I'm using Postgres to store formulae and elements of formulae across two tables. Basically, you have something like:
Elements Table
symbol
content
pi
3.1.45
lune
42
Formula Table
symbol
content
area
pi*r^2
rugsize
area*lune
So, formulae can use elements but also other formulae in their content field. For this reason (and for general reduction of confusion) I would like to make symbol unique across both tables.
I can, of course, in the code that's doing the insertion, look up the entries before adding them and refuse to add a duplicate symbol. (I probably will do this, but I don't want the database reliant on that.) I could also require a tag within the formula table to specify when it's using another formula:
symbol
content
rugsize
f(area)*lune
I'm not crazy about that since it puts a burden on the user to remember that, or on the coder to secretly add and remove the "f()".
Everything I found on Stack and elsewhere went the other way: Forcing a column value to be present in another table, except for one suggestion that the unique items be kept in a separate table.
symbol
area
lune
pi
rugsize
And then...actually, I'm still not sure how that would work at the DB level.
So, is there a way to do this with constraints or foreign keys, or must I write a trigger for each table to look into the other table?
Addition: I've simplified here greatly but the elements table is much more complex than I'm showing and has little in common with the formulae table.
Edited to add the above addition and to try to fix the one-column "symbol" table which looks fine in the editing preview but does not format correctly on the actual page.
Related
I’m experiancing a problem when trying to link to tables in the database expert. The two fields that link the tables have exactly the same information except one table always has an additional space. For example;
Table 1 = Multivitamin/Tablets
Table 2 = Multivitamin//Tablets
‘/‘ are representing spaces
Formulas won’t help (e.g. extractstring etc) as it’s the tables themselves I need to link together
This is preventing me from retrieving the information I need. Any advice on how I can get around this?
There are some ways to come across this:
Consider using a command as datasource instead of tables. When writing the query of the command you can define the join condition yourself.
If you have access to the data source, you could add a calculated field to the tables to contain the normalized field values and then use these for linking in CR.
Alternatively, one could create views in the database, either adding normalized "linking fields" or providing the joined tables results.
If it's only a few rows in CR, you could consider using SQL fields or subreports to retrieve data from Table 2.
I'm operating in Word 2013 and 2010, so I can use code that works in either. I'm trying to create a word document to keep track of my recipes. At its most basic I want to have a TOC that updates based on headings. I also want it to have any category I want (eg: Appetizers, Drinks, Entrée, etc...) ordered alphabetically. Under each category I have tables. Each recipe gets a table that has it's name, directions, notes, tags, and potentially a picture. The second cell has another two column table inside of it that contains the quantity and name of each ingredient necessary for the recipe.
I have all of that so far and I'd like to automate adding new categories and recipes. Currently, I have to find the category, then scroll down to find where the name goes alphabetically and insert a quick table I made. I then fill in the info.
I'd like to be able to search the document for each category name, then insert the new category wherever it belongs, with a space before and after it. I found that my tables give me trouble if I don't have a space between everything. It tries to pull anything it's touching into the table and merge them.
I wanted to give the backstory, so you'd know where I was going to go eventually and could provide help that fits better with what I need. After I can add a new category, I plan to use vba to organize each table alphabetically by the name in the first cell of each table. It will also help when I start adding sorts to it. Eventually, I'd like to be able to sort it to say, only display recipes from a certain person, or display my frequently used recipes. I'd then have it either hide all the others or create a new doc with just these. So thanks for the help. Below I'll post the code I most recently tried. I tried a few other variations of this same code and keep getting an 'expected end of statement. I've gotten other errors when trying other variations of it, but this is the best I can come up with on my own.
Private Sub UserForm_Initialize()
For Each cat In ActiveDocument.Styles = "Heading 1"
lstCat.AddItem (cat)
Next
End Sub
I have a form called frmAddCategory I'm using as a test. I was going to have a listbox lstCat to show every category with the style heading 1. I have a textbox called txtAdd to type new ones and a cmdAdd button to add it to the form.
Edit: I've been playing around with my macro recorder after finding out about outline view mode. I set it to show only 'heading 1' level and selected the ones I wanted, not selecting the appendix or reference. Then I went to the home tab and sorted paragraph by ascending alphabetical order. I got some code I believe I can use to get it to run in VBA. However, it's not a complete fix as I don't want to select the last two with heading 1. It also works if I manually select the tables under each heading 1, but I can't set the spacing before and after. I'd like each heading and the tables under them to have a space or two between each for looks and editing purposes.
Also, if someone is going to give my question a negative rating, then please post a comment explaining. As far as I can tell from the faq about the forum and the other questions I've seen, it is a well posed question. A clear title, a good explanation of the problem, code examples, research. So if I am doing something wrong, please inform me, so that I can correct it.
first thanks for your bit about macro recorder and outline mode, I have been trying for long time to fill a list box with selection.text between two HeadingLevel(1) headings.
now to yours, sorry I can't think of way to do in word. BUT it would be real easy in Access. one table of categories like called tblCategories another for recipes tblRecipes. To make real easy, when the use autoID on ALL tables. But to avoid LOTS of headaches for tblRecipes rename its autoID to RecipesID same for other tables. in table of recipes you can use a memo field to hold large amount of data. the spot for text in Heading would be put in one field of the tblRecipes. once you have tables looking to have a field for each item you want to track. hit save, then use wizard to create a form based on table. repeat for all tables you want to have it real easy to put info into any table.
1.reportTOC based on query of Every Heading you want, can preview or print as want. reportByCategory and so on reports are sorted a to z unless you want to sort by Owner, then recipe all auto sorted a - z.
report wizard to get hard copy. if you want to sort real easy, built in. also if want to be able to pick all recipes for a holiday real easy, one table tblHolidays. one tblHolidayRecipes fields autoId (not used by you anywhere but needed), fldRecipesId (holds RecipesId) , fldHolidayId (holds HolidayId). the wizard will show how to get only what you want. in access 2013 you can include pix of food or.
What's the optimal way to store values for a select list in a web-app with Postgres?
If I use an enum, this has the benefit of acting as a constraint for whatever column is set to that type (only allowing possible values). I can also write rather normal queries to pull those values to populate the select... but this has the drawback of requiring the option text and value to be identical.
If I create a table to store these, I can have columns for both value and text, and perhaps even a third (comment/description, whatever). However, it means a full table for every set of values, of which I expect several dozen throughout the webapp. Not sure why this feels like a "heavier" solution than enums, but it does. (A "create enum" statement plus possible "alter enum" in the future vs. a "create table" plus many initial insert statements and maybe more in the future.)
Nor can I create a single table for all dropdown lists, because then I would need to do convoluted constraint logic in the various tables that related to that.
Is there a code pattern that is ideal for this problem that I'm unaware of?
The solution doesn't need to be portable to other database engines... I'm more than happy to use a postgres-only solution.
I have a drop down list of subjects. Two particular subjects are Mathematics and Additional Mathematics. When I choose Mathematics from the drop down list, records from Additional Mathematics and Mathematics are both displayed. Worse is that records from Additional Mathematics are shown first. Many colleagues made mistakes because of this.
How do I make the drop down list such that when clicked, the exact terms are used instead?
This is a problem that is not necessarily unique to FileMaker. You are searching for a name that is imprecise because it is a match for multiple names. Rather instead you might want to search for a unique key whose subject name is 'Mathematics' as displayed in your drop down. It is the use of that unique key that allows you to perform a precise search, even when the name of one subject is a partial or complete match for another.
This solution requires you to add a unique serial number which is, in your case, to alter the Subjects table and add a field called 'idnumber' or similar. The field type should be Number, and the options should include Auto-Enter-Serial number-Generate and On creation-increment by 1. The trick here lies in making sure no two subjects have the same 'idnumber' even when you aren't paying attention, so set the next value to something greater than the number of subjects that already exist. Then from another layout assign each existing subject a unique idnumber, noting that if there are a great many subjects you could script that step.
I should mention that many recommend a best practice of never changing a production layout, but rather to duplicate the layout and make the required changes to the duplicate. This minimizes the effects of testing your changes etc.
Finally, change your layout in inspector such that the drop down list shows Use values from field: 'idnumber'. Select Also display values from second field: 'Subject' and Show values only from second field. Now your drop down is the same clean selection as before. The field will not look correct yet because it will show a number. To make it look correct you can insert another field, selecting 'Subject'. Place that field over top of the 'idnumber' and send 'idnumber' to the back. Fill the 'Subject' field with the correct background solid color instead of none, and enjoy your new precision search capability! The entire process is handled server side so it should not matter that client access is IWP.
If you're using the selection to do a find, put an "==" before the text you're searching on. This will tell FileMaker to do an exact field contents search, instead of a "contains" search.
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.