I wish to select the rows that satisfy a few conditions, which may not be done directly through filter command.
I wish to go through each "ID1" using a for loop in 1:max(ID1), then in each loop there could be different numbers of "ID2".
Now given that the conflict type is 12, like three highlighted 12 in ConflictTypeID, I would like to store the corresponding code of UserTypeA and UserTypeB. If either of UserTypeA and UserTypeB is not 4, then the corresponding User1_id and User2_id should be searched for repetation if any. Given that one of the User1_id or User1_id is being repeated, I should get those two rows in return.
For example the image I have attached, given that ConflictTypeId is 12, I have in UserTypeA and UserTypeB 3 that is is not "4" to be specific. Then, the corresponding User1_id and User2_id I have 299, which can be repeated in either User1_id and User2_id. Now the end result will then be the ID=762 and 765. All other rows should filter out.
I have tried filtering and for loops, but I am unable to get to required result. Can someone please help me solve this filtering problem.
enter image description here
Related
I have models named Issue and Label. Each issue can have many labels. Each label can have many issues.
I am trying to build a query that will return an issue that contains all of the supplied labels.
For instance, if I supply ['bug', 'fix', 'enhancement'] I want issues that have all three of those three labels at least.
Currently, I have:
labels = ['bug', 'fix', 'enhancement']
Issue.joins(:labels).where(labels: { name: labels }).distinct
But this is insufficient as it returns issues that have at least one of the label names. I see this is because is because an 'IN' operator is generated:
WHERE "labels"."name" IN ('bug', 'fix', 'enhancement')
And from here on, I'm lost. The labels array can be any length. Can I get the result I want in a single query?
How can I find rows in a table that point to rows in another that match all the specified column values?
I didn't check it, but maybe this approach could work
Issue.select('issues.id, count(labels.id) as cnt').includes(:labels).where(labels: { name: labels }).group('issues.id').having("cnt = #{labels.size}");
I can query using Cypher in Neo4j from the Panama database the countries of three types of identity holders (I define that term) namely Entities (companies), officers (shareholders) and Intermediaries (middle companies) as three attributes/columns. Each column has single or double entries separated by colon (eg: British Virgin Islands;Russia). We want to concatenate the countries in these columns into a unique set of countries and hence obtain the count of the number of countries as new attribute.
For this, I tried the following code from my understanding of Cypher:
MATCH (BEZ2:Officer)-[:SHAREHOLDER_OF]->(BEZ1:Entity),(BEZ3:Intermediary)-[:INTERMEDIARY_OF]->(BEZ1:Entity)
WHERE BEZ1.address CONTAINS "Belize" AND
NOT ((BEZ1.countries="Belize" AND BEZ2.countries="Belize" AND BEZ3.countries="Belize") OR
(BEZ1.status IN ["Inactivated", "Dissolved shelf company", "Dissolved", "Discontinued", "Struck / Defunct / Deregistered", "Dead"]))
SET BEZ4.countries= (BEZ1.countries+","+BEZ2.countries+","+BEZ3.countries)
RETURN BEZ3.countries AS IntermediaryCountries, BEZ3.name AS
Intermediaryname, BEZ2.countries AS OfficerCountries , BEZ2.name AS
Officername, BEZ1.countries as EntityCountries, BEZ1.name AS Companyname,
BEZ1.address AS CompanyAddress,DISTINCT count(BEZ4.countries) AS NoofConnections
The relevant part is the SET statement in the 7th line and the DISTINCT count in the last line. The code shows error which makes no sense to me: Invalid input 'u': expected 'n/N'. I guess it means to use COLLECT probably but we tried that as well and it shows the error vice-versa'd between 'u' and 'n'. Please help us obtain the output that we want, it makes our job hell lot easy. Thanks in advance!
EDIT: Considering I didn't define variable as suggested by #Cybersam, I tried the command CREATE as following but it shows the error "Invalid input 'R':" for the command RETURN. This is unfathomable for me. Help really needed, thank you.
CODE 2:
MATCH (BEZ2:Officer)-[:SHAREHOLDER_OF]->(BEZ1:Entity),(BEZ3:Intermediary)-
[:INTERMEDIARY_OF]->(BEZ1:Entity)
WHERE BEZ1.address CONTAINS "Belize" AND
NOT ((BEZ1.countries="Belize" AND BEZ2.countries="Belize" AND
BEZ3.countries="Belize") OR
(BEZ1.status IN ["Inactivated", "Dissolved shelf company", "Dissolved",
"Discontinued", "Struck / Defunct / Deregistered", "Dead"]))
CREATE (p:Connections{countries:
split((BEZ1.countries+";"+BEZ2.countries+";"+BEZ3.countries),";")
RETURN BEZ3.countries AS IntermediaryCountries, BEZ3.name AS
Intermediaryname, BEZ2.countries AS OfficerCountries , BEZ2.name AS
Officername, BEZ1.countries as EntityCountries, BEZ1.name AS Companyname,
BEZ1.address AS CompanyAddress, AS TOTAL, collect (DISTINCT
COUNT(p.countries)) AS NumberofConnections
Lines 8 and 9 are the ones new and to be in examination.
First Query
You never defined the identifier BEZ4, so you cannot set a property on it.
Second Query (which should have been posted in a separate question):
You have several typos and a syntax error.
This query should not get an error (but you will have to determine if it does what you want):
MATCH (BEZ2:Officer)-[:SHAREHOLDER_OF]->(BEZ1:Entity),(BEZ3:Intermediary)- [:INTERMEDIARY_OF]->(BEZ1:Entity)
WHERE BEZ1.address CONTAINS "Belize" AND NOT ((BEZ1.countries="Belize" AND BEZ2.countries="Belize" AND BEZ3.countries="Belize") OR (BEZ1.status IN ["Inactivated", "Dissolved shelf company", "Dissolved", "Discontinued", "Struck / Defunct / Deregistered", "Dead"]))
CREATE (p:Connections {countries: split((BEZ1.countries+";"+BEZ2.countries+";"+BEZ3.countries), ";")})
RETURN BEZ3.countries AS IntermediaryCountries,
BEZ3.name AS Intermediaryname,
BEZ2.countries AS OfficerCountries ,
BEZ2.name AS Officername,
BEZ1.countries as EntityCountries,
BEZ1.name AS Companyname,
BEZ1.address AS CompanyAddress,
SIZE(p.countries) AS NumberofConnections;
Problems with the original:
The CREATE clause was missing a closing } and also a closing ).
The RETURN clause had a dangling AS TOTAL term.
collect (DISTINCT COUNT(p.countries)) was attempting to perform nested aggregation, which is not supported. In any case, even if it had worked, it probably would not have returned what you wanted. I suspect that you actually wanted the size of the p.countries collection, so that is what I used in my query.
I am trying to create a report in SSRS. Below is a small example of what my dataset looks like.
Example Data Set
So, there are three different stores (A,B,C) and each has a landlord (a,b,c). Landlords can pay via three different methods (1,2,3) and the amounts paid per method are shown.
Right now, I have two filters set up. The first is by Store and the second is by Landlord.
What I am having trouble with is:
How can I set up a filter by the Amount that will return information from an entire Store/Landlord?
So for example, if I wanted to filter Amount by 150, I would like to return all the "payment" information for the store(s) that have a payment of 150. Such as the following:
Desired Result
Is it possible to add a filter to return information from the entire group? (Store and Landlord are the group in this case)
I am new to SSRS so any help/insight would be greatly appreciated!
You can use LookUpSet to locate the matching groups, JOIN to put the results in a string and the INSTR function to filter your results.
=IIF(ISNOTHING(Parameters!AMOUNT.Value) OR INSTR(
Join(LOOKUPSET(Fields!Amount.Value, Fields!Amount.Value, Fields!Store.Value, "DataSet1"), ", ") ,
Fields!Store.Value
) > 0, 1, 0)
This translates to:
If the Store value is found (INSTR > 0) in the list (JOIN) of Stores where the Amount is the current Amount (Lookupset).
In your filter, put the above expression in the Expression, change the type to INTEGER and the Value to 1.
[
I am using Neo4J to represent texts; in the simplest case a text is a sequence of words joined by the relationship LEMMA_TEXT.
I am trying to find the Nth word after a known word, with a query that looks something like this.
MATCH (anchor)-[:LEMMA_TEXT*32]->(word)
WHERE id(anchor) = 3275
RETURN word
In one particular case, if I increase the path length to 33, I get this error:
Neo.DatabaseError.Statement.ExecutionFailure: There is no spoon.
And yet the following query returns the correct result.
MATCH (anchor)-[:LEMMA_TEXT*32]->(word)-[:LEMMA_TEXT]->(next)
WHERE id(anchor) = 3275
RETURN next
which demonstrates that the node I want exists and is reachable.
Where is the section of the manual that tells me how to bend the spoon with my mind? More importantly, what does this actually mean?!
If anything breaks at number like 33, it means that there was a restriction upto 32, why 32? 2^5.
It's not trivial that most of the restrictions are in a factor of 2, MongoDB document size cannot be more than 16 MB, on a collection there could be maximum index, no more than 64. etc.
why it works as 32 and then next, because till 32 it can achieve in one operation and for last one it can see the next one as another operation. But it cannot go for 33 in one operation.
Most of these restrictions are basically sanity check though and not really technical boundary.
As for why it is almost always a factor of 2, I want someone else to answer or in other words I don't know.
Have you tried splitting the landing and the search statements in 2?
Plus you should add the label for the text word (forormance)
Example:
MATCH (anchor)
WHERE id(anchor) = 3275
WITH anchor
MATCH (anchor)-[:LEMMA_TEXT*32]->(word)
RETURN word
You get the same error?
So far I have a query with a result set (in a temp table) with several columns but I am only concerned with four. One is a customer ID(varchar), one is Date (smalldatetime), one is Amount(money) and the last is Type(char). I have multiple rows with the same custmer ID and want to evaluate them based on Date, Amount and Type. For example:
Customer ID Date Amount Type
A 1-1-10 200 blue
A 1-1-10 400 green
A 1-2-10 400 green
B 1-11-10 100 blue
B 1-11-10 100 red
For all occurrences of A I want to compare them to identify only one, first by earliest date, then by greatest Amount, then if still tied by comparing Types. I would then return one row for each customer.
I would provide some of the query but I am at home now after spending two days trying to get a correct result. It looks something like this:
(query to populate #tempTable)
GROUP BY customer_id
HAVING date_cd =
(SELECT MIN(date_cd)
FROM order_table ot
WHERE ot.customerID = #tempTable.customerID
)
OR date_cd IS NULL
I assume the HAVING would result in only one row per customer_id. This did not end up being the case since there were some ties there.
I am not sure I can do the OR - there are some with NULL values here - and it did not account for the step to the next comparison if they were all the same anyway. I am not seeing a way to avoid doing some row processing of the temp table with some kind of IF or WHERE loop.
As I write I am thinking maybe I use #tempTable.date_cd in the HAVING clause instead of looking at the original table. but that should return the same dates?
Am I on the right track or is there something missing? Suggestions? More info??
try below query :-
select * from #tempTable
GROUP BY customer_id
HAVING isnull(date_cd,"1900/01/01") =min(isnull(date_cd,"1900/01/01"))