I have a PostgreSQL table in an application that holds both parent and child records. There is a column in the table to reference the the parent id where applicable for each child record. The problem is I am trying to import data from an external source where the child record is made up of a sub number of the parent. eg parent_reference_id = 123456000000 and a child_reference record for this could 123456000001, 123456000002 and so on. The application itself generates a unique id for each record when I import the data and so its possible to import the child and parent records simultaneously, however the difficulty I'm facing is linking the application generated id for the parent record to the parent_reference_id for the corresponding child records. The only hook I have is that the 1st six digits of the child_value_reference match the 1st six digits of the parent_value_reference and I've tried something like foo = bar(left(value,6)||'000000'; to create a match. However, I don't know how to use this to return the unique_id in a meaningful way and update the matching records. I've tried temporary tables and cte, however my knowledge of postgres is limited and I can't seem to find a solution that fits my problem. Another thing to mention is that these groups can change with updates within the external data so i'd also need a solution to make those updates too. Thanks in advance, Crispian
Related
We are attempting to merge multiple datasets created in in filmmaker pro.
These datasets have multiple tables, and each entry within each table has a local ID that is used to relate entries between tables. The local ID values for all the entries were serially generated values, but some of the ID values are repeated between the different datasets, though the indicated records are non equivalent.
How can the ID values be updated in the data that is being imported to remove these overlaps without destroying the relationships that depend on them?
If you have access to the original database, you can try to migrate the ID's over to UUID or something unique before exporting. This has to be done manually, either cut/paste by hand or by a script.
Such a script will have do the following:
Loop through the parent records
For each record go to the related records
Generate an UUID with the get(UUID) function and put it in a variable
Replace the parent ID in the related record with this variable
Return to the parent record and replace the record ID with the variable.
Move to the next record.
Repeat until all records have been updated.
I'm loading a subset of the parent records and the child records into a dataset then setting datarelations and foreignkeyconstraints, so when I am building the dataadapter select stmt for the child records, I must make sure that only the child records whose parent is present is loaded to avoid referential integrity errors. Since the subset of the ParentTable has been loaded into a dataset I tried:
daChild = new OleDBDataAdapter(CreateOledbCommand("select * from Childtable where ChildKey in (ds.tables(""ParentTable""))",dconn))
But got an "undefined function 'ds.tables' in expression" error at runtime.
So, I tried to create a one column table to pass to the IN clause, like this:
Dim MyDataView as DataView = New DataView(ds.tables("ParentTable"))
Dim MyTempParentTable as DataTable = MyDataView.ToTable(False, "ParentKey")
daChild = New OleDbDataAdapter(CreateOledbCommand("select * from ChildTable where ChildKey in (MyTempParentTable)", dconn))
I checked in the debugger, and MyTempParentTable is, in fact, a one column table containing the key of the ParentTable. I thought that the IN clause could take a one column datatable as valid input. Apparently not, as I am getting a "No value given for one or more required parameters" error at runtime.
I'm just about out of ideas. All my google searching came up with for the IN clause was something like IN (value1, value2, value3...) and doesn't give any examples for the IN clause containing a more complex expression.
Can anyone clue me in on what I'm missing, or maybe a different way to accomplish this? I'm trying to get the IN clause to work because I'm thinking that it is the most efficient way to do this... Maybe it's not... Thanks for any help.
I haven't found an answer to the question about why the IN clause didn't work, but just in case anybody else has this issue I will post my workaround.
I load the parent records as usual, but my dataadapter select stmt for the child records has a "WHERE 1=0" so that zero records are initially loaded. When a new parent record is displayed I then determine if the child records for that parent are already loaded into the dataset, if not, I load them in. Bottom line is that I don't pre-load the child records, rather, I load them "on demand". This solution is working well for me.
I can't think of a better title, so feel free to make a suggestion once you understand the issue.
I was given a table to work with that I need to call from another table:
Name
Month
Type
Value
For each record in the main table I need to pull one "Value" that corresponds to it. What it is will be determined by all three of the other fields. So for example, if a record in the main table is:
Name:
Google
Date:
3\17\2016
Type:
M
Then I need to pull the value for the record in the other table where the Name is "Google", the month is "3", and the type is "M".
I was able to do this successfully (if slowly) using an ExecuteSQL command in a calculation field, with a ton of nested If statements for the names (I have yet to figure out how to input the record's data directly into the ExecuteSQL statement, it breaks when I try). I would prefer to just grab the data directly. I can't switch over to the other layout because I need to see all of the records at once. I can't do a simple relationship because there isn't a real relationship, it's like there are three foreign keys working in tandem and I only know how to use one to call the data.
Any idea on how to do this more simplistically?
Some ideas I've had but not sure if it will work:
Using a calculation field as a related field to dynamically point to the row by code (concatenate the three relevant fields into a type of code). Not sure if you can connect two tables by a calculation field.
Doing that same thing when calling the data into the table in the first place, adding a code to create a single primary key.
Here are my relationships:
I can't do a simple relationship because there isn't a real
relationship, it's like there are three foreign keys working in tandem
and I only know how to use one to call the data.
Simply define a relationship with three predicates - i.e. three pairs of match fields.
I'm new to Filemaker and need some advice on auto-populating tables.
Part 1:
I have TableA which includes many records with client information. I want a separate TableB which is identical to TableA except that it is "de-identified"; that is, it does not contain two of the fields, first name and last name.
I would like the two tables to interact such that if I add a new record to TableA, that same record (sans first and last name) appear automatically in TableB.
Part 2:
In addition to the above functionality, I would also like said functionality to be dependent on a specific field type from TableA. For example, I enter a new record, which has a "status" field set to "active," into tableA. I then want that record to be auto-popualted into TableB; however, if I add another record with a "status" of "inactive," I want that that record auto-populated into a TableC but not into TableB.
FileMaker can perform this with script triggers so long as every layout where TableA will be edited has a layout script trigger of OnRecordCommit connected to it. When the record is committed (which can happen in a number of ways), the attached script will run, which you can use to create the appropriate record in the appropriate table.
The script could create the record in a number of ways. If the primary keys for both records are the same, you could use lookups. You could export the record in TableA and then import it into the correct table. You could pass the field information as a parameter to the script. The best choice really depends on your needs.
Having said that, I would question the wisdom of this approach. It brings up a few questions that would seem to complicate matters. For example, what happens when the status changes? When a record in TableA is deleted? When fields in TableA are modified? Each of these contingencies (and others) will require thought and more complicated scripts.
So I would ask what problem you're really trying to solve. My best guess is that you are trying to keep the name information private from certain users. User accounts and privileges with dedicated layouts for each privilege can solve this without the need for duplicate tables. FileMaker privilege sets can be quite granular.
For example, you can specify that users with PrivilegeA can create records and view names, but PrivilegeB users can only view records if the status is "active" and the name fields are not available to them, while PrivilegeC users can view records if the status is "inactive" and the name fields are also not available to them.
I would definitely use filters and permissions on the "status field" to achieve this and not two mirroring tables. Unless the inactive information is drastically different, you would be complicated your solution and creating more possible pitfalls.
I have two tables in APEX that are linked by their primary key. One table (APEX_MAIN) holds the basic metadata of a document in our system and the other (APEX_DATES) holds important dates related to that document's processing.
For my team I have created a contrl panel where they can interact with all of this data. The issue is that right now they alter the information in APEX_MAIN on a page then they alter APEX_DATES on another. I would really like to be able to have these forms on the same page and submit updates to their respective tables & rows with a single submit button. I have set this up currently using two different regions on the same page but I am getting errors both with the initial fetching of the rows (Which ever row is fetched 2nd seems to work but then the page items in the form that was fetched 1st are empty?) and with submitting (It give some error about information in the DB having been altered since the update request was sent). Can anyone help me?
It is a limitation of the built-in Apex forms that you can only have one automated row fetch process per page, unfortunately. You can have more than one form region per page, but you have to code all the fetch and submit processing yourself if you do (not that difficult really, but you need to take care of optimistic locking etc. yourself too).
Splitting one table's form over several regions is perfectly possible, even using the built-in form functionality, because the region itself is just a layout object, it has no functionality associated with it.
Building forms manually is quite straight-forward but a bit more work.
Items
These should have the source set to "Static Text" rather than database column.
Buttons
You will need button like Create, Apply Changes, Delete that submit the page. These need unique request values so that you know which table is being processed, e.g. CREATE_EMP. You can make the buttons display conditionally, e.g. Create only when PK item is null.
Row Fetch Process
This will be a simple PL/SQL process like:
select ename, job, sal
into :p1_ename, :p1_job, :p1_sal
from emp
where empno = :p1_empno;
It will need to be conditional so that it only fires on entry to the form and not after every page load - otherwise if there are validation errors any edits will be lost. This can be controlled by a hidden item that is initially null but set to a non-null value on page load. Only fetch the row if the hidden item is null.
Submit Process(es)
You could have 3 separate processes for insert, update, delete associated with the buttons, or a single process that looks at the :request value to see what needs doing. Either way the processes will contain simple DML like:
insert into emp (empno, ename, job, sal)
values (:p1_empno, :p1_ename, :p1_job, :p1_sal);
Optimistic Locking
I omitted this above for simplicity, but one thing the built-in forms do for you is handle "optimistic locking" to prevent 2 users updating the same record simultaneously, with one's update overwriting the other's. There are various methods you can use to do this. A common one is to use OWA_OPT_LOCK.CHECKSUM to compare the record as it was when selected with as it is at the point of committing the update.
In fetch process:
select ename, job, sal, owa_opt_lock.checksum('SCOTT','EMP',ROWID)
into :p1_ename, :p1_job, :p1_sal, :p1_checksum
from emp
where empno = :p1_empno;
In submit process for update:
update emp
set job = :p1_job, sal = :p1_sal
where empno = :p1_empno
and owa_opt_lock.checksum('SCOTT','EMP',ROWID) = :p1_checksum;
if sql%rowcount = 0 then
-- handle fact that update failed e.g. raise_application_error
end if;
Another, easier solution for the fetching part is creating a view with all the feilds that you need.
The weak point is it that you later need to alter the "submit" code to insert to the tables that are the source for the view data