I have one single master Subject table which have several part tables. One convenient thing about Table.delete() is that is displays a prompt with all existing entries that were created under that Subject. Aside from delete() is there an alternative way to print what part table entries were created under a single Subject entry?
Thank you
To get the entry count of all the part tables restricted by some restriction (e.g. subject_name), you can do something like this:
restriction = {'subject_name': 'my_star_subject'}
for part_table in Subject.parts(as_objects=True):
part_table_query = part_table & restriction
print(f'{part_table.table_name}: len(part_table_query)')
It's a slow process, but I think I would do the following to see where entries were:
(subject.Subject & 'subject="<NAME>"').descendants(as_objects=True)
Not sure if you'd be better off with children (1 level down) or descendants (all the way down). delete gives the full set of descendants, using table.delete_quick(get_count=True).
EDIT:
To just get the counts, you might want:
[print(i.table_name,len(i)) for i in (subject.Subject & 'subject="<NAME>"').descendants(as_objects=True)]
Related
I have a table in my postgres database, with a list of buildings called Buildings_national. In this table, I have a larger number of duplicates, and i need to point them out to have the duplicates deleted.
The thing is, that I need to leave out a single line for every duplicate group, to make sure that one example of the duplicated building is retained in the table.
All buildings has a unique identifier, and every line has a unique identifier as well.
Can anyone recommend a good way to do this? I guess what I am looking for, is a reversed distinct somehow?
I have a table called transactions. Within that is a field called ipn_type. I would like to create separate table occurrences for the different ipn types I may have.
For example, one value for ipn_type is "dispute". In the past I would create a global field called "rel_dispute" and I would populate that with the value of "dispute". Then I could create a new table occurrence of the transactions table, and make a relationship based on transactions::ipn_type = transactions::rel_dispute. This way only the dispute records would show up in my new table occurrence.
Not long ago, somebody pointed out to me that this is no longer necessary, and there is a simpler way to setup such a relationship to create a new table occurrence. I can't for the life of me remember how that was done, though.
Any information on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
To show a found set of only one type, you must either perform a find or use the Go to Related Record script step to show only related records. What you describe as your previous setup fits the latter.
The simpler way is to perform a find - either on demand, or by a script triggered OnLayoutEnter.
The new 'easy' way is probably:
using one base relationship only and
filtering only the displaying portal by type. This can be done with a global field, a global variable containing current display type. Multiple portals with different filter conditions are possible as well.
~jens
I need to setup worldship to pull from one of our postgres databases. I need to have it so that the packages are sorted by id. I have no way (that i am aware of) of having worldship send the order by clause so I need to have the default for the records returned to be returned by id.
On a second note I have no idea how postgres default sorts it looks like it by the last time the record was changed so if i write a two records id 1,2 then change record 2 when I run the query it returns them with record 2 being first.
Rows are returned in an unspecified order, per sql specs, unless you add an order by clause. In Postgres, that means you'll get rows in, basically, the order that live rows read on the disk.
If you want a consistent order without needing to add an order by clause, create a view as suggested in Jack's comment.
There is no such thing as a "default sort". Rows in a table are not sorted.
You could fake this with a view (as suggested by Jack Maney) there is no way you can influence the order of the rows that are returned.
But if you do that, be aware that adding an additional ORDER BY to a SELECT based on that view will sort the data twice.
Another option might be to run the CLUSTER command on that table to physically order the rows on the disk according to the column you want. But this sill does not guarantee that the rows are returned in that order. Not even with a plain SELECT * FROM your_table (but chances are reasonably high for that).
You will need to re-run this statement on a regular basis because the order created by the CLUSTER command is not automatically maintained.
For what it's worth, which probably isn't much, from my testing, it appears that PostgreSQL's "default" ordering is based on the time the records were last updated. The most recently updated records will appear last. Note that I couldn't find any documentation to support this. It's just what I've found from my own testing.
You could eventually use a sorted index, which should guarantee you order of retrieved rows in case the query plan hits the index, or if you force it, but this approach will be more than circuitous :). ORDER BY clause is the way to go as mentioned already.
I have a large table which inserts data into the database. The problem is when the user edits the table I have to:
run the query
use lots of lines like value="<cfoutput>getData.firstname#</cfoutput> in the input boxes.
Is there a way to bind the form input boxes to the database via a cfc or cfm file?
Many Thanks,
R
Query objects include the columnList, which is a comma-delimited list of returned columns.
If security and readability aren't an issue, you can always loop over this. However, it basically removes your opportunity to do things like locking certain columns, reduces your ability to do any validation, and means you either just label the form boxes with the column names or you find a way to store labels for each column.
You can then do an insert/update/whatever with them.
I don't recommend this, as it would be nearly impossible to secure, but it might get you where you are going.
If you are using CF 9 you can use the ORM (Object Relation Management) functionality (via CFCs)
as described in this online chapter
https://www.packtpub.com/sites/default/files/0249-chapter-4-ORM-Database-Interaction.pdf
(starting on page 6 of the pdf)
Take a look at <cfgrid>, it will be the easiest if you're editing table and it can fire 1 update per row.
For security against XSS, you should use <input value="#xmlFormat(getData.firstname)#">, minimize # of <cfoutput> tags. XmlFormat() not needed if you use <cfinput>.
If you are looking for an easy way to not have to specify all the column names in the insert query cfinsert will try to map all the form names you submit to the database column names.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ColdFusion/9.0/CFMLRef/WSc3ff6d0ea77859461172e0811cbec22c24-7c78.html
This is indeed a very good question. I have no doubt that the answers given so far are helpful. I was faced with the same problem, only my table does not have that many fields though.
Per the docs EntityNew() the syntax shows that you can include the data when instantiating the object:
artistObj = entityNew("Artists",{FirstName="Tom",LastName="Ron"});
instead of having to instantiate and then add the data field by field. In my case all I had to do is:
artistObj = entityNew( "Artists", FORM );
EntitySave( artistObj );
ORMFlush();
NOTE
It does appear from your question that you may be running insert or update queries. When using ORM you do not need to do that. But I may be mistaken.
I have a FileMaker script which calculates a value. I have 1 record from table A from which a relation points to n records of table B. What is the best way to set B::Field to this value for each of these n related records?
Doing Set Field [B::Field; $Value] will only set the value of the first of the n related records. What works however is the following:
Go to Related Record [Show only related records; From table: "B"; Using layout: "B_layout" (B)]
Loop
Set Field [B::Field; $Value]
Go To Record/Request/Page [Next; Exit after last]
End Loop
Go to Layout [original layout]
Is there a better way to accomplish this? I dislike the fact that in order to set some value (model) programmatically (controller), I have to create a layout (view) and switch to it, even though the user is not supposed to notice anything like a changing view.
FileMaker always was primarily an end-user tool, so all its scripts are more like macros that repeat user actions. It nowhere near as flexible as programmer-oriented environments. To go to another layout is, actually, a standard method to manipulate related values. You would have to do this anyway if you, say, want to duplicate a related record or print a report.
So:
Your script is quite good, except that you can use the Replace Field Contents script step. Also add Freeze Window script step in the beginning; it will prevent the screen from updating.
If you have a portal to the related table, you may loop over portal rows.
FileMaker plug-in API can execute SQL and there are some plug-ins that expose this functionality. So if you really want, this is also an option.
I myself would prefer the first variant.
Loop through a Portal of Related Records
Looping through a portal that has the related records and setting the field has a couple of advantages over either Replace or Go To Record, Set Field Loop.
You don't have to leave the layout. The portal can be hidden or place off screen if it isn't already on the layout.
You can do it transactionally. IE you can make sure that either all the records get edited or none of them do. This is important since in a multi-user networked solution, records may not always be editable. Neither replace or looping through the records without a portal is transaction safe.
Here is some info on FileMaker transactions.
You can loop through a portal using Go To Portal Row. Like so:
Go To Portal Row [First]
Loop
Set Field [B::Field; $Value]
Go To Portal Row [Next; Exit after last]
End Loop
It depends on what you're using the value for. If you need to hard wire a certain field, then it doesn't sound like you've got a very normalised data structure. The simplest way would be a calculation in TableB instead of a stored field, or if this is something that is stored, could it be a lookup field instead that is set on record creation?
What is the field in TableB being used for and how?