May 4, 2018 at 5:34 am
Hi!
I'm trying to optimize a cursor-solution for following problem:
A customer can have a number of orders with a total value and a credit limit.
For instance:
Customer A:
Credit limit 100 $
Order 1: 50$
Order 2: 30$
Order 3: 30$
The idea is to filter out orders per customer with total sum "fit inside" the limit without going over it sorted by order number, in this case Order 1 + 2.
This case is quite easy to solve with a SUM OVER ORDER BY.
But there can be customer with following structure:
Customer B:
Credit limit 100 $
Order 1: 50$
Order 2: 70$
Order 3: 20$
Order 4: 20$
In this case, Order 1, 3, 4 together should fit inside his limit.
So the logic is: take order one by one sorted by order number, if accumulated order value is inside the limit, this order is "OK". If order is over the limit, discard it, and proceed to next order.
Is there a way to solve it without loops and cursors? Note, that we don't want to optimize solution to fit as many orders as possible inside the limit, since this problem is NP-complete i think.
//Sigge
May 4, 2018 at 5:42 am
siggemannen - Friday, May 4, 2018 5:34 AMHi!I'm trying to optimize a cursor-solution for following problem:
A customer can have a number of orders with a total value and a credit limit.
For instance:
Customer A:
Credit limit 100 $
Order 1: 50$
Order 2: 30$
Order 3: 30$The idea is to filter out orders per customer with total sum "fit inside" the limit without going over it sorted by order number, in this case Order 1 + 2.
This case is quite easy to solve with a SUM OVER ORDER BY.
But there can be customer with following structure:Customer B:
Credit limit 100 $
Order 1: 50$
Order 2: 70$
Order 3: 20$
Order 4: 20$In this case, Order 1, 3, 4 together should fit inside his limit.
So the logic is: take order one by one sorted by order number, if accumulated order value is inside the limit, this order is "OK". If order is over the limit, discard it, and proceed to next order.
Is there a way to solve it without loops and cursors? Note, that we don't want to optimize solution to fit as many orders as possible inside the limit, since this problem is NP-complete i think.
//Sigge
You've been here long enough to know that you should provide DDL & corresponding INSERT statements if you want someone to provide a working solution.
If you haven't even tried to resolve your issue, please don't expect the hard-working volunteers here to waste their time providing links to answers which you could easily have found yourself.
May 4, 2018 at 6:01 am
Sorry about that:
CREATE TABLE #t_customers (cust_id INT PRIMARY KEY, limit NUMERIC(19, 2))
CREATE TABLE #t_orders (cust_id INT, order_no INT PRIMARY KEY, tot_value NUMERIC(19, 2))
INSERT INTO #t_customers (
cust_id
, limit
)
VALUES (1, 100), (2,100)
INSERT INTO #t_orders (
cust_id, order_no, tot_value
)
VALUES
(1, 1, 50)
, (1, 2, 30)
, (1, 3, 30)
, (2, 4, 50)
, (2, 5, 70)
, (2, 6, 20)
, (2, 7, 20)
SELECT *
FROM #t_customers
SELECT *
FROM #t_orders
--Expected result:
SELECT *
FROM (
VALUES (1, 1)
, (1, 2)
, (2, 4)
, (2, 6)
, (2, 7)
) t (cust_id, order_no)
May 4, 2018 at 9:53 am
A recursive CTE works for this, and could provide you with a template for a quirky update:
;WITH CalculatedData AS (
SELECT
c.cust_id, o.order_no, o.tot_value, c.limit
FROM #t_customers c
INNER JOIN #t_orders o
ON o.cust_id = c.cust_id
),
rCTE AS (
SELECT ThisRow.*,
RT = tot_value,
x.Keeper
FROM CalculatedData ThisRow
CROSS APPLY (SELECT Keeper = 0) x
WHERE order_no = 1
UNION ALL
SELECT ThisRow.*,
RT = CAST(CASE
WHEN x.keeper = 1 THEN [LastRow].RT + ThisRow.tot_value
WHEN x.keeper = 2 THEN [LastRow].RT
WHEN x.keeper = 0 THEN ThisRow.tot_value END
AS NUMERIC(19,2)),
x.Keeper
FROM CalculatedData ThisRow
INNER JOIN rCTE [LastRow]
ON [LastRow].order_no + 1 = ThisRow.order_no
CROSS APPLY (SELECT Keeper = CASE
WHEN [LastRow].cust_id <> ThisRow.cust_id THEN 0
WHEN [LastRow].cust_id = ThisRow.cust_id AND [LastRow].RT + ThisRow.tot_value <= ThisRow.limit THEN 1
WHEN [LastRow].cust_id = ThisRow.cust_id THEN 2
END) x
)
SELECT * FROM rCTE WHERE Keeper <> 2
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
May 6, 2018 at 6:31 am
Doh, of course, recursive CTE! Thanks!
