01 April 2021

💎SQL Reloaded: Processing JSON Files with Complex Structure in SQL Server 2016+

Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the challenge-searchers), not all JSON data files have a simple (matrix) structure, while the data might not even have a proper (readable) definition. It's the case of the unemployment data provided by the Cologne municipality (source). However with a language page translator and some small effort one can identify the proximate data definition:

Source FieldTarget FieldData Type
AM_ALO_INSG_AAALO_Totalint
AM_ALO_SGB2_AAALO_SGB2int
AM_ALO_UNTER25_AAALO_Under25int
AM_ALO_INSG_APALO_Total_Percfloat
AM_ALO_SGB2_APALO_SGB2_Percfloat
AM_ALO_UNTER25_APALO_Under25_Percfloat
AM_ALO_INSG_HAALO_Total_Histint
AM_ALO_SGB2_HAALO_SGB2_Histint
AM_ALO_UNTER25_HAALO_Under25_Histint
AM_ALO_INSG_HPALO_Total_HistPercfloat
AM_ALO_SGB2_HPALO_SGB2_HistPercfloat
AM_ALO_UNTER25_HPALO_Under25_HistPercfloat
AM_SVB_INSG_AASVB_Totalint
AM_SVB_MANN_AASVB_Menint
AM_SVB_FRAU_AASVB_Womenint
AM_SVB_DEUTSCH_AASVB_Germanint
AM_SVB_AUSLAND_AASVB_AUSLANDint
AM_SVB_U25J_AASVB_Under25Yoint
AM_SVB_UEBER55J_AASVB_Over55Yoint
AM_SVB_INSG_APSVB_Total_Percfloat
AM_SVB_MANN_APSVB_Men_Percfloat
AM_SVB_FRAU_APSVB_Women_Percfloat
AM_SVB_DEUTSCH_APSVB_German_Percfloat
AM_SVB_AUSLAND_APSVB_AUSLAND_Percfloat
AM_SVB_U25J_APSVB_Under25Yo_Percfloat
AM_SVB_UEBER55J_APSVB_Over55Yo_Percfloat
AM_SVB_INSG_HASVB_Total_Histint
AM_SVB_MANN_HASVB_Men_Histint
AM_SVB_FRAU_HASVB_Women_Histint
AM_SVB_DEUTSCH_HASVB_German_Histint
AM_SVB_AUSLAND_HASVB_AUSLAND_Histint
AM_SVB_U25J_HASVB_Under25Yo_Histint
AM_SVB_UEBER55J_HASVB_Over55Yo_Histint
AM_SVB_INSG_HPSVB_Total_HistPercfloat
AM_SVB_MANN_HPSVB_Men_HistPercfloat
AM_SVB_FRAU_HPSVB_Women_HistPercfloat
AM_SVB_DEUTSCH_HPSVB_German_HistPercfloat
AM_SVB_AUSLAND_HPSVB_AUSLAND_HistPercfloat
AM_SVB_U25J_HPSVB_Under25Yo_HistPercfloat
AM_SVB_UEBER55J_HPSVB_Over55Yo_HistPercfloat
SHAPE.AREASHAPE.AREAint
SHAPE.LENSHAPE.LENint

As previously stated (see post), it makes sense to build the logic over several iterations, making first sure that the references to file's columns were used correctly (observe the way the various elements were referenced in the queries):

SELECT DAT.ObjectId 
, DAT.Nummer
, DAT.Name
, DAT.ALO_Total
, DAT.ALO_SGB2
FROM OPENROWSET (BULK 'D:\data\Arbeitsmarkt Statistik Koeln Stadtteil.json',CODEPAGE='65001', SINGLE_CLOB)  as jsonfile 
     CROSS APPLY OPENJSON(BulkColumn,'$.features')
 WITH( 
	  ObjectId int '$.properties.OBJECTID'
	, Nummer int '$.properties.NUMMER'
	, Name nvarchar(max) '$.properties.NAME'
	, ALO_Total int '$.properties.AM_ALO_INSG_AA'
	, ALO_SGB2 int '$.properties.AM_ALO_SGB2_AA'
) AS DAT; 

Output (first 13 records):
ObjectIdNummerNameALO_TotalALO_SGB2
1211Godorf12192
2308Lövenich15683
3307Weiden552383
4306Junkersdorf305164
5309Widdersdorf20093
6404Vogelsang310208
7505Weidenpesch527351
8502Mauenheim190127
12207Hahnwald153
13213Meschenich644554

The logic seems to work, however the German umlauts aren't displayed as expected ('Lövenich', when it should have been 'Lövenich'). This is caused by the differences in character sets. An easy way to address this is to use a functions which does the conversion (see the dbo.ReplaceCodes2Umlauts UDF from an older post). 

By applying the function on the Names, adding the further columns and an INSERT clause, the query becomes:
 
-- importing the JSON file
SELECT DAT.ObjectId 
, DAT.Nummer
, dbo.ReplaceCodes2Umlauts(DAT.Name) Name
, DAT.ALO_Total
, DAT.ALO_SGB2
, DAT.ALO_Under25
, DAT.ALO_Total_Perc
, DAT.ALO_SGB2_Perc
, DAT.ALO_Under25_Perc
, DAT.ALO_Total_Hist
, DAT.ALO_SGB2_Hist
, DAT.ALO_Under25_Hist
, DAT.ALO_Total_HistPerc
, DAT.ALO_SGB2_HistPerc
, DAT.ALO_Under25_HistPerc
, DAT.SVB_Total
, DAT.SVB_Men
, DAT.SVB_Women
, DAT.SVB_German
, DAT.SVB_AUSLAND
, DAT.SVB_Under25Yo
, DAT.SVB_Over55Yo
, DAT.SVB_Total_Perc
, DAT.SVB_Men_Perc
, DAT.SVB_Women_Perc
, DAT.SVB_German_Perc
, DAT.SVB_AUSLAND_Perc
, DAT.SVB_Under25Yo_Perc
, DAT.SVB_Over55Yo_Perc
, DAT.SVB_Total_Hist
, DAT.SVB_Men_Hist
, DAT.SVB_Women_Hist
, DAT.SVB_German_Hist
, DAT.SVB_AUSLAND_Hist
, DAT.SVB_Under25Yo_Hist
, DAT.SVB_Over55Yo_Hist
, DAT.SVB_Total_HistPerc
, DAT.SVB_Men_HistPerc
, DAT.SVB_Women_HistPerc
, DAT.SVB_German_HistPerc
, DAT.SVB_AUSLAND_HistPerc
, DAT.SVB_Under25Yo_HistPerc
, DAT.SVB_Over55Yo_HistPerc
, DAT.Shape_Area 
, DAT.Shape_Len 
INTO dbo.Unemployment_Cologne
FROM OPENROWSET (BULK 'D:\data\Arbeitsmarkt Statistik Koeln Stadtteil.json',CODEPAGE='65001', SINGLE_CLOB)  as jsonfile 
     CROSS APPLY OPENJSON(BulkColumn,'$.features')
 WITH( 
	  ObjectId int '$.properties.OBJECTID'
	, Nummer int '$.properties.NUMMER'
	, Name nvarchar(max) '$.properties.NAME'
	, ALO_Total int '$.properties.AM_ALO_INSG_AA'
	, ALO_SGB2 int '$.properties.AM_ALO_SGB2_AA'
	, ALO_Under25 int '$.properties.AM_ALO_UNTER25_AA'
	, ALO_Total_Perc float '$.properties.AM_ALO_INSG_AP'
	, ALO_SGB2_Perc float '$.properties.AM_ALO_SGB2_AP'
	, ALO_Under25_Perc float '$.properties.AM_ALO_UNTER25_AP'
	, ALO_Total_Hist int '$.properties.AM_ALO_INSG_HA'
	, ALO_SGB2_Hist int '$.properties.AM_ALO_SGB2_HA'
	, ALO_Under25_Hist int '$.properties.AM_ALO_UNTER25_HA'
	, ALO_Total_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_ALO_INSG_HP'
	, ALO_SGB2_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_ALO_SGB2_HP'
	, ALO_Under25_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_ALO_UNTER25_HP'
	, SVB_Total int '$.properties.AM_SVB_INSG_AA'
	, SVB_Men int '$.properties.AM_SVB_MANN_AA'
	, SVB_Women int '$.properties.AM_SVB_FRAU_AA'
	, SVB_German int '$.properties.AM_SVB_DEUTSCH_AA'
	, SVB_AUSLAND int '$.properties.AM_SVB_AUSLAND_AA'
	, SVB_Under25Yo int '$.properties.AM_SVB_U25J_AA'
	, SVB_Over55Yo int '$.properties.AM_SVB_UEBER55J_AA'
	, SVB_Total_Perc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_INSG_AP'
	, SVB_Men_Perc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_MANN_AP'
	, SVB_Women_Perc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_FRAU_AP'
	, SVB_German_Perc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_DEUTSCH_AP'
	, SVB_AUSLAND_Perc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_AUSLAND_AP'
	, SVB_Under25Yo_Perc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_U25J_AP'
	, SVB_Over55Yo_Perc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_UEBER55J_AP'
	, SVB_Total_Hist int '$.properties.AM_SVB_INSG_HA'
	, SVB_Men_Hist int '$.properties.AM_SVB_MANN_HA'
	, SVB_Women_Hist int '$.properties.AM_SVB_FRAU_HA'
	, SVB_German_Hist int '$.properties.AM_SVB_DEUTSCH_HA'
	, SVB_AUSLAND_Hist int '$.properties.AM_SVB_AUSLAND_HA'
	, SVB_Under25Yo_Hist int '$.properties.AM_SVB_U25J_HA'
	, SVB_Over55Yo_Hist int '$.properties.AM_SVB_UEBER55J_HA'
	, SVB_Total_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_INSG_HP'
	, SVB_Men_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_MANN_HP'
	, SVB_Women_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_FRAU_HP'
	, SVB_German_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_DEUTSCH_HP'
	, SVB_AUSLAND_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_AUSLAND_HP'
	, SVB_Under25Yo_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_U25J_HP'
	, SVB_Over55Yo_HistPerc float '$.properties.AM_SVB_UEBER55J_HP'
	, Shape_Area float '$.properties."SHAPE.AREA"'
	, Shape_Len float '$.properties."SHAPE.LEN"'
) AS DAT; 

Once the data made available, one can go on and discover the data and the relationships existing between the various columns. 

Happy coding!

💎SQL Reloaded: Processing JSON Files with Flat Matrix Structure in SQL Server 2016+

Besides the CSV format, many of the data files made available under the open data initiatives are stored in JSON format, which makes data more difficult to process, even if JSON offers a richer structure that goes beyond the tabular structure of CSV files. Fortunately, starting with SQL Server 2016, JSON became a native format, which makes the processing of JSON files relatively easy, the easiness with which one can process the data depending on how they are structured.

Let’s consider as example a JSON file with the world population per country and year that can be downloaded from DataHub (source). The structure behind resembles a tabular model (see the table on the source website), having a flat structure. Just export the data to a file with the JSON extension (e.g. ‘population-figures-by-country.json’) locally (e.g. ‘D:/Data’). The next step is to understand file’s structure. Some repositories provide good documentation in this respect, though there are also many exceptions. Having a JSON editor like Visual Studio which reveals the structure makes easier the process. 

As in the case of CSV files, is needed to infer the data types. There are two alphanumeric fields (Country & Country Code), while the remaining fields are numeric. The only challenge raised by the data seems to be the difference in format between the years 2002 and 2015 in respect to the other years, as the values of the former contain a decimal after comma. All the numeric values should have been whole values. 

It’s recommended to start small and build the logic iteratively. Therefore, for the first step just look at files content via the OPENROWSET function:

-- looking at the JSON file 
SELECT *
FROM OPENROWSET (BULK 'D:\data\population-figures-by-country.json', SINGLE_CLOB)  as jsonfile 

In a second step one can add the OPENJSON function by looking only at the first record: 

-- querying a json file (one record)
SELECT *
FROM OPENROWSET (BULK 'D:\data\population-figures-by-country.json', SINGLE_CLOB)  as jsonfile 
     CROSS APPLY OPENJSON(BulkColumn,'$[0]')

In a third step one can add a few columns (e.g. Country & Country Code) to make sure that the select statement works correctly. 

-- querying a json file (all records, a few fields)
SELECT Country 
, CountryCode 
FROM OPENROWSET (BULK 'D:\data\population-figures-by-country.json', SINGLE_CLOB)  as jsonfile 
     CROSS APPLY OPENJSON(BulkColumn,'$')
 WITH ( 
  Country nvarchar(max) '$.Country'
, CountryCode nvarchar(3) '$.Country_Code'
) AS DAT; 

In a next step can be added all the columns and import the data in a table (e.g. dbo.CountryPopulation) on the fly: 

-- importing a json file (all records) on the fly
SELECT DAT.Country
, DAT.CountryCode
, DAT.Y1960
, DAT.Y1961
, DAT.Y1962
, DAT.Y1963
, DAT.Y1964
, DAT.Y1965
, DAT.Y1966
, DAT.Y1967
, DAT.Y1968
, DAT.Y1969
, DAT.Y1970
, DAT.Y1971
, DAT.Y1972
, DAT.Y1973
, DAT.Y1974
, DAT.Y1975
, DAT.Y1976
, DAT.Y1977
, DAT.Y1978
, DAT.Y1979
, DAT.Y1980
, DAT.Y1981
, DAT.Y1982
, DAT.Y1983
, DAT.Y1984
, DAT.Y1985
, DAT.Y1986
, DAT.Y1987
, DAT.Y1988
, DAT.Y1989
, DAT.Y1990
, DAT.Y1991
, DAT.Y1992
, DAT.Y1993
, DAT.Y1994
, DAT.Y1995
, DAT.Y1996
, DAT.Y1997
, DAT.Y1998
, DAT.Y1999
, DAT.Y2000
, DAT.Y2001
, Cast(DAT.Y2002 as bigint) Y2002
, Cast(DAT.Y2003 as bigint) Y2003
, Cast(DAT.Y2004 as bigint) Y2004
, Cast(DAT.Y2005 as bigint) Y2005
, Cast(DAT.Y2006 as bigint) Y2006
, Cast(DAT.Y2007 as bigint) Y2007
, Cast(DAT.Y2008 as bigint) Y2008
, Cast(DAT.Y2009 as bigint) Y2009
, Cast(DAT.Y2010 as bigint) Y2010
, Cast(DAT.Y2011 as bigint) Y2011
, Cast(DAT.Y2012 as bigint) Y2012
, Cast(DAT.Y2013 as bigint) Y2013
, Cast(DAT.Y2014 as bigint) Y2014
, Cast(DAT.Y2015 as bigint) Y2015
, DAT.Y2016
INTO dbo.CountryPopulation
FROM OPENROWSET (BULK 'D:\data\population-figures-by-country.json', SINGLE_CLOB)  as jsonfile 
     CROSS APPLY OPENJSON(BulkColumn,'$')
 WITH ( 
  Country nvarchar(max) '$.Country'
, CountryCode nvarchar(3) '$.Country_Code'
, Y1960 bigint '$.Year_1960'
, Y1961 bigint '$.Year_1961'
, Y1962 bigint '$.Year_1962'
, Y1963 bigint '$.Year_1963'
, Y1964 bigint '$.Year_1964'
, Y1965 bigint '$.Year_1965'
, Y1966 bigint '$.Year_1966'
, Y1967 bigint '$.Year_1967'
, Y1968 bigint '$.Year_1968'
, Y1969 bigint '$.Year_1969'
, Y1970 bigint '$.Year_1970'
, Y1971 bigint '$.Year_1971'
, Y1972 bigint '$.Year_1972'
, Y1973 bigint '$.Year_1973'
, Y1974 bigint '$.Year_1974'
, Y1975 bigint '$.Year_1975'
, Y1976 bigint '$.Year_1976'
, Y1977 bigint '$.Year_1977'
, Y1978 bigint '$.Year_1978'
, Y1979 bigint '$.Year_1979'
, Y1980 bigint '$.Year_1980'
, Y1981 bigint '$.Year_1981'
, Y1982 bigint '$.Year_1982'
, Y1983 bigint '$.Year_1983'
, Y1984 bigint '$.Year_1984'
, Y1985 bigint '$.Year_1985'
, Y1986 bigint '$.Year_1986'
, Y1987 bigint '$.Year_1987'
, Y1988 bigint '$.Year_1988'
, Y1989 bigint '$.Year_1989'
, Y1990 bigint '$.Year_1990'
, Y1991 bigint '$.Year_1991'
, Y1992 bigint '$.Year_1992'
, Y1993 bigint '$.Year_1993'
, Y1994 bigint '$.Year_1994'
, Y1995 bigint '$.Year_1995'
, Y1996 bigint '$.Year_1996'
, Y1997 bigint '$.Year_1997'
, Y1998 bigint '$.Year_1998'
, Y1999 bigint '$.Year_1999'
, Y2000 bigint '$.Year_2000'
, Y2001 bigint '$.Year_2001'
, Y2002 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2002'
, Y2003 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2003'
, Y2004 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2004'
, Y2005 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2005'
, Y2006 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2006'
, Y2007 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2007'
, Y2008 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2008'
, Y2009 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2009'
, Y2010 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2010'
, Y2011 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2011'
, Y2012 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2012'
, Y2013 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2013'
, Y2014 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2014'
, Y2015 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2015'
, Y2016 bigint '$.Year_2016'
) AS DAT; 

