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!
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 that is linked to Access to return the results of emails into a folder. All of the emails being returned will be answering the same questions. I need to parse this email body text from this table and update several fields of another table with this data. The problem is that the linked table brings the text in super messy. Even though I have the email that is being returned all nicely formatted in a table, it comes back into access a hot mess full of extra spacing. I want to open a recordset based on the linked table (LinkTable), and then parse the LinkTable.Body field somehow so I can update another table with clean data. The data that is coming back into LinkTable looks like this:
Permit? (Note: if yes, provide specific permit type in Additional Requirements section)
No
Phytosanitary Certificate? (Note: if recommended, input No and complete Additional Requirements section)
Yes
Additional Requirements: if not applicable, indicate NA or leave blank (Type of permit required, container labeling, other agency documents, other)
Double containment, The labeling or declaration must provide the following information: -The kind, variety, and origin of each lot of seed -The designation “hybrid” when the lot contains hybrid seed -If the seed was treated, the name of the substance or p
The answer of the first two should either be yes or no, so I figured I could set up code with case statements and based on a match I should place yes or no in the corresponding field in my real table (not sure how to deal with the extra spaces here), The third one could have any number of responses, but it is the last question so anything after the "(Type of permit required, container labeling, other agency documents, other)" could be taken and placed in the other table. Does anyone have any ideas how I could set this up? I am at a bit of a loss, especially with how to deal with all of the extra spaces and how to grab all of the text after the Additional Requirements paragraph. Thank you in advance!
My select statement to get the body text looks like this:
Set rst1 = db.OpenRecordset("SELECT Subject, Contents FROM LinkTable WHERE Subject like '*1710'")
There are multiple ways to do this, one is using Instr() and Len() to find beginning and end of the fixed questions, then Mid() to extract the answers.
But I think using Split() is easier. It's best explained with commented code.
Public Sub TheParsing()
' A string constant that you expect to never come up in the Contents, used as separator for Split()
Const strSeparator = "##||##"
Dim rst1 As Recordset
Dim S As String
Dim arAnswers As Variant
Dim i As Long
S = Nz(rst1!Contents, "")
' Replace all the constant parts (questions) with the separator
S = Replace(S, "Permit? (Note: if yes, provide specific permit type in Additional Requirements section)", strSeparator)
' etc. for the other questions
' Split the remaining string into a 0-based array with the answers
arAnswers = Split(S, strSeparator)
' arAnswers(0) contains everything before the first question (probably ""), ignore that.
' Check that there are 3 answers
If UBound(arAnswers) <> 3 Then
' Houston, we have a problem
Stop
Else
For i = 1 To 3
' Extract each answer
S = arAnswers(i)
' Remove whitespace: CrLf, Tab
S = Replace(S, vbCrLf, "")
S = Replace(S, vbTab, "")
' Trim the remaining string
S = Trim(S)
' Now you have the cleaned up string and can use it
Select Case i
Case 1: strPermit = S
Case 2: strCertificate = S
Case 3: strRequirements = S
End Select
Next i
End If
rst1.MoveNext
' etc
End Sub
This will fail if the constant parts (the questions) have been altered. But so will all other straightforward methods.
So I followed the directions that I was given to me in my live lecture word for word and also researched this in my textbook and I've done everything (So I think) properly but I keep getting a error Which I have looked up to see what it means and it didn't help me at all and I've been working on it for a whole day so I'm reaching out to you guys to see if you can see my mistake anywheres in my code
This is the question that I am trying to complete:
Using the BOOK_CUSTOMER table and the NVL function, create a query that will return a list containing the customer number, first name, last name, and the characters ‘NOT REFERRED’ if the customer was not referred by another customer. Give the derived column an alias of REFERRED BY. Do not list any customers that were referred by another customer.
MY CODE =
SELECT CutomerID, FirstName, LastName,
NVL(TO_CHAR(Referred), 'Not Referred'))
FROM Book_Customer;
I also realize that I haven't completed the whole question. I'm just trying to get my NVL to work first and then go onto the Alias and the last part of the question because I do not know how to do either of those yet, any tips on that would be greatly appreciated as well
There's an extra (unmatched) closing paren in your SQL text, and that's going to throw a syntax error.
NVL(TO_CHAR(Referred), 'Not Referred'))
^
There's no matching opening paren for that last paren.
To assign an alias to an expression in the SELECT list, follow the expression with the keyword AS and an alias.
SELECT t.foo AS bar
The resultset will contain a column named bar.
SELECT b.CustomerID
, b.FirstName
, b.LastName
, NVL(TO_CHAR(b.Referred),'Not Referred') AS ReferredBy
FROM Book_Customer b
WHERE b.Referred IS NULL
I finally figured it out! The proper code was:
SELECT CustomerID, FirstName, LastName,
NVL(TO_CHAR(Referred), 'Not Referred') AS "Referred By"
FROM Book_Customer
WHERE Referred IS NULL;
Thank you everyone for all your helpful comments that helped me figure out this problem.
I want to replace the value of the 'Amount' key in a map (literal) with the sum of the existing 'Amount' value plus the new 'Amount' value such where both the 'type' and 'Price' match. The structure I have so far is:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
(I'm trying to get it to:)
RETURN [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:250},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as CombinedOrders
If there is no existing NewOrder.type and NewOrder.Price then it should obviously insert the new record rather than add it together.
Sorry, this is possibly really straight forward, but I'm not very good at this yet.
thanks
Edit:
I should add, that I have been able to get this working for a simpler map structure as such:
WITH [{type:1, Amount:100},{type:2, Amount:200},{type:3, Amount:300}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Amount:50} as NewValue
RETURN reduce(map=filter(p in ExistingOrders where not p.type=NewValue.type),x in [(filter(p2 in ExistingOrders where p2.type=NewValue.type)[0])]|CASE x WHEN null THEN NewValue ELSE {type:x.type,Amount:x.Amount+NewValue.Amount} END+map) as CombinedOrders
But I'm struggling I think because of the Orders[array] in my first example.
I believe you are just trying to update the value of the appropriate Amount in ExistingOrders.
The following query is legal Cypher, and should normally work:
WITH ExistingOrders, NewOrder, [x IN ExistingOrders WHERE x.type = NewOrder.type | x.Orders] AS eo
FOREACH (y IN eo |
SET y.Amount = y.Amount + CASE WHEN y.Price = NewOrder.Order.Price THEN NewOrder.Order.Amount ELSE 0 END
)
However, the above query produces a (somewhat) funny ThisShouldNotHappenError error with the message:
Developer: Stefan claims that: This should be a node or a relationship
What the message is trying to say (in obtuse fashion) is that you are not using the neo4j DB in the right way. Your properties are way too complicated, and should be separated out into nodes and relationships.
So, I will a proposed data model that does just that. Here is how you can create nodes and relationships that represent the same data as ExistingOrders:
CREATE (t1:Type {id:1}), (t2:Type {id:2}), (t3:Type {id:3}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300});
And here is a query that will update the correct Amount:
WITH {type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
MATCH (t:Type)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(o:Order)
WHERE t.id = NewOrder.type AND o.Price = NewOrder.Order.Price
SET o.Amount = o.Amount + NewOrder.Order.Amount
RETURN t.id, o.Price, o.Amount;
There's two parts to your question - one with a simple answer, and a second part that doesn't make sense. Let me take the simple one first!
As far as I can tell, it seems you're asking how to concatenate a new map on to a collection of maps. So, how to add a new item in an array. Just use + like this simple example:
return [{item:1}, {item:2}] + [{item:3}];
Note that the single item we're adding at the end isn't a map, but a collection with only one item.
So for your query:
RETURN [
{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:200},
{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:**250**},
{Price:12,Amount:300}]}]
+
[{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}]
as **CombinedOrders**
Should do the trick.
Or you could maybe do it a bit cleaner, like this:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
RETURN ExistingOrders + [NewOrder];
OK now for the part that doesn't make sense. In your example, it looks like you want to modify the map inside of the collection. But you have two {type:2} maps in there, and you're looking to merge them into something with one resulting {type:3} map in the output that you're asking for. If you need to deconflict map entries and change what the map entry ought to be, it might be that cypher isn't your best choice for that kind of query.
I figured it out:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},Price:12,Amount:300}]},{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,{type:2, Orders:[{Price:11,Amount:50}]} as NewOrder
RETURN
reduce(map=filter(p in ExistingOrders where not p.type=NewOrder.type),
x in [(filter(p2 in ExistingOrders where p2.type=NewOrder.type)[0])]|
CASE x
WHEN null THEN NewOrder
ELSE {type:x.type, Orders:[
reduce(map2=filter(p3 in x.Orders where not (p3.Price=(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Price)),
x2 in [filter(p4 in x.Orders where p4.Price=(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Price)[0]]|
CASE x2
WHEN null THEN NewOrder.Orders[0]
ELSE {Price:x2.Price, Amount:x2.Amount+(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Amount}
END+map2 )]} END+map) as CombinedOrders
...using nested Reduce functions.
So, to start with it combines a list of orders without matching type, with a list of those orders (actually, just one) with a matching type. For those latter ExistingOrders (with type that matches the NewOrder) it does a similar thing with Price in the nested reduce function and combines non-matching Prices with matching Prices, adding the Amount in the latter case.