I added some more testdata and rewrote your code to work with it
CREATE TABLE #t_customers (cust_id INT PRIMARY KEY, limit NUMERIC(19, 2))
CREATE TABLE #t_orders (cust_id INT, order_no INT PRIMARY KEY, tot_value NUMERIC(19, 2))
INSERT INTO #t_customers (
cust_id
, limit
)
VALUES (1, 100), (2,100), (3,100)
INSERT INTO #t_orders (
cust_id, order_no, tot_value
)
VALUES (1, 1, 50)
, (1, 2, 30)
, (1, 3, 30)
, (2, 4, 50)
, (2, 5, 70)
, (2, 6, 20)
, (2, 7, 20)
, (3, 8, 120)
, (3, 9, 90)
;WITH CTE AS (
SELECT c.cust_id, o.order_no, o.tot_value, c.limit
, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY c.cust_id ORDER BY order_no) AS sort -- Get sort for each customer, so we can use rCTE easier
FROM #t_customers c
INNER JOIN #t_orders o
ON o.cust_id = c.cust_id
)
, CTE2 AS (
SELECT c.cust_id
, c.order_no
, l.inside
, CAST(c.limit - inside * c.tot_value AS NUMERIC(19, 2)) AS credit_left
, c.sort
FROM CTE c
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT CASE WHEN c.tot_value <= c.limit THEN 1 ELSE 0 END AS inside
) l
WHERE c.sort = 1 -- "anchor" row
UNION ALL
SELECT c.cust_id
, c.order_no
, l.inside
, CAST(c2.credit_left - l.inside * c.tot_value AS NUMERIC(19,2)) AS credit_left
, c.sort
FROM CTE c
INNER JOIN CTE2 c2
ON c2.cust_id = c.cust_id
AND c2.sort + 1 = c.sort -- Next order
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT CASE WHEN c2.credit_left >= c.tot_value THEN 1 ELSE 0 END AS inside
) l
)
SELECT cust_id, order_no
FROM CTE2 c
WHERE c.inside = 1
ORDER BY cust_id, order_no
May 9, 2018 at 2:35 pm
siggemannen - Sunday, May 6, 2018 6:31 AMDoh, of course, recursive CTE! Thanks!
I added some more testdata and rewrote your code to work with it
CREATE TABLE #t_customers (cust_id INT PRIMARY KEY, limit NUMERIC(19, 2))
CREATE TABLE #t_orders (cust_id INT, order_no INT PRIMARY KEY, tot_value NUMERIC(19, 2))INSERT INTO #t_customers (
cust_id
, limit
)
VALUES (1, 100), (2,100), (3,100)INSERT INTO #t_orders (
cust_id, order_no, tot_value
)
VALUES (1, 1, 50)
, (1, 2, 30)
, (1, 3, 30)
, (2, 4, 50)
, (2, 5, 70)
, (2, 6, 20)
, (2, 7, 20)
, (3, 8, 120)
, (3, 9, 90)
;WITH CTE AS (
SELECT c.cust_id, o.order_no, o.tot_value, c.limit
, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY c.cust_id ORDER BY order_no) AS sort -- Get sort for each customer, so we can use rCTE easier
FROM #t_customers c
INNER JOIN #t_orders o
ON o.cust_id = c.cust_id
)
, CTE2 AS (
SELECT c.cust_id
, c.order_no
, l.inside
, CAST(c.limit - inside * c.tot_value AS NUMERIC(19, 2)) AS credit_left
, c.sort
FROM CTE c
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT CASE WHEN c.tot_value <= c.limit THEN 1 ELSE 0 END AS inside
) l
WHERE c.sort = 1 -- "anchor" rowUNION ALL
SELECT c.cust_id
, c.order_no
, l.inside
, CAST(c2.credit_left - l.inside * c.tot_value AS NUMERIC(19,2)) AS credit_left
, c.sort
FROM CTE c
INNER JOIN CTE2 c2
ON c2.cust_id = c.cust_id
AND c2.sort + 1 = c.sort -- Next order
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT CASE WHEN c2.credit_left >= c.tot_value THEN 1 ELSE 0 END AS inside
) l
)
SELECT cust_id, order_no
FROM CTE2 c
WHERE c.inside = 1
ORDER BY cust_id, order_no
With no offense meant to Chris, a well written WHILE loop might actually do better than the RBAR of a Recursive CTE and use fewer resources, too boot.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 11, 2018 at 11:46 am
siggemannen - Friday, May 4, 2018 5:34 AMHi!I'm trying to optimize a cursor-solution for following problem:
A customer can have a number of orders with a total value and a credit limit.
For instance:
Customer A:
Credit limit 100 $
Order 1: 50$
Order 2: 30$
Order 3: 30$The idea is to filter out orders per customer with total sum "fit inside" the limit without going over it sorted by order number, in this case Order 1 + 2.
This case is quite easy to solve with a SUM OVER ORDER BY.
But there can be customer with following structure:Customer B:
Credit limit 100 $
Order 1: 50$
Order 2: 70$
Order 3: 20$
Order 4: 20$In this case, Order 1, 3, 4 together should fit inside his limit.
So the logic is: take order one by one sorted by order number, if accumulated order value is inside the limit, this order is "OK". If order is over the limit, discard it, and proceed to next order.
Is there a way to solve it without loops and cursors? Note, that we don't want to optimize solution to fit as many orders as possible inside the limit, since this problem is NP-complete i think.
//Sigge
Cursor looks like the best bet rather than loops because for each iteration of the loop, you'll need to do a lookup and then spool the keys of the detail that fit the loop. If you want to use modern windowing queries, is it possible that you could do the opposite of what my bank used to do, ie., fill the orders from the lowest dollar amount to the highest? Sure, probably not optimal for all orders, but you said you didn't want to search that NP-incomplete looking solution space anyways, just an idea! Save the running total (even if its over the amount) to another table, then just select the rows where the running total ISN'T over the credit limit and then apply those rows to the credit limit. The programming then becomes much simpler, but then you WILL be deprioritizing orders based on increasing price, is it possible that you can let folks prioritize individual orders then apply that to your windowing function?
May 18, 2018 at 10:15 am
I agree with Patrick, There are edge cases that are not described in the original problem. Is the challenge to get as many orders in as possible, or get as close as possible to the credit limit. The first is easiest, just sort by lowest to highest. The second is much harder as you will need to consider an indeterminate number of combinations for each customer. you could reduce your workload by filtering out customers who's entire order sum is inside their credit limit, customers who have no orders inside their credit limit and customers who only have one order inside their credit limit.
It feels like a variation on the travelling salesman or box packing problem.
No good solutions come to mind. How many customers are we talking about?
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply