We use analytics and advertising cookies to understand how the site is used and whether our ads on Facebook and Instagram work. They are set only if you accept. See our Privacy Policy for details.
This problem is paper-only - see explanation for the canonical SQL solution.
Given Orders(id, customer_id, total), return customer_ids whose total spend exceeds 1000. Sort by total spend descending, then customer_id ascending as a tiebreaker.
For the auto-grader: return [{ customer_id, total_spend }].
A medium sql problem, graded against 7 test cases (5 of them hidden).
Query-writing problems - joins, aggregation, window functions, and query tuning.
Reach for it when you see: A schema and a question about the data rather than a function signature.
More SQL problems →```sql
SELECT customer_id, SUM(total) AS total_spend
FROM Orders
GROUP BY customer_id
HAVING SUM(total) > 1000
ORDER BY total_spend DESC, customer_id ASC;
```
WHERE vs HAVING - the classic interview question:
- `WHERE` runs before `GROUP BY`. It filters individual rows, can't reference aggregates.
- `HAVING` runs after `GROUP BY`. It filters groups, must reference aggregates or grouped columns.
Mixing them is fine and often correct: `WHERE order_date >= '2026-01-01' GROUP BY ... HAVING SUM(total) > 1000`.
The full reference solution in every supported language stays in the editor above - reveal it there once you have had a real attempt.
Read off this problem's own test suite, so these are the cases a submission actually has to survive.
These apply to the pattern as a whole, not just this problem.