Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

How to select single row based on the max value in multiple rows [duplicate]

Possible Duplicate:
SQL: Find the max record per group

I have a table with four columns as such:

name   major    minor  revision
p1     0        4      3
p1     1        0      0
p1     1        1      4
p2     1        1      1
p2     2        5      0
p3     3        4      4

This is basically ca table containing records for each version of a program. I want to do a select to get all of the programs and their latest version so the results would look like this:

name   major    minor  revision
p1     1        1      4
p2     2        5      0
p3     3        4      4

I can't just group by the name and get the max of each column because then i would just end up with the highest number from each column, but not the specific row with the highest version. How can I set this up?

like image 255
Brian Avatar asked Jan 04 '12 07:01

Brian


People also ask

How do you select all values from a table only once if they're duplicated?

You can use distinct keyword to select all values from a table only once if they are repeated.

How do you remove duplicate rows and keep highest values only SQL?

One way to delete the duplicate rows but retaining the latest ones is by using MAX() function and GROUP BY clause.

How do I select duplicate rows?

To select duplicate values, you need to create groups of rows with the same values and then select the groups with counts greater than one. You can achieve that by using GROUP BY and a HAVING clause.

How do I find the maximum value of a row in SQL?

To find the maximum value of a column, use the MAX() aggregate function; it takes a column name or an expression to find the maximum value. In our example, the subquery returns the highest number in the column grade (subquery: SELECT MAX(grade) FROM student ).


3 Answers

You can use a not exists subquery to filter out older records:

select  *
from    YourTable yt
where   not exists
        (
        select  *
        from    YourTable older
        where   yt.name = older.name and 
                (
                    yt.major < older.major or
                    yt.major = older.major and yt.minor < older.minor or
                    yt.major = older.major and yt.minor = older.minor and
                        yt.revision < older.revision
                )
        )

which can also be written in MySQL as:

select  *
from    YourTable yt
where   not exists
        (
        select  *
        from    YourTable older
        where   yt.name = older.name and 
                  (yt.major,    yt.minor,    yt.revision) 
                < (older.major, older.major, older.revision)
        )
like image 115
Andomar Avatar answered Sep 20 '22 19:09

Andomar


The way I try to solve SQL problems is to take things step by step.

  • You want the maximum revision for the maximum minor version corresponding to the maximum major version for each product.

The maximum major number for each product is given by:

SELECT Name, MAX(major) AS Major FROM CA GROUP BY Name;

The maximum minor number corresponding to the maximum major number for each product is therefore given by:

SELECT CA.Name, CA.Major, MAX(CA.Minor) AS Minor
  FROM CA
  JOIN (SELECT Name, MAX(Major) AS Major
          FROM CA
         GROUP BY Name
       ) AS CB
    ON CA.Name = CB.Name AND CA.Major = CB.Major
 GROUP BY CA.Name, CA.Major;

And the maximum revision (for the maximum minor version number corresponding to the maximum major number for each product), therefore, is given by:

SELECT CA.Name, CA.Major, CA.Minor, MAX(CA.Revision) AS Revision
  FROM CA
  JOIN (SELECT CA.Name, CA.Major, MAX(CA.Minor) AS Minor
          FROM CA
          JOIN (SELECT Name, MAX(Major) AS Major
                  FROM CA
                 GROUP BY Name
               ) AS CB
            ON CA.Name = CB.Name AND CA.Major = CB.Major
         GROUP BY CA.Name, CA.Major
       ) AS CC
    ON CA.Name = CC.Name AND CA.Major = CC.Major AND CA.Minor = CC.Minor
 GROUP BY CA.Name, CA.Major, CA.Minor;

Tested - it works and produces the same answer as Andomar's query does.


Performance

I created a bigger volume of data (11616 rows of data), and ran a benchmark timing of Andomar's query against mine - target DBMS was IBM Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) version 11.70.FC2 running on MacOS X 10.7.2. I used the first of Andomar's two queries since IDS does not support the comparison notation in the second one. I loaded the data, updated statistics, and ran the queries both with mine followed by Andomar's and with Andomar's followed by mine. I also recorded the basic costs reported by the IDS optimizer. The result data from both queries were the same (so the queries are both accurate - or equally inaccurate).

Table unindexed:

Andomar's query                           Jonathan's query
Time: 22.074129                           Time: 0.085803
Estimated Cost: 2468070                   Estimated Cost: 22673
Estimated # of Rows Returned: 5808        Estimated # of Rows Returned: 132
Temporary Files Required For: Order By    Temporary Files Required For: Group By

Table with unique index on (name, major, minor, revision):

Andomar's query                           Jonathan's query
Time: 0.768309                            Time: 0.060380
Estimated Cost: 31754                     Estimated Cost: 2329
Estimated # of Rows Returned: 5808        Estimated # of Rows Returned: 139
                                          Temporary Files Required For: Group By

As you can seen, the index dramatically improves the performance of Andomar's query, but it still seems to be more expensive on this system than my query. The index gives a 25% time saving for my query. I'd be curious to see comparable figures for the two versions of Andomar's query on comparable volumes of data, with and without the index. (My test data can be supplied if you need it; there were 132 products - the 3 listed in the question and 129 new ones; each new product had (the same) 90 version entries.)

The reason for the discrepancy is that the sub-query in Andomar's query is a correlated sub-query, which is a relatively expensive process (dramatically so when the index is missing).

like image 22
Jonathan Leffler Avatar answered Sep 18 '22 19:09

Jonathan Leffler


SELECT cam.*
FROM 
      ( SELECT DISTINCT name
        FROM ca 
      ) AS cadistinct
  JOIN 
      ca AS cam
    ON ( cam.name, cam.major, cam.minor, cam.revision )
     = ( SELECT name, major, minor, revision
         FROM ca
         WHERE name = cadistinct.name
         ORDER BY major DESC
                , minor DESC
                , revision DESC
         LIMIT 1
       )

This will work in MySQL (current versions) but I woudn't recommend it:

SELECT *
FROM 
    ( SELECT name, major, minor, revision
      FROM ca
      ORDER BY name
             , major DESC
             , minor DESC
             , revision DESC
    ) AS tmp
GROUP BY name
like image 42
ypercubeᵀᴹ Avatar answered Sep 22 '22 19:09

ypercubeᵀᴹ