Writing Analytics SQL with Common Table Expressions

Author’s Note: Hello readers! I’m Josh O’Brien. I recently joined the Science team as a junior engineer, and this is my first post for the blog.


One of my first tasks with the Science team has been learning to write effective analytics SQL. I came in with a basic knowledge of SQL, but writing complex analytics reports required me to learn tools and strategies for managing complexity that aren’t yet part of the standard introductions to SQL. Luckily, I had the Science team to teach me to work with Common Table Expressions (CTEs). I’ve come to love CTEs for the clarity that they’ve helped bring to my thinking and writing in SQL. The CTE syntax encourages me to reason through a problem as a sequence of simple parts and enables me to directly code a solution in terms of those parts, which I can individually document and test for correctness. Working with CTEs has jump-started my productivity, and helped the team as a whole set a higher standard for our SQL.

In the Science team’s experience, much of the common frustration with SQL comes down to a failure to treat SQL queries as declarative programs that demand the same care as imperative programs. SQL is code, and we should treat it as such. We can better manage the complexity of SQL by using the same basic techniques we do in other languages: we can divide work into composable parts, document our intent, and test for correctness. We use CTEs as a foundation for building queries that are factored, documented, and tested, and we’ve enjoyed excellent results writing and maintaining numerous hundred- and thousand-line reports using this approach.

In this post, I’ll share an example of how the Science team uses CTEs to treat SQL as code. I’ll walk through the process of writing an analytics report with CTEs, and show how CTEs help me think through a problem and implement, document, and test a solution.

* If you’re thinking that CTEs are no better than temporary tables or views for these purposes, read on. CTEs, temporary tables, and views all have their place in our SQL toolkit. We use CTEs because they are best suited for this work. For more on the relative merits of CTEs, temporary tables, and views, please see the appendices to this post.

Common Table Expressions

Before we dive into the example report, let’s take a quick look at the CTE syntax we’ll be using. CTEs are defined inside of a WITH clause attached to a primary statement. Within the scope of the larger query, each CTE can be manipulated like a table. This allows us to chain CTEs together and build sequences of operations. In the following diagram, we’re building up a four-part query, part by part. We start with two parts: a foo CTE attached to a main SELECT statement. Next, we add a bar CTE. In the final step, we add a baz CTE to complete the four-part query.


Examples of two-, three-, and four-part queries with Common Table Expressions. The query grows by one CTE at each stage.

Notice what we did here. In the foo, bar, and baz CTEs, we now have three intermediate result sets that we can test individually and “print” with a SELECT *. Once we know each part is correct, we add another, until we’ve solved our problem. We can use CTEs to break queries into as many simple parts as the problem requires.

We use CTEs rather than temporary tables or views to decompose queries in development because they are simpler to use. There is no need to add the complexity of managing CREATE and DROP statements at this stage in the writing process.

Frequency Report

We’ll use a simplified example report to illustrate how we use CTEs in our everyday work: a frequency report. A frequency report is an online advertising analytics report that helps advertisers determine the number of ads to serve users over a specific time period. Advertisers want to reach out to customers enough times to build awareness of and interest in their offerings, but not so many times that customers become jaded or annoyed. A frequency report breaks down return on advertising investment by the number of ads users have been shown, a classification known as a user’s impression frequency class.

This report produces data that can be graphed as:

An example of a report in our UI, showing impressions for an advertiser by frequency class.

Stripped all the way down, the basic query that generates the report above is:

WITH impression_counts AS (
    SELECT user_id,
           SUM(1) AS impression_count
    FROM impressions
    GROUP BY 1
SELECT impression_count      AS frequency_class,
       SUM(impression_count) AS total_impressions
FROM impression_counts

The challenge of writing these reports comes from managing all the additional data we need. Actual reporting queries need to correctly handle the complexity of timestamp, ad campaign, conversion attribution, click, and cost data without becoming tangled messes.

For this simplified example, we’ll start with tables recording impression (ad view), click (ad interaction), and conversion (sale) events, and produce a frequency report tracking the total number of users, impressions, clicks, and conversions for each impression frequency class for each ad campaign in the database for the month of March 2014. We can visualize our task like this:

Our task: use the impressions, clicks, impression_attributed_conversions, and click_attributed_conversions tables to produce a frequency report for the month of March 2014.

Thinking with CTEs

Working with CTEs begins with reasoning about the problem in terms of the stages and parts needed to produce the report. From the above starting point, we can already work out four main stages.

We’ll need to:

  • FILTER the four input tables by record_date,
  • GROUP BY user_id and campaign_id, and SUM to get user-level counts for impressions, clicks, and conversions,
  • JOIN those counts together on user_id and campaign_id, and finally,
  • GROUP BY impression_count (= frequency_class) and campaign_id, and SUM to generate the report totals for users, impressions, clicks, and conversions.

We can express the relationships between these operations visually:

A map of the query to produce the frequency report. Each of the conceptual parts (rectangles) connecting the green input tables to the frequency report will be written as a simple CTE.

A map of the query to produce the frequency report. Each of the conceptual parts connecting the green input tables to the orange frequency report will be written as a simple CTE.

In one form or another, each of these operations would need to be a part of any query that produces this report. With CTEs, we can preserve the logical clarity of our thought process in the code itself. Each of the main parts of this query will be implemented using simple CTEs that serve only one main purpose. For added clarity, we will name and comment the CTEs to communicate our intent at every stage. This technique yields a query that we can read straight through and maintain with ease, just like our other code.

Writing with CTEs

Let’s take a look at a CTE from each stage right now. The full query with documentation comments can be found here, and in the appendices to this post.

First come the three filter CTEs. Here’s the CTE for filtered_impressions. Its only purpose is to filter the impressions table down to March 2014:

filtered_impressions AS (
    SELECT record_date,
    FROM impressions
    WHERE record_date >= '2014-03-01' AND
          record_date <  '2014-04-01'

Next, we calculate user-level counts for impressions, clicks, and conversions. Each of the three “counts” CTEs performs only a simple aggregate function: a GROUP BY and a SUM. Here is the impression_counts CTE:

impression_counts AS (
    SELECT user_id,
           SUM(1) AS impression_count
    FROM filtered_impressions
    GROUP BY 1, 2

After that, we JOIN the three “counts” CTEs together in a single long table. This collated_counts CTE is the longest in the query, but, like the others, it has only one main purpose:

collated_counts AS (
    SELECT imp.user_id           AS user_id,
           imp.campaign_id       AS campaign_id,
           imp.impression_count  AS impression_count,
           cl.click_count        AS click_count,
           conv.conversion_count AS conversion_count
    FROM impression_counts imp
        LEFT OUTER JOIN click_counts cl ON
            imp.user_id      = cl.user_id AND
            imp.campaign_id  = cl.campaign_id
        LEFT OUTER JOIN conversion_counts conv ON
            imp.user_id      = conv.user_id AND
            imp.campaign_id  = conv.campaign_id

Last comes the main SELECT statement. Its only purpose is to group by impression_count (= frequency_class) and campaign_id, and calculate the four SUMs for the report:

SELECT impression_count                   AS frequency_class,
       campaign_id                        AS campaign_id,
       SUM(1)                             AS total_users,
       SUM(impression_count)              AS total_impressions,
       SUM(COALESCE(click_count, 0))      AS total_clicks,
       SUM(COALESCE(conversion_count, 0)) AS total_conversions
FROM collated_counts


Testing with CTEs

As we build up the query with CTEs, we leverage the ability to SELECT from each CTE individually to test for correctness as part of the writing process. This basic testing can be as simple as three files in a text editor, which we execute from psql (or equivalent) in a sequence as we write:

  • setup.sql: CREATE tables and INSERT rows of test data
  • test.sql: the query itself
  • teardown.sql: DROP the tables created in setup.sql

We write and comment one CTE at a time in the test file. Each time we add a CTE, we add test rows to exercise that CTE to the setup file, and include comments to indicate what should happen to those rows when we SELECT * from the relevant CTE. When the output matches our expectations, we move to the next part of the query, and repeat the process.

As an example, initial tests for the filtered_impressions CTE could consist of creating an impressions table and inserting five rows to exercise the date range in the WHERE clause. We indicate our expectations for those rows with brief comments:

CREATE TABLE impressions (
    record_date  date   NOT NULL,
    user_id      bigint NOT NULL,
    campaign_id  bigint NOT NULL
INSERT INTO impressions (record_date, user_id, campaign_id) VALUES
    /* The following 2 rows should not appear in filtered_impressions: */
    ('2014-02-28', 707, 7),
    ('2014-04-01', 707, 7),
    /* The following 3 rows should appear in filtered_impressions: */
    ('2014-03-01', 101, 1),
    ('2014-03-15', 101, 1),
    ('2014-03-31', 101, 1)

This basic testing at the time of writing is not a substitute for a comprehensive test framework, but it is enough to catch many errors that could otherwise sneak through, and it provides a good return on a modest investment of effort. By the time the full query is complete, this process will have generated tests and documentation for each part of the query.


This method of working with CTEs has helped me by bringing clarity and simplicity to complex analytics queries. Thinking, writing, and testing with CTEs helps me treat SQL as part of software engineering practice by writing SQL that’s factored, documented, and tested more like other code.

The Science team thinks of this method as producing a foundation for further refinements. When appropriate, optimizations for performance can and will be made, but we focus on correctness first. Optimizations tend to add complexity, and before we do that, we want to mitigate the complexity of the query as much as possible.

By starting with CTEs, we can more easily write queries that we can quickly read and reuse six months from now. Analysts can return to their models and analyses with confidence and engineers are better able to add new features to reports without introducing new bugs. We’re building upon a foundation of factored, documented, and tested SQL.


Code for the Example Report
On CTEs, Temporary Tables, and Views

We asked Christophe Pettus of PostgreSQL Experts to help illuminate the tradeoffs between CTEs, views, and temporary tables, and received the following helpful response, which we publish here with his permission and our thanks:

[E]ach have characteristics that can make them better or worse in particular situations:

1. CTEs are optimization fences; the query planner will plan CTEs
separately from the rest of the query. This can be good or bad,
depending on the way the CTE is used.

2. Views are *not* optimization fences; you can think of them as being
textually inserted into the query at the appropriate place, so queries
can be rewritten, join clauses moved around, etc.

3. Temporary tables can have indexes; for very large intermediate result
sets, this can be essential for good performance.

We agree that the choice between CTEs, temporary tables, and views is a matter of balancing the different trade-offs of the different stages of software development.

As explained in this post, the Science team finds the balance in favor of CTEs as the foundation for query development. We reach for the CTE syntax first for its clarity and ease of use. When we write and test queries part-by-part, we want to keep the code as clear and simple as possible. Juggling extra CREATE and DROP statements for temporary tables or views works against that goal.

Once we have a correct, clear foundation, then we move onto the optimizations I mentioned in the conclusion. At that point, we consider re-writing CTEs as views or materialized tables on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the balance tips away from CTEs. In our experience, the most common reason for this has been to gain the performance benefits of indexing on intermediate result sets that can contain hundreds of millions to tens of billions of rows.

More posts featuring CTEs


  1. Even though you are clearly focused on PostgreSQL, you may want to remind readers that the tradeoffs you list for CTEs and views don’t apply to many other databases. For example, Oracle regularly rewrites complex queries to break down those “optimization fences”. There is a black art to its complex query hints that affect how queries are rewritten by the optimizer in both cases – see for example UNNEST, PUSH_SUBQ, and REWRITE. I’ve worked on projects where every CTE hints NO_UNNEST to (try to) get back to the nice divide-and-conquer approach to writing queries that you describe.

    Another reason to use materialized views or temporary tables is that you may wish to run a series of queries that start with the same preprocessing but differ further down the road.

    • Josh O'Brien says:

      Hi Saul! Thanks for pointing out Oracle’s different behavior with respect to query optimization. We don’t use Oracle, but it’s good to know!


  2. There are obviously some big problems with a language that frequently forces you to give up performance in terms of readability and natural thought flow. I’ve had good luck with using a template language (I used python/jinja) to organize my SQL. I really enjoyed that and I felt like I was able to organize my SQL into a way that makes sense.


  1. […] SQL, who also gave me the opportunity to share part of my experience on the team’s blog (see: “Writing Analytics SQL with Common Table Expressions”). I’ve particularly enjoyed working towards practical mastery of a distributed database with […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: