Fill sequence in sql rows - sql-server

I have a table that stores a group of attributes and keeps them ordered in a sequence. The chance exists that one of the attributes (rows) could be deleted from the table, and the sequence of positions should be compacted.
For instance, if I originally have these set of values:
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 1 |
| 2 | two | 2 |
| 3 | three | 3 |
| 4 | four | 4 |
+----+--------+-----+
And the second row was deleted, the position of all subsequent rows should be updated to close the gaps. The result should be this:
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 1 |
| 3 | three | 2 |
| 4 | four | 3 |
+----+--------+-----+
Is there a way to do this update in a single query? How could I do this?
PS: I'd appreciate examples for both SQLServer and Oracle, since the system is supposed to support both engines. Thanks!
UPDATE: The reason for this is that users are allowed to modify the positions at will, as well as adding or deleting new rows. Positions are shown to the user, and for that reason, these should show a consistence sequence at all times (and this sequence must be stored, and not generated on demand).

Not sure it works, But with Oracle I would try the following:
update my_table set pos = rownum;

this would work but may be suboptimal for large datasets:
SQL> UPDATE my_table t
2 SET pos = (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM my_table WHERE id <= t.id);
3 rows updated
SQL> select * from my_table;
ID NAME POS
---------- ---------- ----------
1 one 1
3 three 2
4 four 3

Do you really need the sequence values to be contiguous, or do you just need to be able to display the contiguous values? The easiest way to do this is to let the actual sequence become sparse and calculate the rank based on the order:
select id,
name,
dense_rank() over (order by pos) as pos,
pos as sparse_pos
from my_table
(note: this is an Oracle-specific query)
If you make the position sparse in the first place, this would even make re-ordering easier, since you could make each new position halfway between the two existing ones. For instance, if you had a table like this:
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 100 |
| 2 | two | 200 |
| 3 | three | 300 |
| 4 | four | 400 |
+----+--------+-----+
When it becomes time to move ID 4 into position 2, you'd just change the position to 150.
Further explanation:
Using the above example, the user initially sees the following (because you're masking the position):
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 1 |
| 2 | two | 2 |
| 3 | three | 3 |
| 4 | four | 4 |
+----+--------+-----+
When the user, through your interface, indicates that the record in position 4 needs to be moved to position 2, you update the position of ID 4 to 150, then re-run your query. The user sees this:
+----+--------+-----+
| id | name | pos |
+----+--------+-----+
| 1 | one | 1 |
| 4 | four | 2 |
| 2 | two | 3 |
| 3 | three | 4 |
+----+--------+-----+
The only reason this wouldn't work is if the user is editing the data directly in the database. Though, even in that case, I'd be inclined to use this kind of solution, via views and instead-of triggers.

Related

Best way of storing enumerated fields with ability to change order Postgres

What is the best way for storing enumerated fields with ability to change its order?
Lets say my database looks like this:
| Table |
|---------------------|
| id | name | order|
| 1 | 1st | 1 |
| 2 | 2nd | 2 |
| 3 | 3rd | 3 |
| 4 | 4th | 4 |
Now, when user change order in such a away
| Table |
|---------------------|
| id | name | order|
| 1 | 1st | 1 |
| 4 | 4nd | 2 |
| 2 | 2nd | 3 |
| 3 | 3rd | 4 |
Here I would have to update all rows in this table.
I consider 2 solutions
Solution 1)
When inserting row X between for example order 2 and order 3, I would change row's X order field to 3.5, So I would choose number in the middle between adjacent orders.
Above table would look like this
| Table |
|---------------------|
| id | name | order|
| 1 | 1st | 1 |
| 4 | 4nd | 2.5 |
| 2 | 2nd | 2 |
| 3 | 3rd | 3 |
Then, after for example 16 changes I would update table and normalize all order fields, so table after normalization would be like this:
| Table |
|---------------------|
| id | name | order|
| 1 | 1st | 1 |
| 4 | 4nd | 2 |
| 2 | 2nd | 3 |
| 3 | 3rd | 4 |
Solution 2)
I also consider adding fields "next" (or "next" and "prev") to each row, but it looks for me like waste of memory.
I really dont want to update whole table every time somebody change order. What is the best way of solving this problem?

How do you select from a reference table with exclusivity?

