I am currently using this formula to get all the data from everyone whose first name is "Peter", but my problem is that if someone is called "Simon Peter" this data is gonna show up on the formula output.
=QUERY('Data'!1:1000,"select * where B contains 'Peter'")
I know that for the other formulas if I add an * to the String this issue is resolved. But in this situation for the QUERY formula the same logic do not applies.
Do someone knows the correct syntax or a workaround?
How about classic SQL syntax
=QUERY('Data'!1:1000,"select * where B like 'Peter %'")
The LIKE keyword allows use of wildcard % to represent characters relative to the known parts of the searched string.
See the query reference: developers.google.com/chart/interactive/docs/querylanguage You could split firstname and lastname into separate columns, then only search for firstnames exactly equal to 'Peter'. Though you may want to also check if lowercase/uppercase where lower(B) contains 'peter' or whitespaces are present in unexpected places (e.g., trim()). You could also search only for values that start with Peter by using starts with instead of contains, or a regular expression using matches. – Brian D
It seems that for my case using 'starts with' is a perfect fit. Thank you!
Related
Example Sheet I'm trying to get an exact match with an array in the criteria section of dget. Maybe there is another way to work around this, but I'm trying to give it a dynamic component in the array.
=dget('Micro Data'!$A$1:J,"PCR Score",{"Micro Type","Stage Type","Tank","ID#";"PCR PAL","Bright",F2,H2})
Sometimes all criteria matches multiple data points except the "Tank". However the tanks won't exactly match. Ex. All the data is the same in two data sets, except the tanks are CT1 and CT18. This then comes up with the #NUM! error. I'm trying to find if there is a way to get an exact match in the array data while still allowing it to reference the cell?
I know there is the option of making it "=XXX" making it a txt string, but this would take away the dynamic function. I would also loose the auto updating aspect when more data is added.
Thanks
Ryan, see my solution using a query, in Retain Log-GK, cell F2. I think it is just as dynamic as the dget, but perhaps not. It will need some error wrapping to avoid errors if no result found.
Formula is basically:
=query('Criteria Source'!A2:J5,
"select J where B = '"&D9&"' and C = '"&D10&"' and E = '"&D11&"' and D ='"& D2 & "' ",0)
I made all of the criteria dynamic, though obviously you can do it whatever way suits you best...
Let me know of any questions. I'll check back later...
I am trying to match a list of range with certain criteria in a google spreadsheet. I am using DGET function for the same. Everything is working fine but the problem comes when there are many entries that contain the whole string and I receive "More than one match found in DGET evaluation.".
For the better understanding look below:
Sheet "Form Responses 1":
B
-------
Ronald
Ronaldo
Ronaldinho
Rebarto
Matching sheet entries:
A
------
Ronald
Rebarto
Juhino
My Formula is:
=DGET('Form Responses 1'!B:H,"Date",{"Email Address","Logging In or Logging out ?","Date";A2,$B$1,$H$1})
Now the problem is Ronald is matching with "Ronald","Ronaldo" and "Ronaldinho" and I am receiving the error which says "multiple entries found".
How do we solve this?
I solved the problem by Concatenating a constant variable before and after the name. For example Ronaldo becomes mRonamdom and Ronald becomes mRonaldm. This makes the Names Unique and solves the problem.
If you don't want to modify the data but to fix the formula so it doesn't get confused with similar entries in your database parameter you can add a character to the criteria field of the dget function as shown below (I'm using an '=' sign concatenated to the value I want to match with in the database parameter)
=dget(database!$A$1:$B$11,$M$1,{"columnName";"="&F2})
where
A1:B11 is my database
M1 is the matching column name
and "="&F2 is the field with the caracter I chose that I want to match with to retrieve values from the matching database column, now even if the there are more than one matches found (becuase matching substrings"), the addition of the caracter contatenated with the matching value, should take care of the in-accurate error.
So I am trying to use a simple QUERY function in Google Sheets where I want to select based on TWO parameters. Simple logic, and documentation says use the AND operator. The problem is I am searching for text via Cell Reference.
So here is my function
=QUERY(A1:D6,"select A where C='" &K1&'"" & "and D='" &K2"'")
Unfortunately it throws up an ERROR. I understand that Cell References that are text based need to be in single quotes (which themselves need to be in double quotes), but I am unable to join two WHERE statements.
What is the right syntax for this?
Very close indeed, please try:
=query(A1:D6,"select A where C='"&K1&"' and D='"&K2&"' ")
Welp! I was missing an concatenation symbol (&) at the end of the final cell reference K2.
=QUERY(A1:D6,"select A where C='" &K1&'"" & "and D='" &K2&"'")
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 have a table with 1 million+ records that contain names. I would like to be able to sort the list by the first letter in the name.
.. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
What is the most efficient way to setup the db table to allow for searching by the first character in the table.name field?
The best idea right now is to add an extra field which stores the first character of the name as an observer, index that field and then sort by that field. Problem is it's no longer necessarily alphabetical.
Any suggestions?
You said in a comment:
so lets ignore the first letter part. How can I all records that start with A? All A's no B...z ? Thanks – AnApprentice Feb 21 at 15:30
I issume you meant How can I RETURN all records...
This is the answer:
select * from t
where substr(name, 1, 1) = 'A'
I agree with the questions above as to why you would want to do this -- a regular index on the whole field is functionally equivalent. PostgreSQL (with some new ones in v. 9) has some rather powerful indexing capabilities for special cases which you might want to read about here http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/sql-createindex.html