在SQL Server 2012中，您应该使用PERCENTILE_CONT:

SELECT SalesOrderID, OrderQty,
    PERCENTILE_CONT(0.5) 
        WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY OrderQty)
        OVER (PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) AS MedianCont
FROM Sales.SalesOrderDetail
WHERE SalesOrderID IN (43670, 43669, 43667, 43663)
ORDER BY SalesOrderID DESC

参见:http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2011/11/20/sql-server-introduction-to-percentile_cont-analytic-functions-introduced-in-sql-server-2012/

在SQL Server 2012中，您应该使用PERCENTILE_CONT:

SELECT SalesOrderID, OrderQty,
    PERCENTILE_CONT(0.5) 
        WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY OrderQty)
        OVER (PARTITION BY SalesOrderID) AS MedianCont
FROM Sales.SalesOrderDetail
WHERE SalesOrderID IN (43670, 43669, 43667, 43663)
ORDER BY SalesOrderID DESC

参见:http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2011/11/20/sql-server-introduction-to-percentile_cont-analytic-functions-introduced-in-sql-server-2012/

这是我能想到的求中位数的最优解。示例中的名称基于Justin示例。确保表有索引 销售。SalesOrderHeader以索引列CustomerId和TotalDue的顺序存在。

SELECT
 sohCount.CustomerId,
 AVG(sohMid.TotalDue) as TotalDueMedian
FROM 
(SELECT 
  soh.CustomerId,
  COUNT(*) as NumberOfRows
FROM 
  Sales.SalesOrderHeader soh 
GROUP BY soh.CustomerId) As sohCount
CROSS APPLY 
    (Select 
       soh.TotalDue
    FROM 
    Sales.SalesOrderHeader soh 
    WHERE soh.CustomerId = sohCount.CustomerId 
    ORDER BY soh.TotalDue
    OFFSET sohCount.NumberOfRows / 2 - ((sohCount.NumberOfRows + 1) % 2) ROWS 
    FETCH NEXT 1 + ((sohCount.NumberOfRows + 1) % 2) ROWS ONLY
    ) As sohMid
GROUP BY sohCount.CustomerId

更新

我有点不确定哪种方法性能最好，所以我比较了我的方法Justin Grants和Jeff Atwoods，在一个批量中运行基于这三种方法的查询，每个查询的批量成本为:

没有指数:

我的30% Justin Grants 13% Jeff Atwoods 58%

还有index

我的3%。 Justin Grants 10% Jeff Atwoods 87%

I tried to see how well the queries scale if you have index by creating more data from around 14 000 rows by a factor of 2 up to 512 which means in the end around 7,2 millions rows. Note I made sure CustomeId field where unique for each time I did a single copy, so the proportion of rows compared to unique instance of CustomerId was kept constant. While I was doing this I ran executions where I rebuilt index afterwards, and I noticed the results stabilized at around a factor of 128 with the data I had to these values:

我的3%。 贾斯汀·格兰特5% Jeff Atwoods 92%

我想知道，在保持惟一CustomerId不变的情况下，扩展行数会如何影响性能，因此我设置了一个新的测试，在其中执行了上述操作。现在，批成本比率并没有稳定下来，而是不断分化，每个CustomerId平均大约有20行，最后每个这样唯一的Id大约有10000行。数字如下:

我的4% 贾斯汀60% 杰夫斯35%

通过比较结果，我确保我正确地实现了每个方法。 我的结论是，只要索引存在，我使用的方法通常更快。还要注意，本文针对这个特定问题推荐使用这种方法https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2314819&seqNum=5

进一步提高对该查询的后续调用的性能的一种方法是在辅助表中持久化计数信息。您甚至可以通过一个触发器来维护它，该触发器更新并保存有关依赖于CustomerId的SalesOrderHeader行计数的信息，当然您也可以简单地存储中值。

简单、快速、准确

SELECT x.Amount 
FROM   (SELECT amount, 
               Count(1) OVER (partition BY 'A')        AS TotalRows, 
               Row_number() OVER (ORDER BY Amount ASC) AS AmountOrder 
        FROM   facttransaction ft) x 
WHERE  x.AmountOrder = Round(x.TotalRows / 2.0, 0)  

试试下面的逻辑来找出中位数:

考虑一个包含以下数字的表格: 1、1、2、3、4、5所示

中位数是2.5

with tempa as 
(
    select num,count(num) over() as Cnt,
        row_number() over (order by num) as Rnum
    from temp),
tempb as
    (
        select round(cnt/2) as ref_value
        from tempa where mod(cnt,2)<>0
        union all
        select round(cnt/2) from tempa where mod(cnt,2)=0
        union all
        select round(cnt/2+1)
        from tempa where mod(cnt,2)=0
    )
select avg(num) from tempa
where rnum in (select * from tempb);
    

下面的查询从一列中的值列表返回中位数。它不能作为聚合函数使用，也不能与聚合函数一起使用，但仍然可以在内部select中使用带有WHERE子句的子查询。

SQL Server 2005+:

SELECT TOP 1 value from
(
    SELECT TOP 50 PERCENT value 
    FROM table_name 
    ORDER BY  value
)for_median
ORDER BY value DESC