I'm currently using StandardSQL in BigQuery, I tried to join two sets of table one of which is a pseudo-column table partitioned by day.
I tried to use this query below:
SELECT
DISTINCT DATE(create_time) AS date,
user_id,
city_name,
transaction_id,
price
FROM
table_1 a
LEFT JOIN (SELECT user_id, city_name FROM table_2) b
ON (a.user_id = b.user_id AND DATE(create_time) = _PARTITIONDATE)
I've tried this kind of JOIN (using _PARTITIONDATE) and worked out, but for this particular query I got an error message:
Unrecognized name: _PARTITIONDATE
Can anyone tell me why this happened, and how could I solve this? Thanks in advance.
The issue is that you are not selecting the _PARTITIONDATE field from table_2 when joining it so it can't recognize it:
SELECT user_id, city_name FROM table_2
In order to solve it you can add it as follows:
SELECT
DISTINCT DATE(create_time) AS date,
user_id,
city_name,
transaction_id,
price
FROM
table_1 a
LEFT JOIN (SELECT _PARTITIONDATE AS pd, user_id, city_name FROM table_2) b
ON (a.user_id = b.user_id AND DATE(create_time) = pd)
Note that you'll need an alias such as pd as it's a pseudocolumn
Probably it was working in the past if you were joining two tables directly such as in (you don't get selectivity benefits in that case):
FROM
table_1 a
LEFT JOIN table_2 b
ON (a.user_id = b.user_id AND DATE(create_time) = _PARTITIONDATE)
I would like to join tables . Could you please help?
Select Number, OwnerId from DNIS.numbers
select ID,Name from DNIS.owners
Thank you.
Normally, SQL servers allow you to join tables from different databases as long as the former all belong to them. Here is an example showing you how to do this (all you have to do is to explicitly write the database names associated to each table in the query):
SELECT N.Number, N.OwnerId, O.ID, O.Name
FROM DB1.[dbo].DNIS numbers N
JOIN DB2.[dbo].DNIS owners O ON O.ID = N.OwnerId
You can also use the following syntax:
SELECT N.Number, N.OwnerId, O.ID, O.Name
FROM DB1..DNIS numbers N
JOIN DB2..DNIS owners O ON O.ID = N.OwnerId
In order to accomplish that you will have to specify the table and column names in your join statement, like so:
SELECT db1.tablename.column, db2.tablename.column
FROM db1.tablename INNER JOIN db2.tablename
ON db1.tablename.id = db2.tablename.id;
I have a simple SQL query in PostgreSQL 8.3 that grabs a bunch of comments. I provide a sorted list of values to the IN construct in the WHERE clause:
SELECT * FROM comments WHERE (comments.id IN (1,3,2,4));
This returns comments in an arbitrary order which in my happens to be ids like 1,2,3,4.
I want the resulting rows sorted like the list in the IN construct: (1,3,2,4).
How to achieve that?
You can do it quite easily with (introduced in PostgreSQL 8.2) VALUES (), ().
Syntax will be like this:
select c.*
from comments c
join (
values
(1,1),
(3,2),
(2,3),
(4,4)
) as x (id, ordering) on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering
In Postgres 9.4 or later, this is simplest and fastest:
SELECT c.*
FROM comments c
JOIN unnest('{1,3,2,4}'::int[]) WITH ORDINALITY t(id, ord) USING (id)
ORDER BY t.ord;
WITH ORDINALITY was introduced with in Postgres 9.4.
No need for a subquery, we can use the set-returning function like a table directly. (A.k.a. "table-function".)
A string literal to hand in the array instead of an ARRAY constructor may be easier to implement with some clients.
For convenience (optionally), copy the column name we are joining to ("id" in the example), so we can join with a short USING clause to only get a single instance of the join column in the result.
Works with any input type. If your key column is of type text, provide something like '{foo,bar,baz}'::text[].
Detailed explanation:
PostgreSQL unnest() with element number
Just because it is so difficult to find and it has to be spread: in mySQL this can be done much simpler, but I don't know if it works in other SQL.
SELECT * FROM `comments`
WHERE `comments`.`id` IN ('12','5','3','17')
ORDER BY FIELD(`comments`.`id`,'12','5','3','17')
With Postgres 9.4 this can be done a bit shorter:
select c.*
from comments c
join (
select *
from unnest(array[43,47,42]) with ordinality
) as x (id, ordering) on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering;
Or a bit more compact without a derived table:
select c.*
from comments c
join unnest(array[43,47,42]) with ordinality as x (id, ordering)
on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering
Removing the need to manually assign/maintain a position to each value.
With Postgres 9.6 this can be done using array_position():
with x (id_list) as (
values (array[42,48,43])
)
select c.*
from comments c, x
where id = any (x.id_list)
order by array_position(x.id_list, c.id);
The CTE is used so that the list of values only needs to be specified once. If that is not important this can also be written as:
select c.*
from comments c
where id in (42,48,43)
order by array_position(array[42,48,43], c.id);
I think this way is better :
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY id=1 DESC, id=3 DESC, id=2 DESC, id=4 DESC
Another way to do it in Postgres would be to use the idx function.
SELECT *
FROM comments
ORDER BY idx(array[1,3,2,4], comments.id)
Don't forget to create the idx function first, as described here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Array_Index
In Postgresql:
select *
from comments
where id in (1,3,2,4)
order by position(id::text in '1,3,2,4')
On researching this some more I found this solution:
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY CASE "comments"."id"
WHEN 1 THEN 1
WHEN 3 THEN 2
WHEN 2 THEN 3
WHEN 4 THEN 4
END
However this seems rather verbose and might have performance issues with large datasets.
Can anyone comment on these issues?
To do this, I think you should probably have an additional "ORDER" table which defines the mapping of IDs to order (effectively doing what your response to your own question said), which you can then use as an additional column on your select which you can then sort on.
In that way, you explicitly describe the ordering you desire in the database, where it should be.
sans SEQUENCE, works only on 8.4:
select * from comments c
join
(
select id, row_number() over() as id_sorter
from (select unnest(ARRAY[1,3,2,4]) as id) as y
) x on x.id = c.id
order by x.id_sorter
SELECT * FROM "comments" JOIN (
SELECT 1 as "id",1 as "order" UNION ALL
SELECT 3,2 UNION ALL SELECT 2,3 UNION ALL SELECT 4,4
) j ON "comments"."id" = j."id" ORDER BY j.ORDER
or if you prefer evil over good:
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY POSITION(','+"comments"."id"+',' IN ',1,3,2,4,')
And here's another solution that works and uses a constant table (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/sql-values.html):
SELECT * FROM comments AS c,
(VALUES (1,1),(3,2),(2,3),(4,4) ) AS t (ord_id,ord)
WHERE (c.id IN (1,3,2,4)) AND (c.id = t.ord_id)
ORDER BY ord
But again I'm not sure that this is performant.
I've got a bunch of answers now. Can I get some voting and comments so I know which is the winner!
Thanks All :-)
create sequence serial start 1;
select * from comments c
join (select unnest(ARRAY[1,3,2,4]) as id, nextval('serial') as id_sorter) x
on x.id = c.id
order by x.id_sorter;
drop sequence serial;
[EDIT]
unnest is not yet built-in in 8.3, but you can create one yourself(the beauty of any*):
create function unnest(anyarray) returns setof anyelement
language sql as
$$
select $1[i] from generate_series(array_lower($1,1),array_upper($1,1)) i;
$$;
that function can work in any type:
select unnest(array['John','Paul','George','Ringo']) as beatle
select unnest(array[1,3,2,4]) as id
Slight improvement over the version that uses a sequence I think:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION in_sort(anyarray, out id anyelement, out ordinal int)
LANGUAGE SQL AS
$$
SELECT $1[i], i FROM generate_series(array_lower($1,1),array_upper($1,1)) i;
$$;
SELECT
*
FROM
comments c
INNER JOIN (SELECT * FROM in_sort(ARRAY[1,3,2,4])) AS in_sort
USING (id)
ORDER BY in_sort.ordinal;
select * from comments where comments.id in
(select unnest(ids) from bbs where id=19795)
order by array_position((select ids from bbs where id=19795),comments.id)
here, [bbs] is the main table that has a field called ids,
and, ids is the array that store the comments.id .
passed in postgresql 9.6
Lets get a visual impression about what was already said. For example you have a table with some tasks:
SELECT a.id,a.status,a.description FROM minicloud_tasks as a ORDER BY random();
id | status | description
----+------------+------------------
4 | processing | work on postgres
6 | deleted | need some rest
3 | pending | garden party
5 | completed | work on html
And you want to order the list of tasks by its status.
The status is a list of string values:
(processing, pending, completed, deleted)
The trick is to give each status value an interger and order the list numerical:
SELECT a.id,a.status,a.description FROM minicloud_tasks AS a
JOIN (
VALUES ('processing', 1), ('pending', 2), ('completed', 3), ('deleted', 4)
) AS b (status, id) ON (a.status = b.status)
ORDER BY b.id ASC;
Which leads to:
id | status | description
----+------------+------------------
4 | processing | work on postgres
3 | pending | garden party
5 | completed | work on html
6 | deleted | need some rest
Credit #user80168
I agree with all other posters that say "don't do that" or "SQL isn't good at that". If you want to sort by some facet of comments then add another integer column to one of your tables to hold your sort criteria and sort by that value. eg "ORDER BY comments.sort DESC " If you want to sort these in a different order every time then... SQL won't be for you in this case.
I’m working in SQL Server with the following sample problem. Brandon prefers PC’s and Macs, Sue prefers PC’s only, and Alan Prefers Macs. The data would be represented something like this. I've had to make some compromises here but hopefully you get the picture:
TABLE 1: User
uID (INT PK), uName (VARCHAR)
1 'Brandon'
2 'Sue'
3 'Alan'
TABLE 2: Computer
cID (INT PK), cName (VARCHAR)
1 'Mac'
2 'PC'
TABLE 3: UCPref --Stores the computer preferences for each user
uID (INT FK), cID (INT FK)
1 1
1 2
2 1
3 2
Now, if I want to select everyone who likes PC’s OR Macs that would be quite easy. There's a dozen ways to do it, but if I'm having a list of items fed in, then the IN clause is quite straight-forward:
SELECT u.uName
FROM User u
INNER JOIN UCPref p ON u.uID = p.uID
WHERE cID IN (1,2)
The problem I have is, what happens when I ONLY want to select people who like BOTH PC’s AND Mac’s? I can do it in multiple sub queries, however that isn’t very scalable.
SELECT u.uName
FROM User u
INNER JOIN UCPref p ON u.uID = p.uID
WHERE u.uID IN (SELECT uID FROM UCPref WHERE cID = 1)
AND u.uID IN (SELECT uID FROM UCPref WHERE cID = 2)
How does one write this query such that you can return the users who prefer multiple computers taking into consideration that there may be hundreds, maybe thousands of different kinds of computers (meaning no sub queries)? If only you could modify the IN clause to have a key word like 'ALL' to indicate that you want to match only those records that have all of the items in the parenthesis?
SELECT u.uName
FROM User u
INNER JOIN UCPref p ON u.uID = p.uID
WHERE cID IN *ALL* (1,2)
Using JOINs:
SELECT u.uname
FROM USERS u
JOIN UCPREF ucp ON ucp.uid = u.uid
JOIN COMPUTER mac ON mac.cid = ucp.cid
AND mac.cname = 'Mac'
JOIN COMPUTER pc ON pc.cid = ucp.cid
AND pc.cname = 'PC'
I'm using table aliases, because I'm JOINing onto the same table twice.
Using EXISTS:
SELECT u.uname
FROM USERS u
JOIN UCPREF ucp ON ucp.uid = u.uid
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT NULL
FROM COMPUTER c
WHERE c.cid = ucp.cid
AND c.cid IN (1, 2)
GROUP BY c.cid
HAVING COUNT(*) = 2)
If you're going to use the IN clause, you have to use GROUP BY/HAVING but there is a risk in the COUNT(). Some db's don't allow more than the *, while MySQL allows DISTINCT .... The problem is that if you can't use DISTINCT in the count, you could get two instances of the value 2, and it would valid to SQL - giving you a false positive.