Timeline for Transformation of row data based on preceding row for special cumulative sum
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://dba.stackexchange.com/ with https://dba.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 12, 2016 at 12:20 | comment | added | Yaneeve | Thanks, asked the question: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/149409/…. I must say that the merit of asking a new question is now clear to me since I can see that my proposed solution in the comment above is clearly wrong | |
| Sep 12, 2016 at 11:16 | comment | added | Erwin Brandstetter | @Yaneeve: Yes, a new question should really be a new question. Comments are not the place. You can always link to this one for context. and you can get my attention with a comment here. Since the new question is related, linking to it with a comment is useful to the general public, too. | |
| Sep 12, 2016 at 5:57 | comment | added | Yaneeve |
if you will allow me to add one more layer of complexity (tell me if to spin it off as a new question). Going back to my real life data, I noticed that there is a subtle difference to my override_op_s. override_op_1 cannot override data if its value is 0 and an override_op_2 had been noticed somewhere in the related sequence of events before that. I can think of a heuristic, but I am not sure it would work for all the cases - modify the FILTER such as FILTER (WHERE type = 'override_op_2' OR (type = 'override_op_1' AND value > 0.0))
|
|
| Sep 12, 2016 at 5:35 | vote | accept | Yaneeve | ||
| Sep 11, 2016 at 12:50 | comment | added | Yaneeve | seemed to have worked, thanks ever so much. I will analyze my results more in depth and will select your answer when I am done | |
| Sep 11, 2016 at 12:42 | history | edited | Erwin Brandstetter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 135 characters in body
|
| Sep 11, 2016 at 12:36 | history | edited | Erwin Brandstetter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
explain
|
| Sep 11, 2016 at 12:30 | history | edited | Erwin Brandstetter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
explain
|
| Sep 11, 2016 at 12:27 | comment | added | Yaneeve |
Thanks so much Erwin! There is a PK in the original data (it actually is a join on two similar but not identical tables), I had not selected it when I created the table and then I had, also, elided some uninteresting columns when asking the question, but your guess as to the columns presented here is correct. I will attempt to run your solution on the data and report back on the status of the run.
|
|
| Sep 11, 2016 at 12:20 | history | answered | Erwin Brandstetter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |