SQL
Count repeated loose findings
BOTIE
Examples, experiments and workspace controls
Connect a tool's inputs to see what it produces. You can try a branch before connecting it to Result.
Try your own inputs
Use a copy of the example to try your own data. Keep the problem's assumptions in mind, and predict the effect of a change before checking the output. You can also add another branch to compare two ways of doing the calculation.
Context for this challenge
Build the finding filter and grouped count. Leave the group filter disconnected until the intermediate counts make sense.
The team needs assets with two or more loose-component visits, regardless of how many clear visits they had.
Inspect the component calculation
Summarise each group(
Rows: Keep rows passing a comparison(
Rows: Inspection visits
Comparison value: Text comparison value(
Text: loose
)
Field to compare: finding
Comparison: =
)
Group field: asset_id
Value field: finding
Aggregate: count rows
Result field: loose_visits
)Examples and results
- Inspection visits
[ { "inspection_id": 101, "asset_id": "P1", "minutes": 30, "finding": "loose" }, { "inspection_id": 102, "asset_id": "P1", "minutes": null, "finding": null }, { "inspection_id": 103, "asset_id": "P2", "minutes": 0, "finding": "clear" }, { "inspection_id": 104, "asset_id": "P3", "minutes": 20, "finding": "clear" }, { "inspection_id": 105, "asset_id": "P2", "minutes": 10, "finding": "loose" }, { "inspection_id": 106, "asset_id": "P1", "minutes": 15, "finding": "loose" } ]- Required result
[ { "asset_id": "P1", "loose_visits": 2 }, { "asset_id": "P2", "loose_visits": 1 } ]
Try a fresh construction
This clears this draft, including its undo history. Earlier successful attempts stay recorded. Build again without opening hints to record an independent attempt.
Stuck? Inspect a worked construction
The tools below form one possible solution. You can assemble it, follow its signals, and undo that change to return to your own construction.
Assumptions and test precision
The workshop calculates over small record lists to make the relational operations visible. It is not a SQL parser or query planner. The worksheet runs SQLite and is the authority for SQL behaviour, including types and NULL. Numerical tests allow a difference of 0.001. Lists and structures must also have the right shape.
Your last tested pieces can start the full construction. An existing draft there keeps its own pieces.
Two assets meet the inclusive recurrence threshold
This check uses the pieces from “Count the right evidence before filtering groups”.
BOTIE
- Inspection visits
[ { "asset_id": "P9", "finding": "loose" }, { "asset_id": "P8", "finding": "loose" }, { "asset_id": "P9", "finding": "loose" }, { "asset_id": "P8", "finding": "loose" }, { "asset_id": "P9", "finding": "loose" } ]
Use a number, text, or an array matching the requested result. For a matrix, put each row in brackets. Saving your prediction runs your current construction on these inputs and checks the earlier examples too.
Build a construction in the workspace above first. This case will test those pieces.
Why can adding another clear visit leave this report unchanged?
WHERE determines the group’s evidence; HAVING decides whether that evidence meets the group rule.
The workshop calculates over small record lists to make the relational operations visible. It is not a SQL parser or query planner. The worksheet runs SQLite and is the authority for SQL behaviour, including types and NULL.
Work through the SQL challenges →