I have a table1 like below having more than 400k records.Below I'm just showing example, how it look likes. I want to write some query to iterate through each row and find its corresponding date; if all dates are present for the account ID , then I have to update another table2 "Yes". And, if any one of the date is null (for any account ID) then I have to update table2 flag as "No".
This is my source table1.
Table1
Account ID | Date
----------- |------------
1 | 12-03-2015
1 | 11-03-2015
1 | 11-04-2015
1 | 01-03-2015
2 | 06-03-2015
2 | 11-03-2015
2 | Null
2 | 01-03-2015
This is how the table2 result will look like (after query execution)
Table2
Account ID | Flag
-----------|------
1 | Yes
2 | No
2ndly, if after few days, Date of Account ID is changed from Null to an actual date (say 07-07-2015), then Table2 "Account ID 2" value should change from "No" to "Yes". So after few days the Table2 should look like this
Account ID | Flag
-----------|------
1 | Yes
2 | Yes
Hope I have explained it correctly.I'm thinking to use cursor, however, I'm not sure how to use this and will cursor really solve this problem? Is there any other ways to achieve this? Checked on net, however, not able to get suitable solution, please help?
You need to change your mindset from looking at every row. This is a very simple set based solution. You should also use better names than DATE and Flag but whatever, this will return the desired output you are after.
select AccountID
, case MIN(case when [Date] is null then '' else [DATE] end) when '' then 'No' else 'Yes' end as Flag
from Table1
group by AccountID
Related
I am working on Windows Form Application and it accesses database in SQL Server 2014. I have EmployeeTable which I retrieve data from, and display all the records in DataGridView. In this table, I have a column SequenceID, which basically increments from 1 up to the number of records in this table, but this is not the same as AUTO INCREMENT in that SequenceID gets updated each time the table is modified, and keeps the numerical order no matter how many times new records get inserted or some records are deleted. For example, if the data looks like
SequenceID | Name
1 | John
2 | Mary
3 | Robert
and Mary is removed, then the resulting table needs to look like
SequenceID | Name
1 | John
2 | Robert
In order to achieve this, I used the best answer by zombat from Update SQL with consecutive numbering, and it was working great until I used ORDER BY expression.
This EmployeeTable also has DateAdded column, containing the date when the record was inserted. I need to display all records ordered by this DateAdded column, with the oldest record shown at the top and the newest at the bottom in addition to the correct SequenceID order. However, it gets messed up when a record is deleted, and a new one is inserted.
If I insert 3 records like,
SequenceID | Name | DateAdded
1 | John | 9/25/2017
2 | Mary | 9/26/2017
3 | Robert | 9/27/2017
and remove Mary, it becomes
SequenceID | Name | DateAdded
1 | John | 9/25/2017
2 | Robert | 9/27/2017
and this is good so far. However, if I add another record Tommy on, say, 9/28/2017, which should be added at the bottom because it is the newest, it results in something like,
SequenceID | Name | DateAdded
1 | John | 9/25/2017
3 | Robert | 9/27/2017
2 | Tommy | 9/28/2017
The ORDER BY is working fine, but it messes up the SequenceID, and I am not sure why this is happening. All I am doing is,
SELECT *
FROM EmployeeTable
ORDER BY DateAdded
I tried placing zombat's SQL command both before and after this SQL command, but neither worked. It seems to me like when I delete a row, the row has an invisible spot, and a new record is inserted in there.
Is there any way to fix this so I can order the records by DateAdded and still have the SequenceID working correctly?
If you need id for GUI (presentation only) you could use:
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY DateAdded) AS sequenceId, Name, DateAdded
FROM EmployeeTable
ORDER BY DateAdded;
EDIT:
I am trying to update the SequenceID, but it is not getting updated
You should not try to reorder your table every time. It doesn't make sense.
My table:
Items | Price | UpdateAt
1 | 2000 | 02/02/2015
2 | 4000 | 06/04/2015
3 | 2150 | 07/05/2015
4 | 1800 | 07/05/2015
5 | 5540 | 08/16/2015
4 | 1700 | 12/24/2015
5 | 5200 | 12/26/2015
2 | 3900 | 01/01/2016
4 | 2000 | 06/14/2016
As you can see, this is a table that keeps items' price as well as their old price before the last update.
Now I need to find the rows which :
UpdateAt is more than 1 year ago from now
Must have updated price at least once ever since
Aren't the most up-to-date price
So with those conditions, the result from the above table should be :
Items | Price | UpdateAt
2 | 4000 | 06/04/2015
4 | 1800 | 07/05/2015
I can achieve what I need with this
Declare #LastUpdate date set #LastUpdate = DATEADD(YEAER, -1, GETDATE())
select Items, UpdateAt from ITEM_PRICE where Items in (
select Items from (
select Items, count(Items) as C from ITEM_PRICE group by Items) T
where T.C > 1)
and UpdateAt < #LastUpdate
But since I am still a newbie in sqlserver, and this need to be done in vb.net, passing along that query with lots of select in it seems sloppy and hard to maintain.
So, I would like to ask if anyone can give me a simpler solution ?
Sorry, i edited my question as I need one more condition to be met after trying #Tim Biegeleisen's answer, which is indeed the correct one for the question before edit. And I can't figure this out anymore.
Why I need all those condition, it's because I'm having to clean up the table: Clearing off the data that's older than 1 year, while still keeping the most up-to-date item price.
In my answer below, I use a subquery to identify all items which appear in the table during the last year. This is the requirement of having an updated price "at least once ever since." In the outer query, I restrict to only records which are older than one year from now, which is the other part of the requirement. An INNER JOIN is used, because we want to filter off records which do not meet both criteria.
SELECT t1.Items, t1.Price, t1.UpdateAt
FROM ITEM_PRICE t1
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT DISTINCT Items
FROM ITEM_PRICE
WHERE UpdateAt > DATEADD(year, -1, GETDATE())
) t2
ON t1.Items = t2.Items
WHERE t1.UpdateAt <= DATEADD(year, -1, GETDATE())
Once again, SQL Fiddle is having problems simulating SQL Server. But I went ahead and created a Fiddle in MySQL, which looks nearly identical to my SQL Server answer. You can verify that the logic and output are correct.
SQLFiddle
I am at a bit of a standstill here. I have a simple left outer join to a table that is returning an ID.
My code is as
Select distinct TenantID
,Name
,Name2
,TenantNumber
,Cashname
From Tenants
LEFT OUTER JOIN tCash
on TenantNumber = CashNumber
and tMoney.CashName = Tenants.Name2
My result set is as follows:
**TenantID | Name | Name2 | TenantNo | CashName**
100 |MyShop | John's shop | 12345 |John's shop
999 |MyShop | John's Shop | 12345 |John's shop
My Issue: for all intents and purposes, "John's shop" IS different from "John's Shop" - I am correctly joining my money table on the TenantNo and then on Name2, but name 2 is different by Case.
Question:
Is there any way to differentiate a join based on case sensitivity? I would not want to use UPPER or LOWER due to the fact that it would ruin the case on reporting.
Thanks!
Adding Table information below, please assume all columns are trimmed of whitespace.
tMoney
CashNumnbr | CashName
102504 Bill's Place
102374 Tom's Shop
12345 John's Shop
12345 John's shop
Tenants
TenantID | Name | Name2 |TenantNumber
1 |MyShop | John's Shop | 12345
2 |MyShop | John's shop | 12345
3 |Shoppee | Bill's Place | 102504
4 | Shop2 | Toms Shop | 102374
Since I want to join to get the correct TenantID for an AR report, I would want to make sure I am always bringing in the correct tenant. If the case is different, is there anything I can write to differentiate a situation like John's Shop?
The problem is that in the second row of your results "John's Shop" shouldn't have matched "John's shop"?
You can use a case sensitive collation.
This is probably best achieved by altering the collation of the columns involved to allow index use but you can also do it at run time with an explicit COLLATE clause as below.
SELECT DISTINCT TenantID,
Name,
Name2,
TenantNumber,
Cashname
FROM Tenants
LEFT OUTER JOIN tCash
ON TenantNumber = CashNumber
AND tMoney.CashName = Tenants.Name2 COLLATE Latin1_General_100_CS_AS
The comments about joining on id instead of name are likely correct though and would negate the need to do this at all.
If COLLATE ends up being too slow due to a lack of indexing, you could also do something like the below, where each 30 below must match the length of each column to avoid an invalid comparison.
LEFT OUTER JOIN tCash ON
TenantNumber = CashNumber
AND CONVERT(VARBINARY(30),LTRIM(RTRIM(tMoney.CashName))) = CONVERT(VARBINARY(30),LTRIM(RTRIM(Tenants.Name2)))
I've shifted through views and other points and I've gotten to here. Take example below
Name | Quantity | Billed |
| | |
PC Tablet| 0 | 100 |
PC Tablet| 100 | -2345 |
Monitor | 9873 | 0 |
Keyboard | 200 | -300 |
So basically the select I would do off this view. I would want it to Bring in the data BUT it be ordered by the Name first so its in nice alphabetical order and also for a few reasons some of the records appear more then once (I think the most is 4 times). If you add the up the rows with duplicates the true 'quantity' and 'billed' would be correct.
NOTE: The actual query is very long but I broke it down for a simple example to explain the problem. The idea is the same but there is A LOT MORE columns that needs to be added together... So I'm looking for a query that would bring them together if it contains the same name. I've tried a bunch of different queries with no success either it rolls ALL the rows into one. or it won't work and I get a bunch of null errors/ name column is invalid in the select list/group by because it's not an aggregate function..
Is this even possible?
Try:
SELECT A.Name, A.TotalQty, B.TotalBilled
FROM (
SELECT Name, SUM(Quantity) as TotalQty
FROM YourTableHere
GROUP BY Name
) A
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT Name, SUM(Billed) as TotalBilled
FROM YourTableHere
GROUP BY Name
) B
ON A.Name = B.Name
Suppose I have the following data:
OrderNumber | CustomerName | CustomerAddress | CustomerCode
1 | Chris | 1234 Test Drive | 123
2 | Chris | 1234 Test Drive | 123
How can I detect that the columns "CustomerName", "CustomerAddress", and "CustomerCode" all correlate perfectly? I'm thinking that Sql Server data mining is probably the right tool for the job, but I don't have too much experience with that.
Thanks in advance.
UPDATE:
By "correlate", I mean in the statistics sense, that whenever column a is x, column b will be y. In the above data, The last three columns correlate with each other, and the first column does not.
The input of the operation would be the name of the table, and the output would be something like :
Column 1 | Column 2 | Certainty
CustomerName | CustomerAddress | 100%
CustomerAddress | CustomerCode | 100%
There is a 'functional dependency' test built in to the SQL Server Data Profiling component (which is an SSIS component that ships with SQL Server 2008). It is described pretty well on this blog post:
http://blogs.conchango.com/jamiethomson/archive/2008/03/03/ssis-data-profiling-task-part-7-functional-dependency.aspx
I have played a little bit with accessing the data profiler output via some (under-documented) .NET APIs and it seems doable. However, since my requirement dealt with distribution of column values, I ended up going with something much simpler based on the output of DBCC STATISTICS. I was quite impressed by what I saw of the profiler component and the output viewer.
What do you mean by correlate? Do you just want to see if they're equal? You can do that in T-SQL by joining the table to itself:
select distinct
case when a.OrderNumber < b.OrderNumber then a.OrderNumber
else b.OrderNumber
end as FirstOrderNumber,
case when a.OrderNumber < b.OrderNumber then b.OrderNumber
else a.OrderNumber
end as SecondOrderNumber
from
MyTable a
inner join MyTable b on
a.CustomerName = b.CustomerName
and a.CustomerAddress = b.CustomerAddress
and a.CustomerCode = b.CustomerCode
This would return you:
FirstOrderNumber | SecondOrderNumber
1 | 2
Correlation is defined on metric spaces, and your values are not metric.
This will give you percent of customers that don't have customerAddress uniquely defined by customerName:
SELECT AVG(perfect)
FROM (
SELECT
customerName,
CASE
WHEN COUNT(customerAddress) = COUNT(DISTINCT customerAddress)
THEN 0
ELSE 1
END AS perfect
FROM orders
GROUP BY
customerName
) q
Substitute other columns instead of customerAddress and customerName into this query to find discrepancies between them.