Skip to content

Conversation

@DhruvParashar246
Copy link

No description provided.

@super30admin
Copy link
Owner

  1. Correctness:

    • For "Apples and Oranges.sql", the solution correctly calculates the difference between apples and oranges sold each day. However, it assumes there's exactly one record for each fruit per day, which might not be the case if the data has multiple entries per fruit per day or missing entries.
    • For "Top Travellers.sql", the solution correctly calculates the total distance traveled by each user and handles NULL values appropriately. The LEFT JOIN ensures all users are included, even those without rides.
  2. Time Complexity:

    • Both solutions use CTEs which are processed once. The first query has O(n) complexity where n is the number of apple sales, plus a subquery for each row.
    • The second query has O(n + m) complexity where n is the number of users and m is the number of rides, due to the JOIN operation.
  3. Space Complexity:

    • Both solutions create temporary tables (CTEs) which require O(n) space where n is the number of rows in the respective tables.
  4. Code Quality:

    • The code is generally readable but could be improved:
      • In "Apples and Oranges.sql", the CTE names could be more descriptive (e.g., "AppleSales" instead of "CTE").
      • The subquery in the first solution could be replaced with a JOIN for better readability.
      • The second solution is well-structured but could use consistent spacing around operators.
  5. Efficiency:

    • For "Apples and Oranges.sql", consider using a JOIN instead of a subquery for better performance.
    • Both solutions could benefit from proper indentation for better readability.
    • The ORDER BY in the CTEs of the first solution is unnecessary since the final result is what needs ordering.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants