:
Type ClientID ItemID
A 1 1
A 3 1
A 3 2
B 2 1
B 4 3
C 5 2
My second table is going to return counts of the distinct ClientIDs from various combinations of the types:
Total (A+B+C) - I've got this one figured out with =CountDistinct(Fields!ClientID.Value,"datasource1")
Type B+C - Distinct ClientIDs where the type is B or C
Type C - Distinct ClientIDs where the type is C
I hope that was clear, if not let me know what I need to add to clear it up.
CountDistinct() counts non-null values, so you could use an expression to null out those values you don't want to count and do something similar to your first value.
Type B+C:
=CountDistinct
(
IIf
(
Fields!Type.Value = "B" or Fields!Type.Value = "C"
, Fields!ClientId.Value
, Nothing
)
, "datasource1"
)
Type C:
=CountDistinct
(
IIf
(
Fields!Type.Value = "C"
, Fields!ClientId.Value
, Nothing
)
, "datasource1"
)
=Sum(CountDistinct(Fields!UserName.Value,"IssueDate7"))
Here Username is the row group and Issuedate7 is the column group
Regards
Mercy S
I have a table:
c1|c2|c3|c4
-----+--+--+----
a b c 10
a a b 20
c a c 10
b b c 10
c b c 30
I want to write a function where the inputs are 3 strings / text eg ('a b c, b d, c'), compare every element to each other, find if a row exist with this combination, an sum the number of the 4th (c4) column up. But if there is a constellation of b a c or c a b it would match a b c 10. If there is a row like b c c then it wont be a row like c b b. Every matchup is unique.
I think the best would be to use string_to_array(text, text).
I put together some pseudo code, but no idea how to write it in SQL. Maybe the logic is wrong too.
function (x,y,z)
res = 0
x_array = string_to_array(x, ' ')
y_array = string_to_array(y, ' ')
z_array = string_to_array(z, ' ')
foreach(x_item in x_array)
foreach(y_item in y_array)
foreach(z_item in z_array)
if (c1 = (x_item || y_item || z_item ) && c2 = (x_item || y_item || z_item ) && c3 = (x_item || y_item || z_item ))
res++
EDIT
First off all there was a mistake in the example table. There was a row a b c and c b a. It cant be. a b c = c b a ! and each row must be unique.
example: three text inputs a b c | b c | c
each element vs each element: a b c , a c c, b b c, b c c, c b c, c c c
a b c = 10;
a c c (is the same as c a c) = 10;
b b c = 10;
b c c (is the same as c b c) = 30;
c b c = 30;
c c c (no match) = 0; result = 90
I think this might be what you want:
Return the sum of column c4 from all rows where a given set of three tokens matches the columns (c1, c2, c3).
Simple version
Much simpler with contains #> and is contained <# by operators:
SELECT sum(c4) AS sum_of_matching_c4
FROM tbl
WHERE ARRAY[c1,c2,c3] <# ARRAY['b', 'a', 'c'] -- strings in arbitrary order
AND ARRAY[c1,c2,c3] #> ARRAY['b', 'a', 'c'];
Sorry, that would fail for ('b', 'c', 'c') vs. ('c', 'b', 'b').
Slow and sure
WITH i(arr) AS (
SELECT ARRAY(VALUES ('b'), ('c'), ('c') ORDER BY 1) -- input once
) -- in arbitrary order
SELECT sum(c4) AS sum_of_matching_c4
FROM (
SELECT c4, array_agg(x ORDER BY x) AS arr
FROM (
SELECT ctid, c4, unnest(ARRAY[c1,c2,c3]) AS x
FROM tbl t, i
WHERE ARRAY[c1,c2,c3] <# arr -- optional pre-selection
AND ARRAY[c1,c2,c3] #> arr -- for better performance?
) a
GROUP BY ctid, c4
) b
JOIN i USING (arr)
-> sqlfiddle demo.
The major difficulty is to order the values of the columns within the row.
For your input (3 strings) I achieve this in the WHERE clause with a VALUE expression in the CTE which I order right away and collect it in an array. I use a CTE for convenience, so we have to enter values in one place only.
It's more complicated for the row values. I put the three columns in an array and break that up to rows with unnest(). As you did not provide a primary key, I use the ctid as ad-hoc surrogate primary key instead - which I need for the GROUP BY to stuff the now sorted (c1, c2, c3) into an array.
Finally I sum up all c4 of rows where the now sorted arrays match exactly.
Note: I expressly do not use string_agg() because that does not produce distinct results. Consider:
'abc' 'cde' 'fgh'
'ab' 'ccdef' 'gh'
.. resulting int the same string if concatenated.
Index / Performance
You might consider to save pre-ordered data to speed up queries. Doing it on the fly is expensive. I.e. you could pre-generate the sorted array and save it as redundant column which you can then support with an index. Should be faster by several orders of magnitude for the cost of redundant data storage.
If you are dealing with long strings, a solution similar to what I outlined in this related answer on dba.SE might be the best course of action.
Alternatively (preferred!) guarantee that (c1, c2, c3) are always stored in ascending order. You could use a trigger BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE to keep values within the row ordered. No redundant storage and you can simply create a multi-column index on the three columns and compare to them one by one (instead of comparing the array like in my example).
You don't need to write a function for that.
First, there's no "strings" with postgresql ( sql ) , it's "text" or "varchar".
Second, what you need is an SQL query like this:
SELECT ( DISTINCT ( c1 || c2 || c3 )) AS txtcol, SUM (c4) AS rowsum;
or
SELECT ( DISTINCT ( c1 || c2 || c3 )) AS txtcol, SUM(c4) AS numsum GROUP BY txtcol;
Can't recall the exact syntax at the moment, you need to work it out,
anyway the point is you need to concatenate varchar columns with some built-in
function like CONCAT or "||" operator, and then sum/group by numeric column. All you need
is to concatenate columns, and give resulting all-together column a name.
To be exact, you don't even need to show concatenated column on resulting table,
you could output just sums, and number of rows sumarized for example.
Theoretically you could write SQL function or PL/SQL function for that, but I'm sure it's just not necessary, your case seems to me simple enough to be able to achieve result you want without a function. Built-in sumarizing function SUM() is called "aggregate" function, other examples of aggregating functions are e.g. MIN() or MAX().
Note what you're actually trying to do, is grouping rows by some resulting VARCHAR column by the effect of concatenation per-row.
EDIT: "Arrays" in SQL or procedural SQL is some internally-handled arrays, do not confuse them with relations ( tables in database, nor with tables as SELECT results ). I think you also don't need SQL arrays for that, the task really isn't so hard as it looks like.
Without using custom functions, is it possible in SQLite to do the following. I have two tables, which are linked via common id numbers. In the second table, there are two variables. What I would like to do is be able to return a list of results, consisting of: the row id, and NULL if all instances of those two variables (and there may be more than two) are NULL, 1 if they are all 0 and 2 if one or more is 1.
What I have right now is as follows:
SELECT
a.aid,
(SELECT count(*) from W3S19 b WHERE a.aid=b.aid) as num,
(SELECT count(*) FROM W3S19 c WHERE a.aid=c.aid AND H110 IS NULL AND H112 IS NULL) as num_null,
(SELECT count(*) FROM W3S19 d WHERE a.aid=d.aid AND (H110=1 or H112=1)) AS num_yes
FROM W3 a
So what this requires is to step through each result as follows (rough Python pseudocode):
if row['num_yes'] > 0:
out[aid] = 2
elif row['num_null'] == row['num']:
out[aid] = 'NULL'
else:
out[aid] = 1
Is there an easier way? Thanks!
Use CASE...WHEN, e.g.
CASE x WHEN w1 THEN r1 WHEN w2 THEN r2 ELSE r3 END
Read more from SQLite syntax manual (go to section "The CASE expression").
There's another way, for numeric values, which might be easier for certain specific cases.
It's based on the fact that boolean values is 1 or 0, "if condition" gives a boolean result:
(this will work only for "or" condition, depends on the usage)
SELECT (w1=TRUE)*r1 + (w2=TRUE)*r2 + ...
of course #evan's answer is the general-purpose, correct answer