In PyDatalog I have defined the following assertions:
#stations
assert_fact('station', 'A' ,'yellow')
assert_fact('station', 'B' ,'yellow')
assert_fact('station', 'C' ,'yellow')
assert_fact('station', 'D' ,'yellow')
#sections
assert_fact('stretch', 'A' ,'B')
assert_fact('stretch', 'B' ,'C')
assert_fact('stretch', 'C', 'D')
And I would like to ask the database if there is a way to get to D from A.
The following code should work, because it answers set([()]) if there is a way, and None if there isn't. But it doesn't give me the result of the different evaluations of Z. I would like to know also the route, for example: A B C D
load("""
route(X,Y) <= stretch(X,Y)
route(X,Y) <= stretch(X,Z) & route(Z,Y)
""")
I have tried with unbound values, but it only gives me the result of the first iteration:
load("""
route(X,Y,P) <= stretch(X,Y) & (P==Y)
route(X,Y,P) <= stretch(X,P) & route(P,Y,Z)
""")
I think that the problem is that it only takes P in the first iteration. Or should I use aggregation functions? I don't understand very well how I could use concat...
Thanks in advance.
You need a predicate with a variable that contains the nodes between the 2 end points. You could use the following definition of route():
load("""
route(X,P, Y) <= stretch(X,Y) & (P==[])
route(X,P, Y) <= stretch(X,Z) & route(Z,P1,Y) & ~(Z in P1) & (P==[Z]+P1)
""")
print(pyDatalog.ask("route('A', P, 'D')"))
# prints set([(('B', 'C'),)])
Lists are supported since pyDatalog 0.13.
Related
for (i in 1:length(data$name)){
if (!is.na(data$years[i]) >= 34 & !is.na(data$gender[i]) == "male" & !is.na(data$classification[i]) == "mid"){
print(data$name)
}
}
There's a few problems in your code. I am assuming this is a class exercise or similar, so I'll add a bit extra detail to illustrate where you've missed a step.
First of all you loop works fine, but your if condition is not completely correct.
!is.na(data$years[i]) >= 34
All of your conditions look (somewhat) like this. The idea is obvious, you want to "check that data$years[i] is not null, and above 34". But in R (and most languages) you have to check these seperately.
!is.na(data$years[i]) && data$years[i] >= 34
Similar for the rest of your conditions.
Next your print statement is printing out everything, because this is what you're asking it to:
print(data$name)
is "ignorant" of anything else you've done up till now. It seems you want to print the specific record, eg:
print(data$name[i])
And this is the way to go about it.
Now R has a thing called "vectorization", so we could wrap this entire loop up in one go:
data$name[!is.na(data$years) & !is.na(data$gender) & !is.na(data$classification) & data$year > 34 & data$gender == "male" & data$classification == "mid"]
But I am assuming that is not part of your current exercise. Note the slight (but important) difference that for vectorized (eg. more than 1) condition I use single & but for single conditions I use 2 &&. The latter is optimized to be "lazy" for single inputs (thus faster).
Perhaps you can try subset + complete.cases like below
subset(
data,
years >= 34 & gender == "male" & classification == "mid" & complete.cases(data[c("years", "gender", "classification")])
)$name
I have certain values that are needed for validation in Forms, either they look like Value X >= 0 but it could also be X <= 0, it depends on what operator should be used. How can I store such a value?
(I use MS SQL Server + Access as Frontend)
I basicly wanna store the Value and if it needs to be bigger than or smaller than.
Store the value, as usual, in a field, and the operator in another field as Short Text.
The you can use Eval:
Result = Eval("" & [ValueField] & [OperatorField] & "0")
You can store your value as it is, and to check if this value is positive or not you have two ways
First one
Create a computed column to check the Value column as
CREATE TABLE YourTable(
YourValue INT,
IsPositive AS CASE WHEN YourValue < 0 THEN 0 ELSE 1 END
);
INSERT INTO YourTable (YourValue) VALUES
(1), (-1);
SELECT *
FROM YourTable;
Second one
Use a CASE expression (or even you can create a view) as
SELECT CASE WHEN YourValue < 0 THEN 0 ELSE 1 END IsPositive,
--...
FROM YourTable;
I have a 160 chars bit string and I need to have an integer array that stores the position of the bits that have a value of 1.
Example:
bitstring = '00110101'
array = [3,4,6,8]
Is it possible to do this just with SQL or do I need to define a PL/SQL function or something like that?
It's assuredly possible to write it in SQL. Here's a starting point:
select array(
select substring(str from i for 1) as bit
from generate_series(1, length(str)) as i
where bit = '1'
);
You might want to wrap that in a pl/sql function regardless, though, so to avoid duplicating code all over the place.
Working function:
create or replace function get_bit_positions(varbit) returns bit[] as $$
select array(
select substring($1 from i for 1) as bit
from generate_series(1, length($1)) as i
where substring($1 from i for 1) = '1'
);
$$ language sql immutable;
Working version:
WITH x AS (SELECT '00110101'::varbit AS b)
SELECT array_agg(i)
FROM (SELECT b, generate_series(1, length(b)) AS i FROM x) y
WHERE substring(b, i, 1) = '1';
Simpler once you convert the varbit to text[]. Cast to text and run string_to_array().
Then you can use generate_subscripts() and pick array elements by index:
WITH x AS (SELECT string_to_array('00110101'::varbit::text, NULL) AS b)
SELECT array_agg(i)
FROM (SELECT b, generate_subscripts(b,1) AS i FROM x) y
WHERE b[i] = '1'
Details in this related question on dba.SE.
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