As can be seen the decimal values were converted to bigint to preserve the same definition. Moreover, this enables data processing later, as no additional (implicit) conversions are necessary. 

Also, the columns’ names were changed either for simplification/convenience or simply taste. 

Writing such a monster query can be time-consuming, though preparing the metadata into Excel can decrease considerably the effort. With copy-past and a few tricks (e.g. replacing values, splitting columns based on a delimiter) one can easily prepare such a structure:

Source fieldTarget fieldDataTypeValueImport ClauseSelect Clause
CountryCountrynvarchar(max) emen Rep., Country nvarchar(max) '$.Country', DAT.Country
Country_CodeCountryCodenvarchar(3) YEM, CountryCode nvarchar(3) '$.Country_Code', DAT.CountryCode
Year_1960Y1960bigint5172135, Y1960 bigint '$.Year_1960', DAT.Y1960
Year_1961Y1961bigint5260501, Y1961 bigint '$.Year_1961', DAT.Y1961
Year_1962Y1962bigint5351799, Y1962 bigint '$.Year_1962', DAT.Y1962
Year_1963Y1963bigint5446063, Y1963 bigint '$.Year_1963', DAT.Y1963
Year_1964Y1964bigint5543339, Y1964 bigint '$.Year_1964', DAT.Y1964
Year_1965Y1965bigint5643643, Y1965 bigint '$.Year_1965', DAT.Y1965
Year_1966Y1966bigint5748588, Y1966 bigint '$.Year_1966', DAT.Y1966
Year_1967Y1967bigint5858638, Y1967 bigint '$.Year_1967', DAT.Y1967
Year_1968Y1968bigint5971407, Y1968 bigint '$.Year_1968', DAT.Y1968
Year_1969Y1969bigint6083619, Y1969 bigint '$.Year_1969', DAT.Y1969
Year_1970Y1970bigint6193810, Y1970 bigint '$.Year_1970', DAT.Y1970
Year_1971Y1971bigint6300554, Y1971 bigint '$.Year_1971', DAT.Y1971
Year_1972Y1972bigint6407295, Y1972 bigint '$.Year_1972', DAT.Y1972
Year_1973Y1973bigint6523452, Y1973 bigint '$.Year_1973', DAT.Y1973
Year_1974Y1974bigint6661566, Y1974 bigint '$.Year_1974', DAT.Y1974
Year_1975Y1975bigint6830692, Y1975 bigint '$.Year_1975', DAT.Y1975
Year_1976Y1976bigint7034868, Y1976 bigint '$.Year_1976', DAT.Y1976
Year_1977Y1977bigint7271872, Y1977 bigint '$.Year_1977', DAT.Y1977
Year_1978Y1978bigint7536764, Y1978 bigint '$.Year_1978', DAT.Y1978
Year_1979Y1979bigint7821552, Y1979 bigint '$.Year_1979', DAT.Y1979
Year_1980Y1980bigint8120497, Y1980 bigint '$.Year_1980', DAT.Y1980
Year_1981Y1981bigint8434017, Y1981 bigint '$.Year_1981', DAT.Y1981
Year_1982Y1982bigint8764621, Y1982 bigint '$.Year_1982', DAT.Y1982
Year_1983Y1983bigint9111097, Y1983 bigint '$.Year_1983', DAT.Y1983
Year_1984Y1984bigint9472170, Y1984 bigint '$.Year_1984', DAT.Y1984
Year_1985Y1985bigint9847899, Y1985 bigint '$.Year_1985', DAT.Y1985
Year_1986Y1986bigint10232733, Y1986 bigint '$.Year_1986', DAT.Y1986
Year_1987Y1987bigint10628585, Y1987 bigint '$.Year_1987', DAT.Y1987
Year_1988Y1988bigint11051504, Y1988 bigint '$.Year_1988', DAT.Y1988
Year_1989Y1989bigint11523267, Y1989 bigint '$.Year_1989', DAT.Y1989
Year_1990Y1990bigint12057039, Y1990 bigint '$.Year_1990', DAT.Y1990
Year_1991Y1991bigint12661614, Y1991 bigint '$.Year_1991', DAT.Y1991
Year_1992Y1992bigint13325583, Y1992 bigint '$.Year_1992', DAT.Y1992
Year_1993Y1993bigint14017239, Y1993 bigint '$.Year_1993', DAT.Y1993
Year_1994Y1994bigint14692686, Y1994 bigint '$.Year_1994', DAT.Y1994
Year_1995Y1995bigint15320653, Y1995 bigint '$.Year_1995', DAT.Y1995