I've got two tables (threads and user_threads). Essentially, a thread is an object with a name, and then a user_thread links a user to a thread. This was to illustrate a many-to-many relationship.
Given this setup, Im trying to figure out how to get threads between exclusively two users.
Threads looks like this
|------------------------|
| id | name |
| 1 | group1 |
| 2 | test group |
|------------------------|
user_threads looks like this
|---------------------------------|
| id | user | thread |
|---------------------------------|
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | 3 | 2 |
|---------------------------------|
So the issue that I'm running into is this - Given user 1 and user 2, I would like to return the mutual thread that is exclusive to them.
Querying with 1 and 2 should return thread 1. I've tried using a self join and mixing exclude, but SQL is not in my primary skill set. Is there any way to do this or do I need to restructure my tables?
One way is to select the threads that have both users using a JOIN and then excluding all those that have other users in them also.
SELECT ut1.thread FROM user_threads ut1
JOIN user_threads ut2 ON ut1.thread=ut2.thread
WHERE ut1."user" = 1 AND ut2."user" = 2
AND NOT EXISTS
(SELECT 1 FROM user_threads WHERE thread=ut1.thread AND "user" NOT IN (ut1."user", ut2."user"))
SQL Fiddle

Making an Object Dependent Number of Fields for a Table in MS.Access

I'm trying to make a database that will hold a table of objects, and these objects are comprised of objects from a second table. One table is a table of possible sets, and the second is a table of possible components. The table of sets has to include fields for each of its components, but each set has an unknown number of components. How do I make a table with fields (Component 1, Component 2, Component 3, ...) that are dependent on each set to decide how many of the fields it needs?
Is there a way to do this just using the Access interface or will I actually have to get into the code behind it?
I think it would also solve my problem if there were a way to make a field in a column that acted as an ArrayList so if anyone could think of how to do that please let me know.
Assuming that a component can be part of more than one set, what you need here is a many-to-many relationship.
In a database you don't do this with an arbitrary number of columns, you use a junction table.
When you need a tabular representation, you use a Pivot / Crosstab query.
Your data model could look like this:
Sets
+--------+----------+
| Set_ID | Set_Name |
+--------+----------+
| 1 | foo |
| 2 | bar |
+--------+----------+
Components
+--------------+----------------+
| Component_ID | Component_Name |
+--------------+----------------+
| 1 | aaa |
| 2 | bbb |
| 3 | ccc |
| 4 | ddd |
+--------------+----------------+
Junction table
+----------+----------------+
| f_Set_ID | f_Component_ID |
+----------+----------------+
| 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 4 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
+----------+----------------+
(f_ as in Foreign Key)

SSRS 2008 how to count values equal to the current cell?

I want to add a placeholder to a cell that includes a count of rows from that dataset that have that the same value.
Example:
| ID | Value |
| 1 | 123 (3) |
| 2 | 123 (3) |
| 3 | 456 (2) |
| 4 | 123 (3) |
| 5 | 456 (3) |
| 6 | 789 (1) |
This is what I have so far, but it obviously doesn't work:
Fields!cpt4_code.Value
Instead of it indicating how many times that value occurs, it simply count the number of rows return in that dataset.
Is this even possible with one dataset?
You should use LookupSet for this:
=LookupSet(Fields!fieldOne.Value, Fields!fieldOne.Value, Fields!fieldOne.Value, "DataSetNameHere").Length
LookupSet returns an array, hence the ".Length" at the end.
Think this kinda thing is what you need
=Sum(IIF(Fields!field name.value,1,0),"DatasetNameHere")

Django QuerySet - Multiple Order By when there is a single field per record

I am accessing an API where the number of fields can change at any time, but I must store and display the data as a table. Therefore, each record from the API is stored as a single record per field. My problem is that I am having trouble working out how I would order by multiple columns at a time. Putting all of the data into a 2D array (list of lists) before sorting is not a viable option as the number of records could be too large to feasibly hold in memory.
I've put together a simple example to explain. If anyone has an idea on how to overcome the problem, or how I could redesign my approach, I'd be very grateful.
| record_id | field | data |
| 1 | x | 2 |
| 1 | y | 1 |
| 1 | z | 3 |
| 2 | x | 30 |
| 2 | y | 42 |
| 2 | z | 7 |
| 3 | x | 53 |
| 3 | y | 2 |
| 3 | z | 7 |
If ordering by fields 'z' then 'x' (both ascending), the record order would be 1,2,3
If ordering by fields 'z' then 'y' (both ascending), the record order would be 1,3,2
I am using models in django to store and I am using QuerySets to retrieve the data. I don't have any control over the API or database from which I am originally accessing the data.
After a fair amount of research I realised I was going about this all wrong - I am now using an hstore field in postgres and django-hstore to utilise it, for a schema-less approach. I now have a single row per original record and I can order_by after casting the required field in an 'extra' method.

Resources