I have a table that contains customers information. Each customer is assigned a Customer ID (their SSN) that they retain as they open more accounts. Two customers may be on the same account, each with their own ID. The account numbers are not ordered by date.
I would like to find the most recent account of each customer or group of customers. If two customers have ever been on an account together, I want to return the most recent account either customer has been on.
Here is a sample table with some of the possible cases.
Example table ACCT:
acctnumber date Cust1ID Cust2ID
10000 '2016-02-01' 1110 NULL --Case0-customer has only ever had
--one account
10001 '2016-02-01' 1111 NULL --Case1-one customer has multiple
10050 '2017-02-01' 1111 NULL --accounts
400050 '2017-06-01' 1111 NULL
10089 '2017-12-08' 1111 NULL
10008 '2016-02-01' 1120 NULL --Case2-customer has account(s) and later
10038 '2016-04-01' 1120 NULL
10058 '2017-02-03' 1120 1121 --gets account(s) with another customer
10002 '2016-02-01' 1112 NULL --Case3-customer has account(s) and later
10052 '2017-02-02' 1113 1112 --becomes the second customer on another
10152 '2017-05-02' 1113 1112 --account(s)
10003 '2016-02-02' 1114 1115 --Case4-customer and second customer
7060 '2017-02-04' 1115 1114 --switch which is first and second
10004 '2016-02-02' 1116 1117 --Case5-second customer later gets
10067 '2017-02-05' 1117 NULL --separate account(s)
10167 '2018-02-05' 1117 NULL
50013 '2016-01-01' 2008 NULL --Case5b -customer has account(s) & later
50014 '2017-02-02' 2008 2009 --gets account(s) with second customer &
50015 '2017-04-04' 2008 NULL --later still first customer gets
100015 '2018-05-05' 2008 NULL --separate account(s)
30005 '2015-02-01' 1118 NULL --Case6-customer has account(s)
10005 '2016-02-01' 1118 NULL
10054 '2017-02-02' 1118 1119 --gets account(s) with another
40055 '2017-03-03' 1118 1119
10101 '2017-04-04' 1119 NULL --who later gets separate account(s)
10201 '2017-05-05' 1119 NULL
30301 '2017-06-06' 1119 NULL
10322 '2018-01-01' 1119 NULL
10007 '2016-02-01' 1122 1123 --Case7-customers play musical chairs
10057 '2017-02-03' 1123 1124
10107 '2017-06-02' 1124 1125
50001 '2016-01-01' 2001 NULL --Case8a-customers with account(s)
50002 '2017-02-02' 2001 2002 --together each later get separate
50003 '2017-03-03' 2001 NULL --account(s)
50004 '2017-04-04' 2002 NULL
50005 '2016-01-01' 2003 NULL --Case8b-customers with account(s)
50006 '2017-02-02' 2003 2004 --together each later get separate
50007 '2017-03-03' 2004 NULL --account(s)
50008 '2017-04-04' 2003 NULL
50017 '2018-03-03' 2004 NULL
50018 '2018-04-04' 2003 NULL
50009 '2016-01-01' 2005 NULL --Case9a-customer has account(s) & later
50010 '2017-02-02' 2005 2006 --gets account(s) with a second customer
50011 '2017-03-03' 2005 2007 --& later still gets account(s) with a
--third customer
50109 '2016-01-01' 2015 NULL --Case9b starts the same as Case9a, but
50110 '2017-02-02' 2015 2016
50111 '2017-03-03' 2015 2017
50112 '2017-04-04' 2015 NULL --after all accounts with other customers
50122 '2017-05-05' 2015 NULL --are complete, the original primary
--customer begins opening individual
--accounts again
Desired Results:
acctnumber date Cust1ID Cust2ID
10000 '2016-02-01' 1110 NULL --Case0
10089 '2017-12-08' 1111 NULL --Case1
10058 '2017-02-03' 1120 1121 --Case2
10152 '2017-05-02' 1113 1112 --Case3
7060 '2017-02-04' 1115 1114 --Case4
10167 '2018-02-05' 1117 NULL --Case5
100015 '2018-05-05' 2008 NULL --Case5b
10322 '2018-01-01' 1119 NULL --Case6
10107 '2017-06-02' 1124 1125 --Case7
50003 '2017-03-03' 2001 NULL --Case8a result 1
50004 '2017-04-04' 2002 NULL --Case8a result 2
50017 '2018-03-03' 2004 NULL --Case8b result 1
50018 '2018-04-04' 2003 NULL --Case8b result 2
50011 '2017-03-03' 2005 2007 --Case9a
50122 '2017-05-05' 2015 NULL --Case9b
Alternatively, I would accept Case 7 outputting the two separate customer groups:
10007 '2016-02-01' 1122 1123 --Case7 result 1
10107 '2017-06-02' 1124 1125 --Case7 result 2
Because Cases 8a & 8b would represent the company acknowledging the customers are worthy of holding separate accounts, we would want to then consider their group as splitting, so it has separate sets of results.
Also, in most scenarios the customers have many accounts, and mix and matching the above cases overtime is common. For example, a single customer can have five accounts (Case 1), then later opens one or more accounts with another customer (Case 3) sometimes switching the primary account holder (Case 4) then afterwards the first customer begins opening individual accounts again (Case 5b).
