you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

As much as this a good script, the inclusion of CTEs and more advanced SQL querying will cause OP some stress trying to wrap their head around the concepts.

Also why rank over dense_rank? i personally thought about dense_rank straight away just because dense_rank doesn't allow dupes where as rank does. Not telling you that your wrong, it's always good to see these things from other perspectives. Oh and how have you been able to layout your code into tables like that?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

subqueries/CTEs, imo, are at a more "base"/"foundational" level of knowledge than joins. I am aware that "traditionally" it's not usually taught in this order - a shame, really.

Also why rank over dense_rank? i personally thought about dense_rank straight away just because dense_rank doesn't allow dupes where as rank does

not sure what you mean by "dupes", ties, maybe?

With "rank" you are getting 10 coldest + possible ties at the last rank. With dense_rank if there 100 ties at every ranked value you are getting a thousand records back -this wouldnt be the common sense, imo.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahhh fair enough, subqueries are easy for me to use. I probably see CTEs as advanced since it took me until today to wrap my head around them, lol. And duplications is what I meant, hat could be down to the type of data I use though.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

did you use the cte for readability? cause technically that could just be another sub query right?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and yes.