![]() Their average would by their total runs (10+20+30) = 60, divided by the number of times they were out (2), so their average would be 30. For example if one player had matches as follows: The query needs to add up a player's runs in every game, irrespective of whether they finished out or not out and then divide by the number of times they were out. This code doesn't work as it still includes the times they were 'notout' I have tried adding 'ELSE 0' in but an error is returned due to integer and character data types being mixed. Select b.enumber, b.bday, case when Max (c.id) then c.pay ELSE c. In this part, we'll compare it with Elasticsearch. The idea of this being that for each player, it sums their runs and divides only by the number of times they were 'out', ignoring the 'notout's. JIn Part 1, we delved into the capabilities of PostgreSQL's full-text search and explored how advanced search features such as relevancy boosters, typo-tolerance, and faceted search can be implemented. ![]() SUM(runs)/COUNT(CASE WHEN playerout = 'out' THEN name END) In cricket, this is done by taking their total runs and dividing only by the number of times they were 'out', the code I have been trying is something like this: SELECT name, I want to run a query that gives me the average 'runs' per player. Obviously players appear as many times in the table as matches they have played Syntax CASE WHEN THEN WHEN THEN .The CASE expression can be used with SELECT, WHERE, GROUP BY, and HAVING clauses. The fields are: the player's name, the runs they scored in a particular game, whether they were 'out' or 'not out' at the end of the match. PostgreSQL supports CASE expression which is the same as if/else statements of other programming languages. If it's not for some reason to do with SQL's deeper architecture, I'd like to understand why.I have a simple table in a cricket database that records the 'runs' each player scores in a game. This feels like a more correct & less wasteful way to do it. 2 Answers Sorted by: 9 If you want to report on all players irrespective of whether they have been out or not in any match, then you need to define a value for when they have never been out. In the past I've done operations like this by doing two SELECTS, one of which is against the item_templates table, the other against the unique_items table, and taken their UNION. Or if this is something you can't do conceptually - have each row choose its own join - I'd love to get a link to a deeper explanation. ![]() If the condition's result is true, the value of the CASE expression is the result that follows the condition, and the remainder of the CASE expression is not processed. Each condition is an expression that returns a boolean result. If there's a quick fix for the syntax, I'd love to hear it. CASE clauses can be used wherever an expression is valid. This is the sort of thing I've been trying, without success: SELECT item_table, item_id, * So when I find a record of an item in the item_instances table, I want to look up more information about it, and I need to pull that info from the correct table. This is quite flexible but it also means it generally feels lower-level compared to search engines like Elasticsearch, Typesense, or Mellisearch, for which full-text search is the primary use case. They are now stored in the unique_items table. The Postgres approach to full-text search offers building blocks that you can combine to create your own search engine. Say I've got a table of item_instances in my game, of all the items in the game world, and some of the items are cookie-cutter copies of generic items from the item_templates table, and other items started off as templates, and then acquired unique properties as players used them. NUMXLOGINSERTLOCKS) or because we are waiting for another backend to finish copying a WAL record into wal. LWLock:WALInsert can be reported because there are not enough WALInsert locks (c.f. I'm attempting to use a CASE expression to select which table each row should be joined with. In the latter case we are not actually waiting to acquire the lock, we are waiting for the lock to be released without then acquiring it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |