I'm working on a personal project using PostgreSQL and I'm stuck trying to figure out what the best way to approach this problem:
So in my project there's two tables: USERS and MATCHES. Inside MATCHES there's match results, one row for each, with the columns being ID, player1, player2, player1result, player2result, and winner. While in the USERS table there's ID, name, MatchesWon, MatchesTied, MatchesLost, GoalsScored, GoalsAgainst, and GoalDifference. What I would like to do is take these match results, analyze them and send them to the USERS table.
So for example, if in 5 matches, the winner was "Tom", the column MatchesWon for "Tom" should be 5. Now I can do this using a view, and I have, but there's a couple of things that I do not yet understand.
Can I use a view as a value? For example, create a table and determine that the MatchesWon value will use a view that counts all matches where winner equals that row's "name" value?
If 1 is possible or impossible, either way: is there a better way to do this?
Thank you for your help!
Related
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.
Is it possible, in SQL Server 2008, using the full text index syntax, to run a query such as this one?
SELECT *
FROM TABLE_TO_SEARCH S,
TABLE_WITH_STRINGS_TO_SEARCH SS
WHERE
CONTAINS(S.WHOLE_NAME,SS.FIRST_NAME)
OR CONTAINS(S.WHOLE_NAME,SS.LAST_NAME)
I need to search for the FIRST_NAME in table TABLE_TO_SEARCH, column WHOLE_NAME that has an full text index on it. It doesn't seem to be a valid query though... Is there any workaround to it by using the full text index search?
LATER EDIT:
Here is the business case: each night I am downloading from several websites information about "blacklisted" individuals and insert it into a table in this format: WholeName, LastName, FirstName, MiddleName. But the data is chaotic as WholeName does not necessarily contain either the last, first or middle name or the WholeName is null while the other 3 fields have values, or every of these 4 fields is null and so on. Also, the data may repeat itself as one blacklisted individual may come from 2+ of these websites. What I need to do is to compare this data, as chaotic as it is, against our customer data based on our customer's First and Last name and give it a matching score (rank) against the files we download from these websites.
First I tried with charindex or like operators but I couldn't create a scoring algorithm based on this and also it took 6 hours to compare just our customer's first and last name with only the WholeName column from the TABLE_TO_SEARCH table. I thought that perhaps implementing the full_text index it would get easier and faster but ... apparently I was wrong.
Has anyone dealt with a task like this? And if so, what was the best approach?
After skimming http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187787.aspx and http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142571.aspx I don't think it is possible to do your search in this way. Not only that, but it seems this type of index wouldn't work well with names anyway.
If you care about checking one name then all you have to do is set those values to variables. This method would allow you to use the full-text index.
Otherwise, I would suggest splitting the WHOLE_NAME column (if there is a space or unique character between the first and last name) and comparing each part to those other columns. If you are working with a huge data set, you may want to experiment with doing this at a temp table level and creating an index.
Good luck!
I am relatively new to Filemaker programming, but I have come across what I thought was a bug, which I have been tearing my hair out trying to squash, only to find it is more a "feature" than a bug. I have a field set as the key for lookups in a ms sql database which I have created a relationship with. I have it set as a drop down, and it is showing 2 fields (last name and first name). Unfortunately, it only shows 1 person per last name in the sorted list (example, there are 5 people with the last name "Bennett" but only 1 shows). After driving myself nuts trying to find the error, I found the following in the filemaker troubleshooting section:
"
If the value list is defined to display information from two fields, items will not be duplicated for the field on which the value list is sorted. For example, if the value list displays information from the Company field and the Name field, and if the values are sorted by the Company field, only one person from each company will appear in the value list."
As I read it, I can't do what I need to do with a value list (display EVERY last name from the sql file) so what other options do I have? I have experimented with creating a portal which DOES show a list of ALL the last names and first names, but I don't know/understand enough to know what logic/functionality I need so if I click one of the people in the portal list it will do the same thing as if I clicked it in a dropdown value list, which is to then do the lookups and populate the rest of the fields in this database from the information in the record in the sql database. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated, and I appreciate any help any of you can offer. Thank you!
There might be some things that cause this;
You cannot create a link based on a calculation that needs to be calculated each time (Filemaker does not know what to do with this, logical in a way)
Based on what you do I would personally link the two tables based on an lets say company ID instead of a name, as a one to many join. This will definitely eliminate the 'feature' filemaker has of showing unique names only in the joined table. On database level I would join on ID, on Value list I would select the ID as first field and the (calculated) name as second field, than showing only the second field (option in the value list definition popup) for your selection list.
Hope this helps.
I'm not sure if this can be achieved in Google Refine at all. But basically, I have data like this.
The first table is the table of all the users. The second table show all the friends. However, in the second table in "friends" column not all the id exists in the first table which I want to get rid of. So, how can I search each id in friends column in the second table and get rid of the id that doesn't exists in the table 1?
Put the two tables in different projects (we'll call them Table1 and Table2).
In Table2 on on the friends column:
use "split multi-valued cells" to get each value on a separate row
convert the visitors column to numbers (or conversely user_id in Table1 to string)
use "add a new column based on this column" with the expression cross(cell,'Table1','user_id').length()
This will return 0 if there's no match, 1 if there's a match or N>1 if there are duplicates in Table1
If you want the data back in the original format, set up a facet to filter on the validity column, blank out all the bad values and then use "join multi-valued cells" to reverse the split operation you did up front.
I fixed some caching bugs with cross() for OpenRefine 2.6, so if the cross doesn't work, try stopping and restarting the Refine server.
I have a table like this:
Application,Program,UsedObject
It can have data like this:
A,P1,ZZ
A,P1,BB
A,P2,CC
B,F1,KK
I'd like to create a layout to show:
Application,# of Programs
A,2
B,1
The point is to count the distinct programs.
For the life of me I can't make this work in FileMaker. I've created a summary field to count programs resetting after each group, but because it doesn't eliminate the duplicate programs I get:
A,3
B,1
Any help much appreciated.
Create a a summary field as:
cntApplicaiton = Count of Application
Do this by going into define fields, create a field called cntApplication, type summary. In the options dialogue make the summary field a count on application
Now create a new layout with a subsummary part and nobody. The subsummary should be sorted on Application. Put the Application and cntApplication fields in subsummary. If you enter browse mode and sort by Application you ought to get the data you want.
You can also create a calc field with the formula
GetSummary(cntApplication; Application)
This will allow you to use the total number of Applications with in a record
Since I also generate the data in this form, the solution I've adopted is to fill two tables in FileMaker. One provides the summary view, the other the detailed view.
I think that your problem is down to dupliate records and an inadequate key.
Create a text field called "App_Prog". In the options box set it to an auto-enter calc, unchecking the 'Do not replace...' option, and use the following calc:
Application & "_" & Program
Now create a self join to the table using App_Prog as the field on both sides, and call this 'MatchingApps'.
Now, create (if you don't alread have one) a unique serial number field, 'Counter' say, and make sure that you enter a value in each record. (Find all, click in the field, and use serial number option in'Replace Field Contents...')
Now add a new calc field - Is_Duplicate with the following calc...
If (Counter = MatchingApps::Counter; "Master Record" ; "Duplicate")
Finally, find all, click in the 'Application field, and use 'Replace Field Contents...' with a calculation to force the auto-enter calc for 'App_Prog' to come up with a value.
Where does this get you? You should now have a set of records that are marker either "Master Record" or "Duplicate". Do a find on "Master Record", and then you can perform your summary (by Application) to do a count of distinct application-program pairs.
If you have access to custom functions (you need FileMaker Pro Advanced), I'd do it like this:
Add the RemoveDuplicates function as found here (this is a recursive function that takes a list of strings and returns a list of unique values).
In the relationships graph, add another occurrence of your table and add an Application = Application relationship.
Create a calculated field in the table with the calculation looking something like this:
ValueCount(RemoveDuplicates(List(TABLE2::Program)))
You'll find that each record will contain the number of distinct programs for the given application. Showing a summary for each application should be relatively trivial from here.
I think the best way to do this is to create a separate applications table. So as you've given the data, it would have two records, one for A and one for B.
So, with the addition of an Applications table and your existing table, which I'll call Objects, create a relationship from Applications to Objects (with a table occurrence called ObjectsParent) based on the ApplicationName as the match field. Create a self join relationship between Objects and itself with both Application and Program as the match fields. I'll call one of the "table occurrences" ObjectsParent and the other ObjectsChildren. Make sure that there's a primary key field in Objects that is set to auto-enter a serial number or some other method to ensure uniqueness. I'll call this ID.
So your relationship graph has three table occurrences:
Applications::Applicaiton = ObjectsParent::Application
ObjectsParent::Application = ObjectsChildren::Application, ObjectsParent::Program = ObjectsChildren::Program
Now create a calculation field in Objects, and calculating from the context of ObjectsParent, give it the following formula:
AppCount = Count( ObjectsChildren::ID )
Create a calculation field in Applications and calculating from the context of the table occurrence you used to relate it to ObjectsParent with the following formula:
AppCount = ObjectsParent::AppCount
The count field in Objects will have the same value for every object with the same application, so it doesn't matter which one you get this data from.
If you now view the data in Applications in list view, you can place the Applications::Application and Applications::AppCount fields on the layout and you should get what you've requested.