I have attempted joining the table to a copy of itself whenever acctnumbers are unique and any of the Cust IDs match. However, this removes customers who have only had one account so I added a union of cust that have no matches on the custid or account number and groups by custid.
Unfortunately, the second piece does not only include custids from case 0 and there are some custids which are excluded all together that shouldn't be.
select
max(date1) as date,
cust1id1 as cust1id
from
(
select
acctnumber as [acctnumber1],
date as [date1],
cust1id as [cust1id1],
cust2id as [cust2id1]
from
acct
) t1
join
(
select
acctnumber as [acctnumber2],
date as [date2],
cust1id as [cust1id2],
cust2id as [cust2id2]
from
acct
) t2
on t1.date1 > t2.date2 and
(t1.cust1id1 = t2.cust1id2 or
t1.cust1id1 = t2.cust2id2 or
t1.cust2id1 = t2.cust2id2)
Group by
cust1id1
union
select
max(date1) as date,
cust1id1 as cust1id
from
(
select
acctnumber as [acctnumber1],
date as [date1],
cust1id as [cust1id1],
cust2id as [cust2id1]
from
acct
) t1
join
(
select
acctnumber as [acctnumber2],
date as [date2],
cust1id as [cust1id2],
cust2id as [cust2id2]
from
acct
) t2
on (t1.acctnumber1 != t2.acctnumber2 and
t1.cust1id1 != t2.cust1id2 and
t1.cust1id1 != t2.cust2id2 and
t1.cust2id1 != t2.cust2id2)
group by
cust1id1
Update
Thank you for all the great answers and comments so far. I have been trying out the queries and comparing results.
@VladimirBaranov has brought up a rare case that I had not previously considered in comments to other answers.
Similarly to case 7, it will be a bonus if Case8 is handled, but not expected.
Case 9 is important and the result for 9a and 9b should be handled.
Update 2
I noticed issues with my original set of 7 cases.
In more recent accounts, when a customer is no longer on the account, it was always the second borrower that remained. This was entirely unintentional, you can look at any of those examples and either customer can potentially be the remaining customer on the most recent account.
Also, each case had the minimum number of accounts to display exactly what the case was testing, but this is not common. Usually in each step of each case there can be 5, 10, 15 or more accounts before a customer switches to adding on a second customer, and those two can then have many accounts together.
Reviewing the answers I see many have index, create, update and other clauses specific to being able to edit the database. Unfortunately, I am on the consumer side of this database so I have read only access, and the program I can use to interact with the database automatically rejects them.
Could you just use a left-join to join accounts with other "linked" accounts with potentially later dates, and then just filter out records where the "Later Account" table is not null? Something like this:
This should return the results as expected:
This is quite complex...
First you want to identify groups of customers. That is all customers who were directly or indirectly related. With customer pairs A/B, B/C, D/E, D/F, G/A, H/A, H/F you'd have just one single group for instance. In SQL this requires a recursive query.
SQL Server lacks a cycle detection in recursive queries. So from customers A/B you'd get to all pairs containing A or B, which is B/C, A/B G/A, H/A, and A/B itself for that matter. Even, if we detect this direct circle (same pair), we'd go on with B/C looking for all records that contain B or C. And one of these is A/B again and once more we are in a cycle. One way to deal with this is to build a string of yet visited customers and not visit them again.
Our result is all cutomers with all directly or indirectly connected other customers. Using aggregation, we can take the minimum partner per customer and use this as a group key. In above example all customers are related to A, so A is all their minimum partner, showing that all belong to the same group. If we add two records X/Y and Z/-, then we have two more groups: X and Y belonging to the X group, and Z belonging to the Z group.
These groups we use to look up our original records again. With
ROW_NUMBER
we number each group's last record with #1. Then we keep only those and we are done.Rextester demo: http://rextester.com/RWCQ83881
I'm leaving my original answer in place, because the approach might work for someone else searching for this down the line.
I can't figure out how to do this without a cursor. As such, any other answer that provides the right answer (that doesn't use a cursor) is going to outperform this one. I'm not smart enough to figure out what that looks like, but it would have to include a nasty recursive CTE.
The real trick is getting all accounts that were ever related to each other grouped together. That is done in the big cursored if/then/else chain at the top, which could be cleaned up a bit. I've left my debug
print
statements in place, they can obviously be removed.You could also make the Associations table permanent, instead of using a table variable.
Again, performance-wise, this is going to be really, really bad, but it does work. I'm looking forward to seeing what others come up with. Thanks for the high-quality question, too, that made life a lot easier.
The code:
The results:
To apply logic to each subset a good operator to use is the
CROSS APPLY
operator. This allows us to find the most recent account for each Customer Id.Setup
Execution
Cross Apply
The
CROSS APPLY
operators walk the cases backward to apply the logic to each joint account case while ensuring the most recent account is carried over. This alone covers most of the cases. The only lingering cases are the ones with 3 accounts being shifted between 3 customers. The self join andWHERE
clause in the final select cover these.Results
we should not worry about using EXISTS as it operate fast in such case and i suppose is simplest possible solution:
i have assumed that you have separate indexes on CUST1ID and another on CUST2ID. You can compare result without ascending index on DT ("date") field and with it. It can speed up your query or slow down - i do not know how your real data looks like
I'm sure there is a much easier approach, but this is what I've had in mind :