April 7, 2009 at 3:08 am
Christian Buettner (4/7/2009)
Hi Chris,Very fancy stuff that you posted. Wasn't even aware you could do such fancy stuff in an ORDER BY:-).
Actually I did want to tell you that your queries did not work, but then I realized that mine did not either. Reason: The data in table #test is flawed.
SELECT A.id, b.id, A.col2, B.col2, a.col3, B.col3 FROM #test A, #test bWHERE A.col2 > b.col2 AND a.col3 < B.col3
No matter how you sort, either col2 or col3 will remain unsorted (could apply to other combinations as well).
Neither was I mate until I saw something really wacky in an order by here on the forum some months ago!
Here's a data set which passes your test:
USE Utilities
GO
DROP TABLE #qtest
DROP TABLE #test
CREATE TABLE #qtest (id int, col1 numeric(6,2), col2 numeric(6,2), col3 numeric(6,2), col4 numeric(6,2), col5 numeric(6,2), col6 numeric(6,2), col7 numeric(6,2), col8 numeric(6,2))
INSERT INTO #qtest (id, col1, col2, col3, col4, col5, col6, col7, col8)
SELECT 1, 2.35, 3.01, 3.49, 4.25, 4.79, 5.36, 5.82, 6.31
UNION SELECT 2, null, 3.59, 4.32, null, 5.21, null, null, 7.12
UNION SELECT 3, NULL, null, null, 5.23, 5.41, 6.33, 6.89, 7.99
UNION SELECT 4, null, 5.46, 5.31, 5.92, null, 6.87, 7.34, null
UNION SELECT 5, 5.12, 5.66, 6.31, 6.92, null, 7.87, 8.34, null
--- 25,000 rows
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY Batch, id) AS [id],
col1, col2, col3, col4, col5, col6, col7, col8
INTO #test
FROM (SELECT CAST(1 AS INT) AS [Batch], *
FROM #qtest
UNION ALL
SELECT 1+(number/4), id, col1+number, col2+number, col3+number, col4+number, col5+number, col6+number, col7+number, col8+number
FROM #qtest, Utilities.dbo.Numbers
WHERE number%4 = 0 AND number <= (20000-4) -- 25,000
) d
/****** Object: Index [seq] Script Date: 04/04/2009 14:02:11 ******/
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [seqm] ON #test
([col1] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
SELECT A.id, b.id, A.col2, B.col2, a.col3, B.col3 FROM #test A, #test b
WHERE A.col2 > b.col2 AND a.col3 < B.col3
I'll run everything through later this morning.
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
April 7, 2009 at 6:52 am
You're right. I was in a rush yesterday, and forgot to take into account the change from null to zero would affect the join math.
So far as I can tell, this version gives correct sorting results:
update #test
set col1 = isnull(col1,0),
col2 = isnull(col2,0),
col3 = isnull(col3,0),
col4 = isnull(col4,0),
col5 = isnull(col5,0),
col6 = isnull(col6,0),
col7 = isnull(col7,0),
col8 = isnull(col8,0)
;with CTE (CTEID, Seq1) as
(select t1.id, count(*)
from #test t1
inner join #test t2
on t1.col1 >= t2.col1
and t1.col2 >= t2.col2
and t1.col3 >= t2.col3
and t1.col4 >= t2.col4
and t1.col5 >= t2.col5
and t1.col6 >= t2.col6
and t1.col7 >= t2.col7
and t1.col8 >= t2.col8
group by t1.id)
select #test.*
from #test
left outer join CTE
on id = cteid
order by seq1;
On 39968 rows (generated using 10k rows from the Numbers table), it took 4:27 to finish on my machine.
The original spec doesn't care about the null vs zero thing. As need be, you could add an insert into a temp table, do the update to zero on that, sort, then return the final result with a select that either uses the original data or a NullIf on the temp table. You'll get the right output with any of those.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
April 7, 2009 at 7:10 am
Looks like it needs a little more tweaking - first column is correct sequential order:
12.353.013.494.254.795.365.826.31
20.003.594.320.005.210.000.007.12
30.000.000.005.235.416.336.897.99
40.005.465.315.920.006.877.340.00
90.009.469.319.920.0010.8711.340.00
55.125.666.316.920.007.878.340.00
70.007.598.320.009.210.000.0011.12
80.000.000.009.239.4110.3310.8911.99
130.000.000.0013.2313.4114.3314.8915.99
It's mighty fast though, a little over one minute on this lappy.
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
April 7, 2009 at 7:10 am
On the same dataset, without updating to zero, the complex Case statement took 8:57 to run.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
April 7, 2009 at 7:45 am
GSquared (4/7/2009)
On the same dataset, without updating to zero, the complex Case statement took 8:57 to run.
I'm missing something and can't figure out what it is! To simplify, here's a dataset generator for 15 rows:
USE Utilities
GO
DROP TABLE #qtest
DROP TABLE #test
CREATE TABLE #qtest (id int, col1 numeric(6,2), col2 numeric(6,2), col3 numeric(6,2), col4 numeric(6,2), col5 numeric(6,2), col6 numeric(6,2), col7 numeric(6,2), col8 numeric(6,2))
INSERT INTO #qtest (id, col1, col2, col3, col4, col5, col6, col7, col8)
SELECT 1, 2.35, 3.01, 3.49, 4.25, 4.79, 5.36, 5.82, 6.31
UNION SELECT 2, null, 3.59, 4.32, null, 5.21, null, null, 7.12
UNION SELECT 3, NULL, null, null, 5.23, 5.41, 6.33, 6.89, 7.99
UNION SELECT 4, null, 5.31, 5.46, 5.92, null, 6.87, 7.34, null
UNION SELECT 5, 5.12, 5.66, 6.31, 6.92, null, 7.87, 8.34, null
--- 25,000 rows
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY Batch, id) AS [id],
col1, col2, col3, col4, col5, col6, col7, col8
INTO #test
FROM (SELECT CAST(1 AS INT) AS [Batch], *
FROM #qtest
UNION ALL
SELECT 1+(number/4), id, col1+number, col2+number, col3+number, col4+number, col5+number, col6+number, col7+number, col8+number
FROM #qtest, Utilities.dbo.Numbers
WHERE number%4 = 0 AND number < 12 --<= (20000-4) -- 25,000
) d
/****** Object: Index [seq] Script Date: 04/04/2009 14:02:11 ******/
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [seqm] ON #test
([col1] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
Here's the data it generates, which looks ok by eye:
12.353.013.494.254.795.365.826.31
20.003.594.320.005.210.000.007.12
30.000.000.005.235.416.336.897.99
40.005.315.465.920.006.877.340.00
55.125.666.316.920.007.878.340.00
66.357.017.498.258.799.369.8210.31
70.007.598.320.009.210.000.0011.12
80.000.000.009.239.4110.3310.8911.99
90.009.319.469.920.0010.8711.340.00
109.129.6610.3110.920.0011.8712.340.00
1110.3511.0111.4912.2512.7913.3613.8214.31
120.0011.5912.320.0013.210.000.0015.12
130.000.000.0013.2313.4114.3314.8915.99
140.0013.3113.4613.920.0014.8715.340.00
1513.1213.6614.3114.920.0015.8716.340.00
Here's the result of GSquared's query:
12.353.013.494.254.795.365.826.31
20.003.594.320.005.210.000.007.12
30.000.000.005.235.416.336.897.99
40.005.315.465.920.006.877.340.00
55.125.666.316.920.007.878.340.00
70.007.598.320.009.210.000.0011.12
80.000.000.009.239.4110.3310.8911.99
90.009.319.469.920.0010.8711.340.00
120.0011.5912.320.0013.210.000.0015.12
130.000.000.0013.2313.4114.3314.8915.99
140.0013.3113.4613.920.0014.8715.340.00
109.129.6610.3110.920.0011.8712.340.00
66.357.017.498.258.799.369.8210.31
1513.1213.6614.3114.920.0015.8716.340.00
1110.3511.0111.4912.2512.7913.3613.8214.31
:ermm:
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
April 7, 2009 at 8:03 am
No, you're not missing anything. That solution just plain doesn't work. I missed a bit when looking at it. That's what I get for rushing.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
April 7, 2009 at 8:48 am
Guys, It looks like an interesting problem for me and I would like to try my hands on it. But the problem is that I still not completely understood the requirement. What I understood is that the OP wants an ordering of columns from top to bottom moving from column 1 to column 8. Am I correct??
And I am assuming that column values in a row is incremental from left to right??
--Ramesh
April 7, 2009 at 10:00 am
I am going in circles in circles in this thread...:blink:
April 7, 2009 at 10:19 am
Ramesh (4/7/2009)
Guys, It looks like an interesting problem for me and I would like to try my hands on it. But the problem is that I still not completely understood the requirement. What I understood is that the OP wants an ordering of columns from top to bottom moving from column 1 to column 8. Am I correct??And I am assuming that column values in a row is incremental from left to right??
That sounds about right, Ramesh. The sample data I posted earlier today will give you a visual.
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
April 8, 2009 at 5:20 am
Chris Morris (4/7/2009)
Ramesh (4/7/2009)
Guys, It looks like an interesting problem for me and I would like to try my hands on it. But the problem is that I still not completely understood the requirement. What I understood is that the OP wants an ordering of columns from top to bottom moving from column 1 to column 8. Am I correct??And I am assuming that column values in a row is incremental from left to right??
That sounds about right, Ramesh. The sample data I posted earlier today will give you a visual.
Thanks Chris for the sample data.
I've understood the complexity in it and now its my turn to post my first solution (and hopefully the last as well). It took me an hour and a hell lot of brain hammering to product this code.
IF ( OBJECT_ID( 'tempdb..#test' ) IS NOT NULL )
DROP TABLE #test
CREATE TABLE #test
(
id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED,
col1 NUMERIC(18,2) NULL,
col2 NUMERIC(18,2) NULL,
col3 NUMERIC(18,2) NULL,
col4 NUMERIC(18,2) NULL,
col5 NUMERIC(18,2) NULL,
col6 NUMERIC(18,2) NULL,
col7 NUMERIC(18,2) NULL,
col8 NUMERIC(18,2) NULL
)
; WITH qtest
AS
(
SELECT 1 AS id, 2.35 AS col1, 3.01 AS col2, 3.49 AS col3, 4.25 AS col4, 4.79 AS col5, 5.36 AS col6, 5.82 AS col7, 6.31 AS col8
UNION ALL
SELECT 2, NULL, 3.59, 4.32, NULL, 5.21, NULL, NULL, 7.12
UNION ALL
SELECT 3, NULL, NULL, NULL, 5.23, 5.41, 6.33, 6.89, 7.99
UNION ALL
SELECT 4, NULL, 5.31, 5.46, 5.92, NULL, 6.87, 7.34, NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT 5, 5.12, 5.66, 6.31, 6.92, NULL, 7.87, 8.34, NULL
)
INSERT #test( id, col1, col2, col3, col4, col5, col6, col7, col8 )
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER( ORDER BY Batch, id ) AS [id], col1, col2, col3, col4, col5, col6, col7, col8
FROM (
SELECT CAST( 1 AS INT ) AS [Batch], *
FROM qtest
UNION ALL
SELECT 1 + ( Number / 4 ), id, col1 + Number, col2 + Number, col3 + Number, col4 + Number,
col5 + Number, col6 + Number, col7 + Number, col8 + Number
FROM qtest, dbo.Numbers
WHERE Number % 4 = 0 AND Number < 12 ---<= (20000-4) -- 25,000
) d
-- Expected order of output
SELECT * FROM #test ORDER BY id
-- Unpivot the columns into rows, so that each id will have value of each column in terms of rows
-- note the unpivot operation skips the null valued columns from the resultset
; WITH UnpivotTest
AS
(
SELECT *
FROM #test t
UNPIVOT
(
OrderVal FOR OrderCol IN( [col1], [col2], [col3], [col4], [col5], [col6], [col7], [col8] )
) P
),
-- set the row number of each row partition by each column, this will get you the position of an item (id)
-- in each column, after that we'll get these values for the first 6 rows
-- id, col1, col2, col3, col4
-- 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
-- 2, -, 2, 2, -
-- 3, -, -, -, 2
-- 4, -, 3, 3, 3
-- 5, 2, 4, 4, 4
-- 6, 3, 5, 5, 5
-- After that we are taking the max. of each id and count for each id
-- and ordering the final resultset by id and then by count
VerticalOrderedTest
AS
(
SELECT id, MAX( rn ) AS rn, COUNT( * ) AS cnt
FROM (
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER( PARTITION BY OrderCol ORDER BY ISNULL( NULLIF( OrderVal, 0 ), 9999 ) ) AS rn, id
FROM UnpivotTest
) t
GROUP BY id
)
SELECT v.id, t.col1, t.col2, t.col3, t.col4, t.col5, t.col6, t.col7, t.col8
FROM VerticalOrderedTest v
INNER JOIN #test t ON v.id = t.id
ORDER BY v.rn, v.cnt
--Ramesh
April 8, 2009 at 6:13 am
Can I play too?
DECLARE@Sample TABLE
(
id int primary key clustered,
col1 numeric(6, 2),
col2 numeric(6, 2),
col3 numeric(6, 2),
col4 numeric(6, 2),
col5 numeric(6,2),
col6 numeric(6,2),
col7 numeric(6,2),
col8 numeric(6,2)
)
INSERT@Sample
SELECT1, 2.35, 3.01, 3.49, 4.25, 4.79, 5.36, 5.82, 6.31 UNION ALL
SELECT2, NULL, 3.59, 4.32, NULL, 5.21, NULL, NULL, 7.12 UNION ALL
SELECT3, NULL, NULL, NULL, 5.23, 5.41, 6.33, 6.89, 7.99 UNION ALL
SELECT4, NULL, 5.31, 5.46, 5.92, NULL, 6.87, 7.34, NULL UNION ALL
SELECT5, 5.12, 5.66, 6.31, 6.92, NULL, 7.87, 8.34, NULL
-- Before
SELECT*
FROM@Sample
-- After
SELECTp.ID,
s.col1,
s.col2,
s.col3,
s.col4,
s.col5,
s.col6,
s.col7,
s.col8
FROM(
SELECTu.ID,
u.theValue,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY u.ID ORDER BY u.theValue) AS recID
FROM@Sample AS s
UNPIVOT(
theValue
FOR theCol IN (s.col1, s.col2, s.col3, s.col4, s.col5, s.col6, s.col7, s.col8)
) AS u
) AS d
PIVOT(
MAX(d.theValue)
FOR d.recID IN ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8])
) AS p
INNER JOIN@Sample AS s ON s.ID = p.ID
ORDER BYp.[1],
p.[2],
p.[3],
p.[4],
p.[5],
p.[6],
p.[7],
p.[8]
EDIT: Added SQL-script as attachment.
N 56°04'39.16"
E 12°55'05.25"
April 8, 2009 at 6:24 am
Very elegant! Makes my CASEy stuff look like a dustbin full of spaghetti!
Who's gonna test with 40,000 rows then? 😀
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
April 8, 2009 at 7:06 am
Peso,
I think the results of your query seems to be incorrect. Here are the results...
-- Expected Results
idcol1col2col3col4col5col6col7col8
12.353.013.494.254.795.365.826.31
2NULL3.594.32NULL5.21NULLNULL7.12
3NULLNULLNULL5.235.416.336.897.99
4NULL5.315.465.92NULL6.877.34NULL
55.125.666.316.92NULL7.878.34NULL
-- Actual Results
IDcol1col2col3col4col5col6col7col8
12.353.013.494.254.795.365.826.31
2NULL3.594.32NULL5.21NULLNULL7.12
55.125.666.316.92NULL7.878.34NULL
3NULLNULLNULL5.235.416.336.897.99
4NULL5.315.465.92NULL6.877.34NULL
--Ramesh
April 8, 2009 at 7:16 am
Chris Morris (4/8/2009)
Very elegant! Makes my CASEy stuff look like a dustbin full of spaghetti!Who's gonna test with 40,000 rows then? 😀
Fortunately, I had enough time to test for 5000 rows, but not enough patience:w00t: to test for 40,000 rows.
Here are the results
--Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Table '#test'. Scan count 2, logical reads 136, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Ramesh' Version : 876 ms
--Warning: Null value is eliminated by an aggregate or other SET operation.
--Table '#test'. Scan count 3752, logical reads 255136, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 10, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--ChrisM' Version 3 ("condensed" version 2) : 36376 ms
Test code attached...
--Ramesh
April 8, 2009 at 7:23 am
Using Ramesh's test cases, I get these timings:
Ramesh' Version : 526 ms
ChrisM' Version 3 ("condensed" version 2) : 23480 ms
Peso : 236 ms
N 56°04'39.16"
E 12°55'05.25"
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 180 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply