SQL select only rows with max value on a column [duplicate]

At first glance...

All you need is a GROUP BY clause with the MAX aggregate function:

SELECT id, MAX(rev)
FROM YourTable
GROUP BY id

It's never that simple, is it?

I just noticed you need the content column as well.

This is a very common question in SQL: find the whole data for the row with some max value in a column per some group identifier. I heard that a lot during my career. Actually, it was one the questions I answered in my current job's technical interview.

It is, actually, so common that Stack Overflow community has created a single tag just to deal with questions like that: greatest-n-per-group.

Basically, you have two approaches to solve that problem:

Joining with simple group-identifier, max-value-in-group Sub-query

In this approach, you first find the group-identifier, max-value-in-group (already solved above) in a sub-query. Then you join your table to the sub-query with equality on both group-identifier and max-value-in-group:

SELECT a.id, a.rev, a.contents
FROM YourTable a
INNER JOIN (
    SELECT id, MAX(rev) rev
    FROM YourTable
    GROUP BY id
) b ON a.id = b.id AND a.rev = b.rev

Left Joining with self, tweaking join conditions and filters

In this approach, you left join the table with itself. Equality goes in the group-identifier. Then, 2 smart moves:

1. The second join condition is having left side value less than right value
2. When you do step 1, the row(s) that actually have the max value will have NULL in the right side (it's a LEFT JOIN, remember?). Then, we filter the joined result, showing only the rows where the right side is NULL.

So you end up with:

SELECT a.*
FROM YourTable a
LEFT OUTER JOIN YourTable b
    ON a.id = b.id AND a.rev < b.rev
WHERE b.id IS NULL;

Conclusion

Both approaches bring the exact same result.

If you have two rows with max-value-in-group for group-identifier, both rows will be in the result in both approaches.

Both approaches are SQL ANSI compatible, thus, will work with your favorite RDBMS, regardless of its "flavor".

Both approaches are also performance friendly, however your mileage may vary (RDBMS, DB Structure, Indexes, etc.). So when you pick one approach over the other, benchmark. And make sure you pick the one which make most of sense to you.

My preference is to use as little code as possible...

You can do it using IN try this:

SELECT * 
FROM t1 WHERE (id,rev) IN 
( SELECT id, MAX(rev)
  FROM t1
  GROUP BY id
)

to my mind it is less complicated... easier to read and maintain.

I am flabbergasted that no answer offered SQL window function solution:

SELECT a.id, a.rev, a.contents
  FROM (SELECT id, rev, contents,
               ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY id ORDER BY rev DESC) rank
          FROM YourTable) a
 WHERE a.rank = 1 

Added in SQL standard ANSI/ISO Standard SQL:2003 and later extended with ANSI/ISO Standard SQL:2008, window (or windowing) functions are available with all major vendors now. There are more types of rank functions available to deal with a tie issue: RANK, DENSE_RANK, PERSENT_RANK.

Yet another solution is to use a correlated subquery:

select yt.id, yt.rev, yt.contents
    from YourTable yt
    where rev = 
        (select max(rev) from YourTable st where yt.id=st.id)

Having an index on (id,rev) renders the subquery almost as a simple lookup...

Following are comparisons to the solutions in @AdrianCarneiro's answer (subquery, leftjoin), based on MySQL measurements with InnoDB table of ~1million records, group size being: 1-3.

While for full table scans subquery/leftjoin/correlated timings relate to each other as 6/8/9, when it comes to direct lookups or batch (id in (1,2,3)), subquery is much slower then the others (Due to rerunning the subquery). However I couldnt differentiate between leftjoin and correlated solutions in speed.

One final note, as leftjoin creates n*(n+1)/2 joins in groups, its performance can be heavily affected by the size of groups...

I can't vouch for the performance, but here's a trick inspired by the limitations of Microsoft Excel. It has some good features

GOOD STUFF

• It should force return of only one "max record" even if there is a tie (sometimes useful)
• It doesn't require a join

APPROACH

It is a little bit ugly and requires that you know something about the range of valid values of the rev column. Let us assume that we know the rev column is a number between 0.00 and 999 including decimals but that there will only ever be two digits to the right of the decimal point (e.g. 34.17 would be a valid value).

The gist of the thing is that you create a single synthetic column by string concatenating/packing the primary comparison field along with the data you want. In this way, you can force SQL's MAX() aggregate function to return all of the data (because it has been packed into a single column). Then you have to unpack the data.

Here's how it looks with the above example, written in SQL

SELECT id, 
       CAST(SUBSTRING(max(packed_col) FROM 2 FOR 6) AS float) as max_rev,
       SUBSTRING(max(packed_col) FROM 11) AS content_for_max_rev 
FROM  (SELECT id, 
       CAST(1000 + rev + .001 as CHAR) || '---' || CAST(content AS char) AS packed_col
       FROM yourtable
      ) 
GROUP BY id

The packing begins by forcing the rev column to be a number of known character length regardless of the value of rev so that for example

• 3.2 becomes 1003.201
• 57 becomes 1057.001
• 923.88 becomes 1923.881

If you do it right, string comparison of two numbers should yield the same "max" as numeric comparison of the two numbers and it's easy to convert back to the original number using the substring function (which is available in one form or another pretty much everywhere).