I'm trying to use DB Browser for SQLite to construct a nested query to determine the SECOND highest priced item purchased by the top 10 spenders. The query I have to pick out the top 10 spenders is:
SELECT user_id, max(item_total), SUM (item_total + shipping_cost -
discounts_applied) AS total_spent
FROM orders AS o
WHERE payment_reject = "FALSE"
GROUP BY user_id
ORDER BY total_spent DESC
LIMIT 10
This gives the user_id, most expensive item they purchased (not counting shipping or discounts) as well as the total amount they spent on the site.
I was trying to use a nested query to generate a list of the second most expensive items they purchased, but keep getting errors. I've tried
SELECT user_id, MAX(item_total) AS second_highest
FROM orders
WHERE item_total < (SELECT user_id, SUM (item_total + shipping_cost -
discounts_applied) AS total_spent
FROM orders
WHERE payment_reject = "FALSE"
GROUP BY user_id
ORDER BY total_spent DESC
LIMIT 10)
group by user_id
I keep getting a row value misused error. Does anyone have pointers on this nested query or know of another way to find the second highest item purchased from within the group found in the first query?
Thanks!
(Note: The following assumes you're using Sqlite 3.25 or newer since it uses window functions).
This will return the second-largest item_total for each user_id without duplicates:
WITH ranked AS
(SELECT DISTINCT user_id, item_total
, dense_rank() OVER (PARTITION BY user_id ORDER BY item_total DESC) AS ranking
FROM orders)
SELECT user_id, item_total FROM ranked WHERE ranking = 2;
You can combine it with your original query with something like:
WITH ranked AS
(SELECT DISTINCT user_id, item_total
, dense_rank() OVER (PARTITION BY user_id ORDER BY item_total DESC) AS ranking
FROM orders),
totals AS
(SELECT user_id
, sum (item_total + shipping_cost - discounts_applied) AS total_spent
FROM orders
WHERE payment_reject = 0
GROUP BY user_id)
SELECT t.user_id, r.item_total, t.total_spent
FROM totals AS t
JOIN ranked AS r ON t.user_id = r.user_id
WHERE r.ranking = 2
ORDER BY t.total_spent DESC, t.user_id
LIMIT 10;
Okay, after fixing your table definition to better reflect the values being stored in it and the stated problem, and fixing the data and adding to it so you can actually get results, plus an optional but useful index like so:
CREATE TABLE orders (order_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY
, user_id INTEGER
, item_total REAL
, shipping_cost NUMERIC
, discounts_applied NUMERIC
, payment_reject INTEGER);
INSERT INTO orders(user_id, item_total, shipping_cost, discounts_applied
, payment_reject) VALUES (9852,60.69,10,0,FALSE),
(2784,123.91,15,0,FALSE), (1619,119.75,15,0,FALSE), (9725,151.92,15,0,FALSE),
(8892,153.27,15,0,FALSE), (7105,156.86,25,0,FALSE), (4345,136.09,15,0,FALSE),
(7779,134.93,15,0,FALSE), (3874,157.27,15,0,FALSE), (5102,108.3,10,0,FALSE),
(3098,59.97,10,0,FALSE), (6584,124.92,15,0,FALSE), (5136,111.06,10,0,FALSE),
(1869,113.44,20,0,FALSE), (3830,129.63,15,0,FALSE), (9852,70.69,10,0,FALSE),
(2784,134.91,15,0,FALSE), (1619,129.75,15,0,FALSE), (9725,161.92,15,0,FALSE),
(8892,163.27,15,0,FALSE), (7105,166.86,25,0,FALSE), (4345,146.09,15,0,FALSE),
(7779,144.93,15,0,FALSE), (3874,167.27,15,0,FALSE), (5102,118.3,10,0,FALSE),
(3098,69.97,10,0,FALSE), (6584,134.92,15,0,FALSE), (5136,121.06,10,0,FALSE),
(1869,123.44,20,0,FALSE), (3830,139.63,15,0,FALSE);
CREATE INDEX orders_idx_1 ON orders(user_id, item_total DESC);
the above query will give:
user_id item_total total_spent
---------- ---------- -----------
7105 156.86 373.72
3874 157.27 354.54
8892 153.27 346.54
9725 151.92 343.84
4345 136.09 312.18
7779 134.93 309.86
3830 129.63 299.26
6584 124.92 289.84
2784 123.91 288.82
1619 119.75 279.5
(If you get a syntax error from the query now, it's because you're using an old version of sqlite that doesn't support window functions.)
This query returns 1.7763568394002505e-15 when it should return 0.00:
SELECT st.id
, Sum(
CASE sa.Type
WHEN 4 THEN sa.quantity * (st.price - st.commission)
WHEN 5 THEN -sa.quantity * (st.price - st.commission)
ELSE 0.0 END
) Sales
FROM sales sa
JOIN stock st
ON sa.stockid = st.id
WHERE st.id = 1
GROUP BY st.id
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!5/cccd8/3
It's looks like a classic floating point calculation issue, but how can I fix it?
I've tried casting the various columns to REAL but it doesn't make a difference.
You can simulate the result using this query:
SELECT 26.3 - 10.52 - 15.78 AS Result
SQLite's REAL isn't suitable for currency. SQlite doesn't support SQL decimal or SQL numeric data types, so your best option is to use integer, and store values as cents.
CREATE TABLE stock (
id INTEGER,
-- Store price and commission as integers, implying that price is in cents,
-- ($3.20 is stored as 320) and commission is a two-digit percentage (0.57%
-- is stored as 57). This is how scaled integers work in general.
price integer,
commission integer,
PRIMARY KEY(id)
);
CREATE TABLE sales (
id INTEGER,
stockid INTEGER,
type INTEGER,
quantity INTEGER,
PRIMARY KEY(id)
);
insert into stock values (1, 320, 57);
insert into sales values (1, 1, 4, 10);
insert into sales values (2, 1, 5, 4);
insert into sales values (3, 1, 5, 6);
This query, from your SQLfiddle, correctly returns 0.
SELECT st.id
, Sum(
CASE sa.Type
WHEN 4 THEN sa.Quantity * (st.price - st.commission)
WHEN 5 THEN -sa.Quantity * (st.price - st.commission)
ELSE 0.0 END
) Sales
FROM sales sa
JOIN stock st
ON sa.stockid = st.id
WHERE st.id = 1
GROUP BY st.id;
id Sales
---------- ----------
1 0
Casting to a more appropriate data type (not to REAL) will hide some problems--maybe even most problems or even all of them in a particular application. But casting won't solve them, because stored values are liable to be different than the values you really want.
Mike Sherrill is correct in that you probably should use integers. But for a quick-and-dirty fix, you can wrap the Sum call in a Round(__,2) to round to the nearest cent.
I have query that runs as part of a function which produces a one row table full of counts, and averages, and comma separated lists like this:
select
(select
count(*)
from vw_disp_details
where round = 2013
and rating = 1) applicants,
(select
count(*)
from vw_disp_details
where round = 2013
and rating = 1
and applied != 'yes') s_applicants,
(select
LISTAGG(discipline, ',')
WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY discipline)
from (select discipline,
count(*) discipline_number
from vw_disp_details
where round = 2013
and rating = 1
group by discipline)) disciplines,
(select
LISTAGG(discipline_count, ',')
WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY discipline)
from (select discipline,
count(*) discipline_count
from vw_disp_details
where round = 2013
and rating = 1
group by discipline)) disciplines_count,
(select
round(avg(util.getawardstocols(application_id,'1','AWARD_NAME')), 2)
from vw_disp_details
where round = 2013
and rating = 1) average_award_score,
(select
round(avg(age))
from vw_disp_details
where round = 2013
and rating = 1) average_age
from dual;
Except that instead of 6 main sub-queries there are 23.
This returns something like this (if it were a CSV):
applicants | s_applicants | disciplines | disciplines_count | average_award_score | average_age
107 | 67 | "speed,accuracy,strength" | 3 | 97 | 23
Now I am programmatically swapping out the "rating = 1" part of the where clauses for other expressions. They all work rather quickly except for the "rating = 1" one which takes about 90 seconds to run and that is because the rating column in the vw_disp_details view is itself compiled by a sub-query:
(SELECT score
FROM read r,
eval_criteria_lookup ecl
WHERE r.criteria_id = ecl.criteria_id
AND r.application_id = a.lgo_application_id
AND criteria_description = 'Overall Score'
AND type = 'ABC'
) reader_rank
So when the function runs this extra query seems to slow everything down dramatically.
My question is, is there a better (more efficient) way to run a query like this that is basically just a series of counts and averages, and how can I refactor to optimize the speed so that the rating = 1 query doesn't take 90 seconds to run.
You could choose to MATERIALIZE the vw_disp_details VIEW. That would pre-calculate the value of the rating column. There are various options for how up-to-date a materialized view is kept, you would probably want to use the ON COMMIT clause so that vw_disp_details is always correct.
Have a look at the official documentation and see if that would work for you.
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28286/statements_6002.htm
Do all most of your queries in only one. Instead of doing:
select
(select (count(*) from my_tab) as count_all,
(select avg(age) from my_tab) as avg_age,
(select avg(mypkg.get_award(application_id) from my_tab) as_avg-app_id
from dual;
Just do:
select count(*), avg(age),avg(mypkg.get_award(application_id)) from my_tab;
And then, maybe you can do some union all for the other results. But this step all by itself should help.
I was able to solve this issue by doing two things: creating a new view that displayed only the results I needed, which gave me marginal gains in speed, and in that view moving the where clause of the sub-query that caused the lag into the where clause of the view and tacking on the result of the sub-query as column in the view. This still returns the same results thanks to the fact that there are always going to be records in the table the sub-query accessed for each row of the view query.
SELECT
a.application_id,
util.getstatus (a.application_id) status,
(SELECT score
FROM applicant_read ar,
eval_criteria_lookup ecl
WHERE ar.criteria_id = ecl.criteria_id
AND ar.application_id = a.application_id
AND criteria_description = 'Overall Score' //THESE TWO FIELDS
AND type = 'ABC' //ARE CRITERIA_ID = 15
) score
as.test_total test_total
FROM application a,
applicant_scores as
WHERE a.application_id = as.application_id(+);
Became
SELECT
a.application_id,
util.getstatus (a.application_id) status,
ar.score,
as.test_total test_total
FROM application a,
applicant_scores as,
applicant_read ar
WHERE a.application_id = as.application_id(+)
AND ar.application_id = a.application_id(+)
AND ar.criteria_id = 15;
I need some help to build SQL Query. I have table having data like:
ID Date Name
1 1/1/2009 a
2 1/2/2009 b
3 1/3/2009 c
I need to get result something like...
1 1/1/2009 a
2 1/2/2009 b
3 1/3/2009 c
4 1/4/2009 Null
5 1/5/2009 Null
6 1/6/2009 Null
7 1/7/2009 Null
8 1/8/2009 Null
............................
............................
............................
30 1/30/2009 Null
31 1/31/2009 Null
I want query something like..
Select * from tbl **where month(Date)=1 AND year(Date)=2010**
Above is not completed query.
I need to get all the record of particular month, even if some date missing..
I guess there must be equi Join in the query, I am trying to build this query using Equi join
Thanks
BIG EDIT
Now understand the OPs question.
Use a common table expression and a left join to get this effect.
DECLARE #FirstDay DATETIME;
-- Set start time
SELECT #FirstDay = '2009-01-01';
WITH Days AS
(
SELECT #FirstDay as CalendarDay
UNION ALL
SELECT DATEADD(d, 1, CalendarDay) as CalendarDay
FROM Days
WHERE DATEADD(d, 1, CalendarDay) < DATEADD(m, 1, #FirstDay)
)
SELECT DATEPART(d,d.CalendarDay), **t.date should be (d.CalendarDay)**, t.Name FROM Days d
LEFT JOIN tbl t
ON
d.CalendarDay = t.Date
ORDER BY
d.CalendarDay;
Left this original answer at bottom
You need DATEPART, sir.
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE DATEPART(m,Date) = 1
If you want to choose month and year, then you can use DATEPART twice or go for a range.
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE DATEPART(m,Date) = 1 AND DATEPART(yyyy,Date) = 2009
Range :-
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE Date >= '2009-01-01' AND Date < '2009-02-01'
See this link for more info on DATEPART.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms174420.aspx
You can use less or equal to.
Like so:
select * from tbl where date > '2009-01-01' and date < '2009-02-01'
However, it is unclear if you want month 1 from all years?
You can check more examples and functions on "Date and Time Functions" from MSDN
Create a temporary table containing all days of that certain month,
Do left outer join between that table and your data table on tempTable.month = #month.
now you have a big table with all days of the desired month and all the records matching the proper dates + empty records for those dates who have no data.
i hope that's what you want.