Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase

Help with Count over days (but not per day) ... the total up until that day through the date range. Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:06 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 4, 2014 4:08 PM
Points: 12, Visits: 61

I am having an issue trying to wrap my head around this.

I am trying to get the count of something over the days in a date range, but I don't need a per day count, I need the count of items for each day through the date range... does that make sense?

For example... the output should look something like this.

Day1 - 12
Day2 - 18
Day3 - 24
Day4 - 32
Day5 - 80

So, on Day1, there were 12 items. On Day2 there were 6 additional, so 12+6. On Day3 there were 6, so 12+6+6, Day4 there were 8, so 12+6+6+8, Day5 there were 48, so 12+6+6+8+48.

I am sure there is a way, but I can't wrap my head around it.
Post #1366254
Posted Sunday, September 30, 2012 11:51 PM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:25 AM
Points: 3,648, Visits: 5,328
This article by Jeff Moden gives you arguably the best way to approach the running totals problem:

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/68467/



My mantra: No loops! No CURSORs! No RBAR! Hoo-uh!

My thought question: Have you ever been told that your query runs too fast?

My advice:
INDEXing a poor-performing query is like putting sugar on cat food. Yeah, it probably tastes better but are you sure you want to eat it?
The path of least resistance can be a slippery slope. Take care that fixing your fixes of fixes doesn't snowball and end up costing you more than fixing the root cause would have in the first place.


Need to UNPIVOT? Why not CROSS APPLY VALUES instead?
Since random numbers are too important to be left to chance, let's generate some!
Learn to understand recursive CTEs by example.
Splitting strings based on patterns can be fast!
Post #1366323
Posted Monday, October 1, 2012 2:48 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:50 AM
Points: 63, Visits: 293
May be this query will help your problem


CREATE TABLE #Temp (Name varchar(100), value int)

INSERT INTO #Temp
SELECT 'Day1', 12
UNION
SELECT 'Day2' ,6
UNION
SELECT 'Day3' , 10
UNION
SELECT 'Day4' ,8
UNION
SELECT 'Day5' ,4

;with cte as
(
select *, ROW_NUMBER() over(PARTITION by null order by Name ) as Id
FROM #Temp
)


SELECT b.Name , SUM(A.value ), B.Id
FROM cte A
INNER JOIN cte B on A.Id <= B.Id
GROUP BY B.Name , b.id
Post #1366396
Posted Monday, October 1, 2012 2:52 AM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:25 AM
Points: 3,648, Visits: 5,328
Sony Francis @EY (10/1/2012)
May be this query will help your problem


CREATE TABLE #Temp (Name varchar(100), value int)

INSERT INTO #Temp
SELECT 'Day1', 12
UNION
SELECT 'Day2' ,6
UNION
SELECT 'Day3' , 10
UNION
SELECT 'Day4' ,8
UNION
SELECT 'Day5' ,4

;with cte as
(
select *, ROW_NUMBER() over(PARTITION by null order by Name ) as Id
FROM #Temp
)


SELECT b.Name , SUM(A.value ), B.Id
FROM cte A
INNER JOIN cte B on A.Id <= B.Id
GROUP BY B.Name , b.id


I believe Jeff talks about this "triangular join" in the article I referenced.



My mantra: No loops! No CURSORs! No RBAR! Hoo-uh!

My thought question: Have you ever been told that your query runs too fast?

My advice:
INDEXing a poor-performing query is like putting sugar on cat food. Yeah, it probably tastes better but are you sure you want to eat it?
The path of least resistance can be a slippery slope. Take care that fixing your fixes of fixes doesn't snowball and end up costing you more than fixing the root cause would have in the first place.


Need to UNPIVOT? Why not CROSS APPLY VALUES instead?
Since random numbers are too important to be left to chance, let's generate some!
Learn to understand recursive CTEs by example.
Splitting strings based on patterns can be fast!
Post #1366401
Posted Monday, October 1, 2012 6:37 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:40 PM
Points: 141, Visits: 854
I believe Jeff talks about this "triangular join" in the article I referenced.


I don't think that its a triangular join - no subquery really.
It looks like a moficifation of the CROSS JOIN method of running total computation.
Instead of a filtered CROSS JOIN, the INNER JOIN condition is expanded.
This is something that Jeff did not cover in his article as far as I can remember.

This is my understanding; I'm open to correction.
Post #1366527
Posted Monday, October 1, 2012 6:54 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:14 PM
Points: 37,107, Visits: 31,665
diamondgm (10/1/2012)
I believe Jeff talks about this "triangular join" in the article I referenced.


I don't think that its a triangular join - no subquery really.
It looks like a moficifation of the CROSS JOIN method of running total computation.
Instead of a filtered CROSS JOIN, the INNER JOIN condition is expanded.
This is something that Jeff did not cover in his article as far as I can remember.

This is my understanding; I'm open to correction.


You're correct. It's not a "triagular join". It's worse. It's a full accidental cross join. Look at the execution plan. You have 5 rows of data but one of the arrows coming off the table has 25 rows. If you add one more row to the data, that arrow jumps to 36, as expected with a cross join.


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1366538
Posted Monday, October 1, 2012 9:15 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 4, 2014 4:08 PM
Points: 12, Visits: 61
Great thanks... now that I understand what I am looking for (the running total part), I see that there is a bunch of information out there.

Thanks again.
Post #1366616
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse