I need to create a report that checks the status of an order by looking for its ID in the database. The trouble is that if the order payment fails for some reason (most common is "credit card refused") and the buyer attempts to make a payment again, another register with the same ID is created.
I was using INDEX(MATCH()) for this and it works well when the payments go through on the first attempt, but if they fail, I get a wrong match because it will stop at the first match, and I need the last one.
I provided a sample sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10tDHL8UhgUqlGwtZohlrlD9sSOwz2ay23EwHOQN_1B4/edit#gid=0
Any ideas?
use:
=INDEX((IFNA(VLOOKUP(H3:H, SORT({A:B, ROW(A:A)}, 3, 0), 2, 0))))
IFNA
Related
I have a list of email addresses in SPSS. I'm trying to write syntax to count how many times each email address appears.
For instance:
In my desired output, if johndoe#aol.com appears in the data 3 times, I want all instances of his email to show a 3 in my new column.
I know I can write syntax to have it count (ie johndoe#aol.com will be assigned 1 the first time, then 2 then 3)... but this is not what I want.
Thanks!
Steps to do this:
Sort cases by email.
Get the counts using the Aggregate command.
Use the Identify Duplicate Cases command to generate an indicator of whether a given email is the first of its kind in the file.
Select cases that aren't the first with that particular email.
All four of those commands are in the Data menu in the GUI. Syntax to do the whole thing:
SORT CASES BY Email.
*This will create a new variable N_EMAIL with the counts. It will appear for every case.
AGGREGATE
/OUTFILE=* MODE=ADDVARIABLES
/PRESORTED
/BREAK=Email
/N_EMAIL=N.
*Now we generate a "PrimaryFirst" indicator showing whether a given case is the first instance of its email.
MATCH FILES
/FILE=*
/BY Email
/FIRST=PrimaryFirst
/LAST=PrimaryLast.
DO IF (PrimaryFirst).
COMPUTE MatchSequence=1-PrimaryLast.
ELSE.
COMPUTE MatchSequence=MatchSequence+1.
END IF.
LEAVE MatchSequence.
FORMATS MatchSequence (f7).
COMPUTE InDupGrp=MatchSequence>0.
SORT CASES InDupGrp(D).
MATCH FILES
/FILE=*
/DROP=PrimaryLast InDupGrp MatchSequence.
EXECUTE.
*Filter out duplicate cases.
SELECT IF PrimaryFirst = 1.
EXECUTE.
*Final cleanup.
DELETE VARIABLES PrimaryFirst.
Just run this:
AGGREGATE /OUTFILE=* MODE=ADDVARIABLES /BREAK=EmailAddress /num_instances=N.
A new column will appear in the dataset called num_instances (you can of course select another name) which will have the desired count appear in all instances of each Email address.
I developed an app based on App Inventor and Fusion Tables. When I want to update total money by adding some money to already existing money it is giving some error.
When I use SELECT command to get information from fusion table it is taking then number with column Name. When i am trying to add both of them it is giving following error.
Error message
The result from a fusiontable includes always the header row...
from your example SELECT statement the result is
TotalPaid
5000
Obviously to add any value to that result will result in an error, because you only can add numeric values...
You first have to extract the value (in your example 5000) from the result. Convert the result into a list using the split block, just split at \n (new value) to get a list, then select the 2nd item using the select list item block.
Note: to be able to update something in a table, you need the ROWID, see also the SQL Reference Documentation of the Fusion Tables API.
For UPDATE statements the first step to be done is to get the ROWID of the row to be updated with a SELECT statement. The second step is to do the UPDATE.
I have a model with following columns
Charges Model
Date
fee
discount
Data
1/1/15, 1, 1
1/1/15, 2, 1
2/2/15, 3, 3
I have a few named scopes like this_year
I want to do something like Charges.this_year.summed_up
How do I make a named scope for this.
The returned response then should be:
1/1/15, 3, 2
2/2/15, 3, 3
Assuming you have a model with a date field(eg. published_at) and 2 integer fields(eg. fee, discount). You can use "group" method to run GROUP BY on published_at. Then just use sum method if you want only sum of one fields. If you want more than one field, you have to run a select with SQL SUMs inside, to get multiple column sums. Here is an example.
Charge..group(published_at)
.select("published_at, SUM(fee) AS sum_fee, SUM(discount) AS sum_discount")
.order("published_at")
Note: Summarized fields won't show up in rails console return value prompt. But they are there for you to use.
Depending upon what end result you want, you may want to look at .group(:attribute) rather than .group_by:
Charge.group(:date).each do |charge|
charge.where('date = ?', charge.date).sum(:fee)
charge.where('date = ?', charge.date).sum(:discount)
end
I found this approach easier, especially if setting multiple conditions on the data you want to extract from the table.
In any case, I had an accounting model that presented this kind of issue where I needed credit and debit plus type of payment info on a single table and spent a fruitful few hours learning all about group_by before realizing that .group() offered a simple solution.
I wanna update my table for all persons whoes activity lasted toooo long. The update should correct one time and for the subsequent rows I need to deal with new result. So thought about something like
UPDATE summary_table st
SET st.screen_on=newScreenOnValue
st.active_screen_on=st.active_screen_on-(st.screen_on-newScreenOnValue) --old-value minus thedifference
FROM (
SUB-SELECT with rowid, newScreenOnValue ... JOIN ... WHERE....
) nv
WHERE (st.rowid=nv.rowid)
I know that I can update the first and the second value directly, by rerunning the same query. But my problem is the costs of the subselect seems quite high and therefore wanna avoid a double-update resp. double-run of the same query.
The above SELECT is just a informal way of writting what I think I would like to get. I know that the st doesn't work, but I left it here for better understanding. When I try the above statement I always get back a SyntaxError at the position the FROM ends.
This can be achieved as follows:
UPDATE summary_table st
SET (st.screen_on, st.active_screen_on) =
((SELECT newScreenOnValue, st.active_screen_on-(st.screen_on-newScreenOnValue)
FROM ...
JOIN...
WHERE..))
[WHERE if any additional condition required];
The above query works perfectly fine on informix tried and tested until you make any errors in the FROM, JOIN, WHERE clauses.
Cheers !
Syntax error because a comma is missing between the first and second columns you're updating.
Never use ROWID's, they're volatile and also not used by default with IDS, unless you specify so.
Why are you using a subquery?
In my application a User has Highlights.
Each Highlight has a HighlightType. So if I run user.highlights I might see an output like this:
Notice that there are many highlights of type_id 47. This marks milestones of the number of times the user has gone running.
What I would like to do is return this full list of records, but only include one highlight for each highlight_type, and I want that one record to be the most recent record (in this case the "50th run" highlight). So in the example above I would get the same results but with IDs 195-199 removed.
Is there an efficient way to accomplish this?
I don't think there is an easy or clean way to achieve that, nor a "Rails way". Look at e.g. this link
According to one suggestion in that link you would do this SQL request:
SELECT h1.*
FROM highlights h1
LEFT JOIN highlights h2
ON (h1.user_id = h2.user_id
AND h1.highlight_type_id = h2.highlight_type_id
AND h1.created_at < h2.created_at)
WHERE h2.id IS NULL AND h1.user_id = <the user id you are interested in>
group by h1.highlight_type_id
I think it will be some performance problem if you have big tables maybe, an it not so very clean I think.
Otherwise, if there isn't so much highlights for a user I would have done something like this:
rows = {}
user.highlights.order('highlight_type_id, created_at DESC').each do |hi|
rows[hi.highlight_type_id] ||= hi
end
# then use rows which will have one object for each highlight_type_id
The DESC on created_at is important
EDIT:
I also saw some suggestions based on this
user.highlights.group('highlight_type_id').order('created_at DESC')
And that was also how I first thought it should be solved, but I tested it and it doesn't seems to get a correct result - at least on my test data.