Year_1996Y1996bigint15889449, Y1996 bigint '$.Year_1996', DAT.Y1996
Year_1997Y1997bigint16408954, Y1997 bigint '$.Year_1997', DAT.Y1997
Year_1998Y1998bigint16896210, Y1998 bigint '$.Year_1998', DAT.Y1998
Year_1999Y1999bigint17378098, Y1999 bigint '$.Year_1999', DAT.Y1999
Year_2000Y2000bigint17874725, Y2000 bigint '$.Year_2000', DAT.Y2000
Year_2001Y2001bigint18390135, Y2001 bigint '$.Year_2001', DAT.Y2001
Year_2002Y2002decimal(19,1) 18919179.0, Y2002 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2002', Cast(DAT.Y2002 as bigint) Y2002
Year_2003Y2003decimal(19,1) 19462086.0, Y2003 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2003', Cast(DAT.Y2003 as bigint) Y2003
Year_2004Y2004decimal(19,1) 20017068.0, Y2004 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2004', Cast(DAT.Y2004 as bigint) Y2004
Year_2005Y2005decimal(19,1) 20582927.0, Y2005 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2005', Cast(DAT.Y2005 as bigint) Y2005
Year_2006Y2006decimal(19,1) 21160534.0, Y2006 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2006', Cast(DAT.Y2006 as bigint) Y2006
Year_2007Y2007decimal(19,1) 21751605.0, Y2007 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2007', Cast(DAT.Y2007 as bigint) Y2007
Year_2008Y2008decimal(19,1) 22356391.0, Y2008 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2008', Cast(DAT.Y2008 as bigint) Y2008
Year_2009Y2009decimal(19,1) 22974929.0, Y2009 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2009', Cast(DAT.Y2009 as bigint) Y2009
Year_2010Y2010decimal(19,1) 23606779.0, Y2010 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2010', Cast(DAT.Y2010 as bigint) Y2010
Year_2011Y2011decimal(19,1) 24252206.0, Y2011 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2011', Cast(DAT.Y2011 as bigint) Y2011
Year_2012Y2012decimal(19,1) 24909969.0, Y2012 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2012', Cast(DAT.Y2012 as bigint) Y2012
Year_2013Y2013decimal(19,1) 25576322.0, Y2013 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2013', Cast(DAT.Y2013 as bigint) Y2013
Year_2014Y2014decimal(19,1) 26246327.0, Y2014 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2014', Cast(DAT.Y2014 as bigint) Y2014
Year_2015Y2015decimal(19,1) 26916207.0, Y2015 decimal(19,1) '$.Year_2015', Cast(DAT.Y2015 as bigint) Y2015
Year_2016Y2016bigint27584213, Y2016 bigint '$.Year_2016', DAT.Y2016

Based on this structure, one can add two further formulas in Excel to prepare the statements as above and then copy the fields (last two columns were generated using the below formulas): 

=", " & TRIM(B2) & " " & C2 & " '$." & TRIM(A2) & "'" 
=", DAT." & TRIM(B2)

Consuming data in which the values are stored in a matrix structure can involve further challenges sometimes, even if this type of storage tends to save space. For example, adding the values for a new year would involve extending the table with one more column, while performing calculations between years would involve referencing each column in formulas. Therefore, transforming the data from a matrix to a normalized structure can have some benefit. This can be achieved by writing a query via the UNPIVOT operator:

-- unpivoting the data 
SELECT RES.Country
, RES.CountryCode
, Cast(Replace(RES.[Year], 'Y', '') as int) [Year]
, RES.Population
--INTO dbo.CountryPopulationPerYear
FROM 
( -- basis data
	SELECT Country
	, CountryCode
	, Y1960, Y1961, Y1962, Y1963, Y1964, Y1965, Y1966, Y1967, Y1968, Y1969
	, Y1970, Y1971, Y1972, Y1973, Y1974, Y1975, Y1976, Y1977, Y1978, Y1979
	, Y1980, Y1981, Y1982, Y1983, Y1984, Y1985, Y1986, Y1987, Y1988, Y1989
	, Y1990, Y1991, Y1992, Y1993, Y1994, Y1995, Y1996, Y1997, Y1998, Y1999
	, Y2000, Y2001, Y2002, Y2003, Y2004, Y2005, Y2006, Y2007, Y2008, Y2009
	, Y2010, Y2011, Y2012, Y2013, Y2014, Y2015, Y2016
	FROM dbo.CountryPopulation
) DAT
UNPIVOT  -- unpivot logic
   (Population FOR [Year] IN  (Y1960, Y1961, Y1962, Y1963, Y1964, Y1965, Y1966, Y1967, Y1968, Y1969
, Y1970, Y1971, Y1972, Y1973, Y1974, Y1975, Y1976, Y1977, Y1978, Y1979
, Y1980, Y1981, Y1982, Y1983, Y1984, Y1985, Y1986, Y1987, Y1988, Y1989
, Y1990, Y1991, Y1992, Y1993, Y1994, Y1995, Y1996, Y1997, Y1998, Y1999
, Y2000, Y2001, Y2002, Y2003, Y2004, Y2005, Y2006, Y2007, Y2008, Y2009
, Y2010, Y2011, Y2012, Y2013, Y2014, Y2015, Y2016)
) RES

Also this can be performed in two steps, first preparing the query, and in a final step inserting the data into a table (e.g. dbo.CountryPopulationPerYear) on the fly (re-execute the previous query after uncommenting the INSERT clause to generate the table). 

--reviewing the data 
SELECT Country
, CountryCode
, AVG(Population) AveragePopulation
, Max(Population) - Min(Population) RangePopulation
FROM dbo.CountryPopulationPerYear
WHERE [Year] BETWEEN 2010 AND 2019
GROUP BY Country
, CountryCode
ORDER BY Country

On the other side making comparisons between consecutive years is easier when using a matrix structure: 

--reviewing the data 
SELECT Country
, CountryCode
, Y2016
, Y2010
, Y2010-Y2010 [2016-2010]
, Y2011-Y2010 [2011-2010]
, Y2012-Y2011 [2011-2011]
, Y2013-Y2012 [2011-2012]
, Y2014-Y2013 [2011-2013]
, Y2015-Y2014 [2011-2014]
, Y2016-Y2015 [2011-2015]
FROM dbo.CountryPopulation
ORDER BY Country

Unless the storage space is a problem, in theory one can store the data in both formats as there can be requests which can benefit from one structure or the other. 

Happy coding!

29 March 2021

Notes: Team Data Science Process (TDSP)

Team Data Science Process (TDSP)
Acronyms:
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM)
Data Mining (DM)
Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD)
Team Data Science Process (TDSP) 
Version Control System (VCS)
Visual Studio Team Services (VSTS)

Resources:
[1] Microsoft Azure (2020) What is the Team Data Science Process? [source]
[2] Microsoft Azure (2020) The business understanding stage of the Team Data Science Process lifecycle [source]
[3] Microsoft Azure (2020) Data acquisition and understanding stage of the Team Data Science Process [source]
[4] Microsoft Azure (2020) Modeling stage of the Team Data Science Process lifecycle [source
[5] Microsoft Azure (2020) Deployment stage of the Team Data Science Process lifecycle [source]
[6] Microsoft Azure (2020) Customer acceptance stage of the Team Data Science Process lifecycle [source]

21 March 2021

𖣯Strategic Management: The Impact of New Technologies (Part III: Checking the Vital Signs)

Strategic Management

An organization which went through a major change, like the replacement of a strategic system (e.g. ERP/BI implementations), needs to go through a period of attentive supervision to address the inherent issues that ideally need to be handled as they arise, to minimize their future effects. Some organizations might even go through a convalescence period, which risks to prolong itself if the appropriate remedies aren’t found. Therefore, one needs an entity, who/which has the skills to recognize the symptoms, understand what’s happening and why, respectively of identifying the appropriate actions.

Given technologies’ multi-layered complexity and the volume of knowledge for understanding them, the role of the doctor can be seldom taken by one person. Moreover, the patient is an organization, each person in the organization having usually local knowledge about the patient. The needed knowledge is dispersed trough the organization, and one needs to tap into that knowledge, identify the people close to technologies and business area, respectively allow such people exchange information on a regular basis.

The people who should know the best the organization are in theory the management, however they are usually too far away from technologies and often too busy with management topics. IT professionals are close to technologies, though sometimes too far away from the patient. The users have a too narrow overview, while from logistical and economic reasons the number of people involved should be kept to a minimum. A compromise is to designate one person from each business area who works with any of the strategic systems, and assure that they have the technical and business knowledge required. It’s nothing but the key-user concept, though for it to work the key-users need not only knowledge but also the empowerment to act when the symptoms appear.

Big organizations have also a product owner for each application who supervises the application through its entire lifecycle, and who needs to coordinate with the IT, business and service providers. This is probably a good idea in order to assure that the ROI is reached over time, respectively that the needs of the system are considered within the IT operation context. In small organizations, the role can be taken by a technical or a business resource with deeper skills then the average user, usually a key-user. However, unless joined with the key-user role, the product owner’s focus will be the product and seldom the business themes.

The issues that need to be overcome after major changes are usually cross-functional, being imperative for people to work together and find solutions. Unfortunately, it’s also in human nature to wait until the issues are big enough to get the proper attention. Unless the key-users have the time allocated already for such topics, the issues will be lost in the heap of operational and tactical activities. This time must be allocated for all key-users and the technical resources needed to support them.

Some organizations build temporary working parties (groups of experts working together to achieve specific goals) or similar groups. However, the statute of such group needs to be permanent if the organization wants to continuously have its health in check, to build the needed expertize and awareness about occurred or potential issues. Centers of excellence/expertize (CoE) or competency centers (CC) are such working groups with permanent statute, having defined roles, responsibilities, and processes for supporting and promoting the effective use of technologies within the organization, respectively of monitoring and systematically addressing the risks and opportunities associated with them.

There’s also the null hypothesis, doing nothing, relying solely on employees’ professionalism, though without defined responsibility, accountability and empowerment, it can get messy.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

𖣯Strategic Management: The Impact of New Technologies (Part II - The Technology-oriented Patient)

Strategic Management

Looking at the way data, information and knowledge flow through an organization, with a little imagination one can see the resemblance between an organization and the human body, in which the networks created by the respective flows spread through organization as nervous, circulatory or lymphatic braids do, each with its own role in the good functioning of the organization. Each technology adopted by an organization taps into these flows creating a structure that can be compared with the nerve plexus, as the various flows intersect in such points creating an agglomeration of nerves and braids.

The size of each plexus can be considered as proportional to the importance of the technology in respect to the overall structure. Strategic technologies like ERP, BI or planning systems, given their importance (gravity), resemble with the organs from the human body, with complex networks of braids in their vicinity. Maybe the metaphor is too far-off, though it allows stressing the importance of each technology in respect to its role and the good functioning of the organization. Moreover, each such structure functions as pressure points that can in extremis block any of the flows considered, a long-term block having important effects.

The human organism is a marvelous piece of work reflecting the grand design, however in time, especially when neglected or driven by external agents, diseases can clutch around any of the parts of the human body, with all the consequences deriving from this. On the other side, an organization is a hand-made structure found in continuous expansion as new technologies or resources are added. Even if the technologies are at peripheral side of the system, their good or bad functioning can have a ripple effect trough the various networks.

Replacing any of the above-mentioned strategic systems can be compared with the replacement of an organ in the human body, having a high degree of failure compared with other operations, being complex in nature, the organism needing long periods to recover, while in extreme situations the convalescence prolongs till the end. Fortunately, organizations seem to be more resilient to such operations, though that’s not necessarily a rule. Sometimes all it takes is just a small mistake for making the operation fail.

The general feeling is that ERP and BI implementations are taken too lightly by management, employees and implementers. During the replacement operation one must make sure not only that the organ fits and functions as expected, but also that the vital networks regained their vitality and function as expected, and the latter is a process that spans over the years to come. One needs to check the important (health) signs regularly and take the appropriate countermeasures. There must be an entity having the role of the doctor, who/which has the skills to address adequately the issues.

Moreover, when the physical structure of an organization is affected, a series of micro-operations might be needed to address the deformities. Unfortunately, these areas are seldom seen in time, and can require a sustained effort for fixing, while a total reconstruction might apply. One works also with an amorphous and ever-changing structure that require many attempts until a remedy is found, if a remedy is possible after all.

Even if such operations are pretty well documented, often what organizations lack are the skilled resources needed during and post-implementation, resources that must know as well the patient, and ideally its historical and further health preconditions. Each patient is different and quite often needs its own treatment/medication. With such changes, the organization lands itself on a discovery journey in which the appropriate path can easily deviate from the well-trodden paths.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

20 March 2021

🧭Business Intelligence: New Technologies, Old Challenges (Part II - ETL vs. ELT)

 

Business Intelligence

Data lakes and similar cloud-based repositories drove the requirement of loading the raw data before performing any transformations on the data. At least that’s the approach the new wave of ELT (Extract, Load, Transform) technologies use to handle analytical and data integration workloads, which is probably recommendable for the mentioned cloud-based contexts. However, ELT technologies are especially relevant when is needed to handle data with high velocity, variance, validity or different value of truth (aka big data). This because they allow processing the workloads over architectures that can be scaled with workloads’ demands.

This is probably the most important aspect, even if there can be further advantages, like using built-in connectors to a wide range of sources or implementing complex data flow controls. The ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) tools have the same capabilities, maybe reduced to certain data sources, though their newer versions seem to bridge the gap.

One of the most stressed advantages of ELT is the possibility of having all the (business) data in the repository, though these are not technological advantages. The same can be obtained via ETL tools, even if this might involve upon case a bigger effort, effort depending on the functionality existing in each tool. It’s true that ETL solutions have a narrower scope by loading a subset of the available data, or that transformations are made before loading the data, though this depends on the scope considered while building the data warehouse or data mart, respectively the design of ETL packages, and both are a matter of choice, choices that can be traced back to business requirements or technical best practices.

Some of the advantages seen are context-dependent – the context in which the technologies are put, respectively the problems are solved. It is often imputed to ETL solutions that the available data are already prepared (aggregated, converted) and new requirements will drive additional effort. On the other side, in ELT-based solutions all the data are made available and eventually further transformed, but also here the level of transformations made depends on specific requirements. Independently of the approach used, the data are still available if needed, respectively involve certain effort for further processing.

Building usable and reliable data models is dependent on good design, and in the design process reside the most important challenges. In theory, some think that in ETL scenarios the design is done beforehand though that’s not necessarily true. One can pull the raw data from the source and build the data models in the target repositories.

Data conversion and cleaning is needed under both approaches. In some scenarios is ideal to do this upfront, minimizing the effect these processes have on data’s usage, while in other scenarios it’s helpful to address them later in the process, with the risk that each project will address them differently. This can become an issue and should be ideally addressed by design (e.g. by building an intermediate layer) or at least organizationally (e.g. enforcing best practices).

Advancing that ELT is better just because the data are true (being in raw form) can be taken only as a marketing slogan. The degree of truth data has depends on the way data reflects business’ processes and the way data are maintained, while their quality is judged entirely on their intended use. Even if raw data allow more flexibility in handling the various requests, the challenges involved in processing can be neglected only under the consequences that follow from this.

Looking at the analytics and data integration cloud-based technologies, they seem to allow both approaches, thus building optimal solutions relying on professionals’ wisdom of making appropriate choices.

Previous Post <<||>>Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: New Technologies, Old Challenges (Part I: An Introduction)

Business Intelligence

Each important technology has the potential of creating divides between the specialists from a given field. This aspect is more suggestive in the data-driven fields like BI/Analytics or Data Warehousing. The data professionals (engineers, scientists, analysts, developers) skilled only in the new wave of technologies tend to disregard the role played by the former technologies and their role in the data landscape. The argumentation for such behavior is rooted in the belief that a new technology is better and can solve any problem better than previous technologies did. It’s a kind of mirage professionals and customers can easily fall under.

Being bigger, faster, having new functionality, doesn’t make a tool the best choice by default. The choice must be rooted in the problem to be solved and the set of requirements it comes with. Just because a vibratory rammer is a new technology, is faster and has more power in applying pressure, this doesn’t mean that it will replace a hammer. Where a certain type of power is needed the vibratory rammer might be the best tool, while for situations in which a minimum of power and probably more precision is needed, like driving in a nail, then an adequately sized hammer will prove to be a better choice.

A technology is to be used in certain (business/technological) contexts, and even if contexts often overlap, the further details (aka requirements) should lead to the proper use of tools. It’s in a professional’s duties to be able to differentiate between contexts, requirements and the capabilities of the tools appropriate for each context. In this resides partially a professional’s mastery over its field of work and of providing adequate solutions for customers’ needs. Especially in IT, it’s not enough to master the new tools but also have an understanding about preceding tools, usage contexts, capabilities and challenges.

From an historical perspective each tool appeared to fill a demand, and even if maybe it didn’t manage to fill it adequately, the experience obtained can prove to be valuable in one way or another. Otherwise, one risks reinventing the wheel, or more dangerously, repeating the failures of the past. Each new technology seems to provide a deja-vu from this perspective.

Moreover, a new technology provides new opportunities and requires maybe to change our way of thinking in respect to how the technology is used and the processes or techniques associated with it. Knowledge of the past technologies help identifying such opportunities easier. How a tool is used is also a matter of skills, while its appropriate use and adoption implies an inherent learning curve. Having previous experience with similar tools tends to reduce the learning curve considerably, though hands-on learning is still necessary, and appropriate learning materials or tutoring is upon case needed for a smoother transition.

In what concerns the implementation of mature technologies, most of the challenges were seldom the technologies themselves but of non-technical nature, ranging from the poor understanding/knowledge about the tools, their role and the implications they have for an organization, to an organization’s maturity in leading projects. Even the most-advanced technology can fail in the hands of non-experts. Experience can’t be judged based only on the years spent in the field or the number of projects one worked on, but on the understanding acquired about implementation and usage’s challenges. These latter aspects seem to be widely ignored, even if it can make the difference between success and failure in a technology’s implementation.

Ultimately, each technology is appropriate in certain contexts and a new technology doesn’t necessarily make another obsolete, at least not until the old contexts become obsolete.

Previous Post <<||>>Next Post

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

About Me

My photo
Koeln, NRW, Germany
IT Professional with more than 24 years experience in IT in the area of full life-cycle of Web/Desktop/Database Applications Development, Software Engineering, Consultancy, Data Management, Data Quality, Data Migrations, Reporting, ERP implementations & support, Team/Project/IT Management, etc.