The SQL OVER() clause - when and why is it useful?
SqlSql ServerAggregate FunctionsClauseSql Problem Overview
USE AdventureWorks2008R2;
GO
SELECT SalesOrderID, ProductID, OrderQty
,SUM(OrderQty) OVER(PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) AS 'Total'
,AVG(OrderQty) OVER(PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) AS 'Avg'
,COUNT(OrderQty) OVER(PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) AS 'Count'
,MIN(OrderQty) OVER(PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) AS 'Min'
,MAX(OrderQty) OVER(PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) AS 'Max'
FROM Sales.SalesOrderDetail
WHERE SalesOrderID IN(43659,43664);
I read about that clause and I don't understand why I need it.
What does the function Over do? What does Partitioning By do?
Why can't I make a query with writing Group By SalesOrderID?
Sql Solutions
Solution 1 - Sql
You can use GROUP BY SalesOrderID. The difference is, with GROUP BY you can only have the aggregated values for the columns that are not included in GROUP BY.
In contrast, using windowed aggregate functions instead of GROUP BY, you can retrieve both aggregated and non-aggregated values. That is, although you are not doing that in your example query, you could retrieve both individual OrderQty values and their sums, counts, averages etc. over groups of same SalesOrderIDs.
Here's a practical example of why windowed aggregates are great. Suppose you need to calculate what percent of a total every value is. Without windowed aggregates you'd have to first derive a list of aggregated values and then join it back to the original rowset, i.e. like this:
SELECT
orig.[Partition],
orig.Value,
orig.Value * 100.0 / agg.TotalValue AS ValuePercent
FROM OriginalRowset orig
INNER JOIN (
SELECT
[Partition],
SUM(Value) AS TotalValue
FROM OriginalRowset
GROUP BY [Partition]
) agg ON orig.[Partition] = agg.[Partition]
Now look how you can do the same with a windowed aggregate:
SELECT
[Partition],
Value,
Value * 100.0 / SUM(Value) OVER (PARTITION BY [Partition]) AS ValuePercent
FROM OriginalRowset orig
Much easier and cleaner, isn't it?
Solution 2 - Sql
The OVER clause is powerful in that you can have aggregates over different ranges ("windowing"), whether you use a GROUP BY or not
Example: get count per SalesOrderID and count of all
SELECT
SalesOrderID, ProductID, OrderQty
,COUNT(OrderQty) AS 'Count'
,COUNT(*) OVER () AS 'CountAll'
FROM Sales.SalesOrderDetail
WHERE
SalesOrderID IN(43659,43664)
GROUP BY
SalesOrderID, ProductID, OrderQty
Get different COUNTs, no GROUP BY
SELECT
SalesOrderID, ProductID, OrderQty
,COUNT(OrderQty) OVER(PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) AS 'CountQtyPerOrder'
,COUNT(OrderQty) OVER(PARTITION BY ProductID) AS 'CountQtyPerProduct',
,COUNT(*) OVER () AS 'CountAllAgain'
FROM Sales.SalesOrderDetail
WHERE
SalesOrderID IN(43659,43664)
Solution 3 - Sql
If you only wanted to GROUP BY the SalesOrderID then you wouldn't be able to include the ProductID and OrderQty columns in the SELECT clause.
The PARTITION BY clause let's you break up your aggregate functions. One obvious and useful example would be if you wanted to generate line numbers for order lines on an order:
SELECT
O.order_id,
O.order_date,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY O.order_id) AS line_item_no,
OL.product_id
FROM
Orders O
INNER JOIN Order_Lines OL ON OL.order_id = O.order_id
(My syntax might be off slightly)
You would then get back something like:
order_id order_date line_item_no product_id
-------- ---------- ------------ ----------
1 2011-05-02 1 5
1 2011-05-02 2 4
1 2011-05-02 3 7
2 2011-05-12 1 8
2 2011-05-12 2 1
Solution 4 - Sql
Let me explain with an example and you would be able to see how it works.
Assuming you have the following table DIM_EQUIPMENT:
VIN MAKE MODEL YEAR COLOR
-----------------------------------------
1234ASDF Ford Taurus 2008 White
1234JKLM Chevy Truck 2005 Green
5678ASDF Ford Mustang 2008 Yellow
Run below SQL
SELECT VIN,
MAKE,
MODEL,
YEAR,
COLOR ,
COUNT(*) OVER (PARTITION BY YEAR) AS COUNT2
FROM DIM_EQUIPMENT
The result would be as below
VIN MAKE MODEL YEAR COLOR COUNT2
----------------------------------------------
1234JKLM Chevy Truck 2005 Green 1
5678ASDF Ford Mustang 2008 Yellow 2
1234ASDF Ford Taurus 2008 White 2
See what happened.
You are able to count without Group By on YEAR and Match with ROW.
Another Interesting WAY to get same result if as below using WITH Clause, WITH works as in-line VIEW and can simplify the query especially complex ones, which is not the case here though since I am just trying to show usage
WITH EQ AS
( SELECT YEAR AS YEAR2, COUNT(*) AS COUNT2 FROM DIM_EQUIPMENT GROUP BY YEAR
)
SELECT VIN,
MAKE,
MODEL,
YEAR,
COLOR,
COUNT2
FROM DIM_EQUIPMENT,
EQ
WHERE EQ.YEAR2=DIM_EQUIPMENT.YEAR;
Solution 5 - Sql
The OVER clause when combined with PARTITION BY state that the preceding function call must be done analytically by evaluating the returned rows of the query. Think of it as an inline GROUP BY statement.
OVER (PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) is stating that for SUM, AVG, etc... function, return the value OVER a subset of the returned records from the query, and PARTITION that subset BY the foreign key SalesOrderID.
So we will SUM every OrderQty record for EACH UNIQUE SalesOrderID, and that column name will be called 'Total'.
It is a MUCH more efficient means than using multiple inline views to find out the same information. You can put this query within an inline view and filter on Total then.
SELECT ...,
FROM (your query) inlineview
WHERE Total < 200
Solution 6 - Sql
So in simple words: Over clause can be used to select non aggregated values along with Aggregated ones.
Partition BY, ORDER BY inside, and ROWS or RANGE are part of OVER() by clause.
partition by is used to partition data and then perform these window, aggregated functions, and if we don't have partition by the then entire result set is considered as a single partition.
OVER clause can be used with Ranking Functions(Rank, Row_Number, Dense_Rank..), Aggregate Functions like (AVG, Max, Min, SUM...etc) and Analytics Functions like (First_Value, Last_Value, and few others).
Let's See basic syntax of OVER clause
OVER (
[ <PARTITION BY clause> ]
[ <ORDER BY clause> ]
[ <ROW or RANGE clause> ]
)
PARTITION BY: It is used to partition data and perform operations on groups with the same data.
ORDER BY: It is used to define the logical order of data in Partitions. When we don't specify Partition, entire resultset is considered as a single partition
Let's take an example:
Here is my dataset:
Id Name Gender Salary
----------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------- -----------
1 Mark Male 5000
2 John Male 4500
3 Pavan Male 5000
4 Pam Female 5500
5 Sara Female 4000
6 Aradhya Female 3500
7 Tom Male 5500
8 Mary Female 5000
9 Ben Male 6500
10 Jodi Female 7000
11 Tom Male 5500
12 Ron Male 5000
So let me execute different scenarios and see how data is impacted and I'll come from difficult syntax to simple one
Select *,SUM(salary) Over(order by salary RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW) as sum_sal from employees
Id Name Gender Salary sum_sal
----------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- -----------
6 Aradhya Female 3500 3500
5 Sara Female 4000 7500
2 John Male 4500 12000
3 Pavan Male 5000 32000
1 Mark Male 5000 32000
8 Mary Female 5000 32000
12 Ron Male 5000 32000
11 Tom Male 5500 48500
7 Tom Male 5500 48500
4 Pam Female 5500 48500
9 Ben Male 6500 55000
10 Jodi Female 7000 62000
Just observe the sum_sal part. Here I am using order by Salary and using "RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW". In this case, we are not using partition so entire data will be treated as one partition and we are ordering on salary. And the important thing here is UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW. This means when we are calculating the sum, from starting row to the current row for each row. But if we see rows with salary 5000 and name="Pavan", ideally it should be 17000 and for salary=5000 and name=Mark, it should be 22000. But as we are using RANGE and in this case, if it finds any similar elements then it considers them as the same logical group and performs an operation on them and assigns value to each item in that group. That is the reason why we have the same value for salary=5000. The engine went up to salary=5000 and Name=Ron and calculated sum and then assigned it to all salary=5000.
Select *,SUM(salary) Over(order by salary ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW) as sum_sal from employees
Id Name Gender Salary sum_sal
----------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- -----------
6 Aradhya Female 3500 3500
5 Sara Female 4000 7500
2 John Male 4500 12000
3 Pavan Male 5000 17000
1 Mark Male 5000 22000
8 Mary Female 5000 27000
12 Ron Male 5000 32000
11 Tom Male 5500 37500
7 Tom Male 5500 43000
4 Pam Female 5500 48500
9 Ben Male 6500 55000
10 Jodi Female 7000 62000
So with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW The difference is for same value items instead of grouping them together, It calculates SUM from starting row to current row and it doesn't treat items with same value differently like RANGE
Select *,SUM(salary) Over(order by salary) as sum_sal from employees
Id Name Gender Salary sum_sal
----------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- -----------
6 Aradhya Female 3500 3500
5 Sara Female 4000 7500
2 John Male 4500 12000
3 Pavan Male 5000 32000
1 Mark Male 5000 32000
8 Mary Female 5000 32000
12 Ron Male 5000 32000
11 Tom Male 5500 48500
7 Tom Male 5500 48500
4 Pam Female 5500 48500
9 Ben Male 6500 55000
10 Jodi Female 7000 62000
These results are the same as
Select *, SUM(salary) Over(order by salary RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW) as sum_sal from employees
That is because Over(order by salary) is just a short cut of Over(order by salary RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW) So wherever we simply specify Order by without ROWS or RANGE it is taking RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW as default.
Note: This is applicable only to Functions that actually accept RANGE/ROW. For example, ROW_NUMBER and few others don't accept RANGE/ROW and in that case, this doesn't come into the picture.
Till now we saw that Over clause with an order by is taking Range/ROWS and syntax looks something like this RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW And it is actually calculating up to the current row from the first row. But what If it wants to calculate values for the entire partition of data and have it for each column (that is from 1st row to last row). Here is the query for that
Select *,sum(salary) Over(order by salary ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING) as sum_sal from employees
Id Name Gender Salary sum_sal
----------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- -----------
1 Mark Male 5000 62000
2 John Male 4500 62000
3 Pavan Male 5000 62000
4 Pam Female 5500 62000
5 Sara Female 4000 62000
6 Aradhya Female 3500 62000
7 Tom Male 5500 62000
8 Mary Female 5000 62000
9 Ben Male 6500 62000
10 Jodi Female 7000 62000
11 Tom Male 5500 62000
12 Ron Male 5000 62000
Instead of CURRENT ROW, I am specifying UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING which instructs the engine to calculate till the last record of partition for each row.
Now coming to your point on what is OVER() with empty braces?
It is just a short cut for Over(order by salary ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING)
Here we are indirectly specifying to treat all my resultset as a single partition and then perform calculations from the first record to the last record of each partition.
Select *,Sum(salary) Over() as sum_sal from employees
Id Name Gender Salary sum_sal
----------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- -----------
1 Mark Male 5000 62000
2 John Male 4500 62000
3 Pavan Male 5000 62000
4 Pam Female 5500 62000
5 Sara Female 4000 62000
6 Aradhya Female 3500 62000
7 Tom Male 5500 62000
8 Mary Female 5000 62000
9 Ben Male 6500 62000
10 Jodi Female 7000 62000
11 Tom Male 5500 62000
12 Ron Male 5000 62000
I did create a video on this and if you are interested you can visit it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvVenuVUqto&t=1177s
Thanks, Pavan Kumar Aryasomayajulu HTTP://xyzcoder.github.io
Solution 7 - Sql
-
Also Called
Query PetitionClause. -
Similar to the
Group ByClause- break up data into chunks (or partitions)
- separate by partition bounds
- function performs within partitions
- re-initialised when crossing parting boundary
Syntax:
function (...) OVER (PARTITION BY col1 col3,...)
-
Functions
- Familiar functions such as
COUNT(),SUM(),MIN(),MAX(), etc - New Functions as well (eg
ROW_NUMBER(),RATION_TO_REOIRT(), etc.)
- Familiar functions such as
More info with example : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189461.aspx
Solution 8 - Sql
prkey whatsthat cash
890 "abb " 32 32
43 "abbz " 2 34
4 "bttu " 1 35
45 "gasstuff " 2 37
545 "gasz " 5 42
80009 "hoo " 9 51
2321 "ibm " 1 52
998 "krk " 2 54
42 "kx-5010 " 2 56
32 "lto " 4 60
543 "mp " 5 65
465 "multipower " 2 67
455 "O.N. " 1 68
7887 "prem " 7 75
434 "puma " 3 78
23 "retractble " 3 81
242 "Trujillo's stuff " 4 85
That's a result of query. Table used as source is the same exept that it has no last column. This column is a moving sum of third one.
Query:
SELECT prkey,whatsthat,cash,SUM(cash) over (order by whatsthat)
FROM public.iuk order by whatsthat,prkey
;
(table goes as public.iuk)
sql version: 2012
It's a little over dbase(1986) level, I don't know why 25+ years has been needed to finish it up.