To find dupe batch values
SELECT batch, COUNT(batch) AS Cnt
GROUP BY batch
HAVING Cnt > 1;
Scott Hamm wrote:
>Sorry for the confusion. I don't mean a duplicated records, but to
>find duplicated Batch where two different operators worked on a single
>batch (one started off, then another one to finish the batch) and a
>single reviewer to review a batch. I need a list that lists duplicated
>Batches with different operators that worked on that batch.
>For example: (for clarification)
>SELECT ID, Batch, KeyDate, OperatorID, QAID, NTID
>ID Batch KeyDate OperatorID
>90577 439584414 2004-10-03 00:00:00 2661 5334 JulieAnt
>90575 439584414 2004-10-03 00:00:00 5657 5334 JulieAnt
>On Apr 5, 2005 10:54 AM, Rhino <rhino1@stripped> wrote:
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Scott Hamm" <linuxgold@stripped>
>>To: "Mysql" <mysql@stripped>
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:05 AM
>>Subject: Duplicated records
>>>Here is my novice question:
>>>I need to find duplicates in "Batch" category when I issued this query:
>>>SELECT * FROM QA WHERE Batch=439584414;
>>>1 2661 5334 JulieAnt 25 5 5 439584414 2004-10-03 00:00:00 2004-10-03
>>>00:00:00 0 90575
>>>1 5657 5334 JulieAnt 25 5 5 439584414 2004-10-03 00:00:00 2004-10-03
>>>How do I issue a query that finds duplicated Batch number?
>>First of all, I think you made a mistake when putting this data into your
>>note, a mistake which is compounded by the wrapping that the email program
>>did. I *think* you meant to display two rows with the '90577' value at the
>>end of the second row, not before the first row. This makes the example a
>>bit confusing and hard to follow.
>>The two rows you provide in your example are not duplicates of each other.
>>Even assuming that the '90577' actually belongs at the end of the second row
>>rather than the start of the first row, the two rows are different: the
>>first row ends in '90575', not '90577' and the second value in each row is
>>also different: '2661' and '5657'. Therefore, you're not really trying to
>>find duplicate records because a duplicate row would be one that is
>>identical in every column, not just identical in several columns. I hope
>>that doesn't sound like I am splitting hairs; maybe I am. ;-)
>>Anyway, the standard method for finding duplicates of rows goes like this
>>and can be adapted for your situation. Let's say that you have a table
>>called Foo with columns foo1, foo2, and foo3 and you want to find all of the
>>duplicate rows in the table, i.e. any row whose foo1, foo2, and foo3 value
>>is identical to the foo1, foo2, and foo3 value of another table. You would
>>write this query:
>> select foo1, foo2, foo3, count(*) as num
>> from Foo1
>> group by foo1, foo2, foo3
>> having num > 1
>> order by num;
>>Your result might look like this:
>> foo1 foo2 foo3 num
>> Daffy D Duck 1
>> Bugs B Bunny 1
>> Elmer A Fudd 3
>>This result means that Daffy D Duck and Bugs B Bunny each occur once in the
>>table but Elmer A Fudd occurs three times.
>>In the case you mentioned in your email, where the rows aren't complete
>>duplicates of one another, just write the query so that you omit the columns
>>which are allowed to be different. In your case, that would appear to be all
>>but the second and last columns.
>>However, I think if you get to the point of having duplicate records in a
>>table when you don't want them, finding them is like shutting the barn door
>>after the horse is already gone. I think you need to reconsider your design,
>>specifically your primary key, and change that primary key to *PREVENT* the
>>duplicate keys in the first place.
>>For instance, in the case of the Foo1 table, I can prevent duplicate rows by
>>choosing a good primary key; in this case I would choose the combination of
>>all three columns in the table; that would ensure that I never stored more
>>than 1 person named Elmer A Fudd. [Actually, that's not a great example! It
>>might be perfectly valid to have two people named Elmer A Fudd - or John A
>>Smith - so I probably need to add additional columns to my table to ensure
>>that the rows are unique; something like Social Security Number which is
>>(supposed to be) unique would be ideal for this purpose.]
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 05/04/2005
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005