I have two tables coming which has data from two different systems. I need to reconcile the data in these two tables
The column mapping needs to be made configurable.
E.g.:
Table A Table B
Col1A, Col2A Col1B, Col2B
MappingTable
Col1A = Col1B
Col2A= Col2B
So I would need to have two result sets like this based on the mappings in the table.This needs to be decided dynamically. i.e. Select _____ from A. The _____ needs to be filled dynamically.
Select Col1A, Col2A from A
Select Col2B, Col1B from B
Is this possible in MySQL?
Use a UNION clause if the column sets are similar (if they're not you won't be able to combine their results in a meaningful way, anyway).
select col1a, col2a from A
union
select col1b, col2b from b
Related
I'm trying to read data from related tables which are x levels deep and which have relationships specified, i.e.:
table A
table B
table C
table ABC
Table ABC has relationships ABC.a = A, ABC.b = B and ABC.c = C,
i.e. foreign keys ABC.aid = A.id, ABC.bid = B.id and ABC.cid = C.id.
aid, bid and cid in ABC are set unique using UniqueContstraint
relationship is using lazy="joined"
When I do select(ABC) I'm able to get all values from ABC and also from related tables, i.e.:
{ABC.a: {A}, ABC.b: {B}, ABC.c: {C}}
I have also table D which has a relationship to ABC (D.abcid = ABC.id) and I struggle to construct a correct select statement which would give me all data also from A, B and C. Actually I'm not sure if this should work or I missed / do not understand something in the documentation as I have tried various loading strategies, specified join_depth for D and ABC tables, etc. No matter what I'm getting:
sqlalchemy.exc.InvalidRequestError: The unique() method must be invoked on this Result, as it contains results that include joined eager loads against collections
I would like to get the data the same way as for 1st level relationship, i.e.:
{D.abc : {ABC.a: {A}, ABC.b: {B}, ABC.c: {C}}}
Is it possible or do I have to change the select query completely and just create multiple joins and manually pick all the values I need?
I'm able to get correct records from the database when I just take the generated select statement and use it directly in a DB shell (MariaDB) so I assume that the only issue is my lack of understanding of how SQL handles/presents these records internally.
The issue was using uselist=True in one of the models, all relationships are working perfectly down to the lowest level now.
I've got multiple master tables in the same format with the same variables. I now want to left join another variable but I can't combine the master tables due to limited storage on my computer. Is there a way that I can left join a variable onto multiple master tables within one PROC SQL? Maybe with the help of a macro?
The LEFT JOIN code looks like this for one join but I'm looking for an alternative than to copy and paste this 5 times:
PROC SQL;
CREATE TABLE New AS
SELECT a.*, b.Value
FROM Old a LEFT JOIN Additional b
ON a.ID = b.ID;
QUIT;
You can't do it in one create table statement, as it only creates one table at a time. But you can do a few things, depending on what your actual limiting factor is (you mention a few).
If you simply want to avoid writing the same code five times, but otherwise don't care how it executes, then just write the code in a macro, as you reference.
%macro update_table(old=, new=);
PROC SQL;
CREATE TABLE &new. AS
SELECT a.*, b.Value
FROM &old. a LEFT JOIN Additional b
ON a.ID = b.ID;
QUIT;
%mend update_table;
%update_table(old=old1, new=new1)
%update_table(old=old2, new=new2)
%update_table(old=old3, new=new3)
Of course, if the names of the five tables are in a pattern, you can perhaps automate this further based on that pattern, but you don't give sufficient information to figure that out.
If you on the other hand need to do this more efficiently in terms of processing than running the SQL query five times, it can be done a number of ways, depending on the specifics of your additional table and your specific limitations. It looks to me that you have a good use case for a format lookup here, for example; see for example Jenine Eason's paper, Proc Format, a Speedy Alternative to Sort/Merge. If you're just merging on the ID, this is very easy.
data for_format;
set additional;
start = ID;
label = value;
fmtname='AdditionalF'; *or '$AdditionalF' if ID is character-valued;
output;
if _n_=1 then do; *creating an "other" option so it returns missing if not found;
hlo='o';
label = ' ';
output;
end;
run;
And then you just have five data steps with a PUT statement adding the value, or even you could simply format the ID variable with that format and it would have that value whenever you did most PROCs (if this is something like a classifier that you don't truly need "in" the data).
You can do this in a single pass through the data in a Data Step using a hash table to lookup values.
data new1 new2 new3;
set old1(in=a) old2(in=b) old3(in=c);
format value best.;
if _n_=1 then do;
%create_hash(lk,id,value,"Additional");
end;
value = .;
rc = lk.find();
drop rc;
if a then
output new1;
else if b then
output new2;
else if c then
output new3;
run;
%create_hash() macro available here.
You could, alternatively, use Joe's format with the same Data Step syntax.
I'm stuck trying to create a query that pulls results from at least three different tables with many to many relationships.
I want to end up with a table that lists cases, the outcomes and complaints.
All cases may have none, one or multiple outcomes, same relationship applies to the complaints. I want to be able to have the case listed once, then subsequent columns to list all the outcomes and complaints related to that case.
I have tried GROUP_CONCAT to get the outcomes in one column instead of repeating the cases but when I use UNION to combine the outcomes and complaints one column header overwrites the other.
Any help appreciated and here's the link to the fiddle http://sqlfiddle.com/#!2/d111e/2/0
I suggest you START with this this query structure:
SELECT
c.caseID, c.caseTitle, c.caseSynopsis /* if more columns ... add to group by also */
, group_concat(co.concern)
, group_concat(re.resultText)
FROM caseSummaries AS c
LEFT JOIN JNCT_CONCERNS_CASESUMMARY AS JCC ON c.caseID = JCC.caseSummary_FK
LEFT JOIN CONCERNS AS co ON JCC.concerns_FK = co.concernsID
LEFT JOIN JNCT_RESULT_CASESUMMARY AS JRC ON c.caseID = JRC.caseSummary_FK
LEFT JOIN RESULTS AS re ON JRC.result_FK = re.result_ID
GROUP BY
c.caseID, c.caseTitle, c.caseSynopsis /* add more ... here also */
;
Treat the table caseSummaries as the most important and then everything else "hangs off" that.
Please note that although MySQL will allow it, you should place EVERY non-aggregating column that you include in the select clause into the group by clause also.
also see: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!2/2d1a79/7
have some denormalized data, along the lines of the following:
FruitData:
LOAD * INLINE [
ID,ColumnA, ColumnB, ColumnC
1,'Apple','Pear','Banana'
2,'Banana','Mango','Strawberry'
3,'Pear','Strawberry','Kiwi'
];
MasterFruits
LOAD * INLINE [
Fruitname
'Apple'
'Banana'
'Pear'
'Mango'
'Kiwi'
'Strawberry'
'Papaya'
];
And what I need to do is compare these fields to a master list of fruit (held in another table). This would mean that if I chose Banana, IDs 1 and 2 would come up and if I chose Strawberry, IDs 2 and 3 would come up.
Is there any way I can create a listbox that searches across all 3 fields at once?
A list box is just a mechanism to allow you to "select" a value in a certain field as a filter. The real magic behind what Qlikview is doing comes from the associations made in the data model. Since your tables have no common field you couldn't, for example, load a List Box for Fruitname and click something and have it alter List Boxes for other fields such as ColumnA, B, or C. To get the behavior you want you need to associate the two tables. This is can be accomplished by concatenating the various columns into one column (essentially normalizing the data).
[LinkTable]:
LOAD Distinct ColumnA as Fruitname,
ID
Resident FruitData;
Concatenate([LinkTable])
LOAD Distinct ColumnB as Fruitname,
ID
Resident FruitData;
Concatenate([LinkTable])
LOAD Distinct ColumnC as Fruitname,
ID
Resident FruitData;
You can see the table this produces here:
and the data model looks like this:
and finally, the desired behavior:
I'm searching a way to simulate "create table as select" in Firebird from SP.
We are using this statement frequently in another product, because it is very easy for make lesser, indexable sets, and provide very fast results in server side.
create temp table a select * from xxx where ...
create indexes on a ...
create temp table b select * from xxx where ...
create indexes on b ...
select * from a
union
select * from b
Or to avoid the three or more levels in subqueries.
select *
from a where id in (select id
from b
where ... and id in (select id from c where))
The "create table as select" is very good cos it's provide correct field types and names so I don't need to predefine them.
I can simulate "create table as" in Firebird with Delphi as:
Make select with no rows, get the table field types, convert them to create table SQL, run it, and make "insert into temp table " + selectsql with rows (without order by).
It's ok.
But can I create same thing in a common stored procedure which gets a select sql, and creates a new temp table with the result?
So: can I get query result's field types to I can create field creator SQL from them?
I'm just asking if is there a way or not (then I MUST specify the columns).
Executing DDL inside stored procedure is not supported by Firebird. You could do it using EXECUTE STATEMENT but it is not recommended (see the warning in the end of "No data returned" topic).
One way to do have your "temporary sets" would be to use (transaction-level) Global Temporary Table. Create the GTT as part of the database, with correct datatypes but without constraints (those would probably get into way when you fill only some columns, not all) - then each transaction only sees it's own version of the table and data...