Sum Accumulating Data

[Hugo Kornelis]

Re: Sum Accumulating Data

On 21 Apr 2006 06:12:15 -0700, sucaba.r@gmail. com wrote:
[color=blue]
>I too am confused. :-) I'll try and explain what I mean. Here's the
>table data again, notated on the right with asterisks that count as
>legitimate data points:
>
>1 - 239.21 *
>2 - 239.55 *
>3 - 240.30 *
>4 - 0.35
>5 - 0.44 *
>6 - 0.53 *
>7 - 1.20 *
>8 - 2.40 *
>9 - 0.25
>
>So the uptime query should return 7, as the machine was reset at
>location 4 and 9.
>
>Sorry for the confusion.[/color]

Hi sucaba,

Slight modification of Erland's suggestion (it was thus far unclear if
the "first" data point had to be included, since there's no "previous"
value to compare to - Erland apparently chose to exclude it):

SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM @t AS a
LEFT OUTER JOIN @t AS b
ON a.PK = b.PK + 1
WHERE a.Amount > b.Amount
OR b.Amount IS NULL


--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP

[Tom Moreau]

Re: Sum Accumulating Data

And what is wrong with entry 9?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
<sucaba.r@gmail .com> wrote in message
news:1145625135 .604955.307690@ i40g2000cwc.goo glegroups.com.. .
I too am confused. :-) I'll try and explain what I mean. Here's the
table data again, notated on the right with asterisks that count as
legitimate data points:

1 - 239.21 *
2 - 239.55 *
3 - 240.30 *
4 - 0.35
5 - 0.44 *
6 - 0.53 *
7 - 1.20 *
8 - 2.40 *
9 - 0.25

So the uptime query should return 7, as the machine was reset at
location 4 and 9.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Erland Sommarskog]

Re: Sum Accumulating Data

Tom Moreau (tom@dont.spam. me.cips.ca) writes:[color=blue]
> And what is wrong with entry 9?[/color]

0.25 < 2.40

or so I guess.

But it's difficult when sucaba.r does not really seem to have a grip
on it him/herself.

Maybe because it's some class assignment, and not a real-world case, who
knows.



--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx

Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

[Tom Moreau]

Re: Sum Accumulating Data

The specs are confusing - and fluid. My guess is if he wants 7 so bad, then
this is the solution:

SELECT 7

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommars kog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns97AD85A 38BDF9Yazorman@ 127.0.0.1...
Tom Moreau (tom@dont.spam. me.cips.ca) writes:[color=blue]
> And what is wrong with entry 9?[/color]

0.25 < 2.40

or so I guess.

But it's difficult when sucaba.r does not really seem to have a grip
on it him/herself.

Maybe because it's some class assignment, and not a real-world case, who
knows.



--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx

Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

[sucaba.r@gmail.com]

Re: Sum Accumulating Data

My apology for not making myself clear enough, and yes it's real-world.
Thanks again for all the help guys.

[Tom Moreau]

Re: Sum Accumulating Data

So why is item #1 to be considered, yet items #4 and #9 are bad? Item #1 is
the beginning of one of these reset sequences (since there are no data
before it), yet it is considered to be valid.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
<sucaba.r@gmail .com> wrote in message
news:1145881910 .902935.13460@i 39g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...
My apology for not making myself clear enough, and yes it's real-world.
Thanks again for all the help guys.