For starters, columns specified in the GROUP BY should be present in the select statement too. Here in your case only "PartNo" is used in GROUP BY clause whereas so many columns are used in the SELECT statement.
You can try WITH CTE to achieve this,
WITH CTE AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER( PARTITION BY PartNo ORDER BY POReleases.DateReceived DESC) AS PartNoCount
) SELECT * FROM CTE
When you write an SQL statement, you should think about the logical flow, which might be technically slightly inaccurate due to optimizations, but still, it is a good thing to think about it like this:
without the from clause specifying the source relation, the filter cannot be evaluated, so at least logically, the from is the first thing to evaluate
without the where clause specifying which records should be kept from the source relation, the filtered records cannot be grouped, so, at least logically, the where precedes the group by
without the group by, specifying the groups, you cannot select values from the groups, so, at least logically, group by precedes select
So, the projection (select) is executed on the groups of filtered records, which are groups themselves. Since the groups have an attribute, namely PartNo, it becomes an aggregated column. The other columns, which were reachable before the group by, can no longer be reached in the select. If you want to reach them, you need to group by them as well, or use aggregated functions for them, since if you have a group by, you will be able to select only the aggregated columns, which are either aggregated functions or columns which became aggregated due to their presence in the group by.
Since you did not specify how this query is not working, I will have to assume that you have a syntax error in the selection, due to the fact that you refer to columns which are not aggregated. Also, you might want to use join instead of Descartes multiplication and finally, if you want to filter the groups, not the records of the initial relation (which is the result of a Descartes multiplication in your case), then you might consider using a having clause.
Asked in February 2016Viewed 2,647 timesVoted 7Answered 2 times