I have a table on which I'm using Group by Group Sets and it is returning one row of data that I do not understand. I was hope you all could help me make sense of it:
The first row that is returned contains Null for both Balance and WarehouseNo, but I know that the Total Value corresponds to WarehouseNo WW-COI with Balance as Null (see second image proving this).
Why does it appear as null when using Group By Grouping Sets?
I think you have a couple different confusions going on here.
Grouping sets are usually used for getting rid of Union All where you need different groupings on the same table.
In your case, you are keeping your Union All because it is on two different tables.
So, from what it seems, you probably just want to use a normal Group By to keep your groupings linked together. It's not clear to me why you'd need grouping sets here.
Now... to answer your question:
Since you are using grouping sets on this unioned dataset, it is going to do a different grouping for the two sets you provided.
Concurrently, it is going to do a grouping on just WarehouseNo and separately at the same time it is going to do a different grouping of just Balance.
Not seeing your original data, this is probably the reason you are getting Nulls in places you didn't expect.
If you want the two columns to be linked, you would need to include them both in the same set. as in:
Group By Grouping Sets ((WarehouseNo, Balance), (another grouping you may want))
The "other grouping" could well be just (WarehouseNo) or (Balance) or even no grouping (). But only you can decide why that information might be important to you.
So, from the looks of it, you probably just want to use a normal Group By here. But quite possibly I'm missing something that I don't understand about your data and what you are trying to achieve with it.
Hope that helps. :)
Related
I would like to get specific neuron models and even though I believe I understand the RMA query system, I can not find a list of the valid keywords/arguments/criteria/parameters that would correspond to what I am looking for.
For example 'homo sapiens' as donor species is valid, and makes sense.
But if 'm__biophys_perisomatic' returns all cells with perisomatic biophysical models, what about 'all active' ones (just an example, I would be interested in many other categories)?
I assume it is obvious but I will not stumble upon it until I have posted this question.
Thanks for your question. You can see what fields and associations are available for a table using the describe route. For example:
http://api.brain-map.org/api/v2/data/NeuronalModel/describe.xml
From your question, I believe you're looking at this table:
http://api.brain-map.org/api/v2/data/ApiCellTypesSpecimenDetail/describe.xml
You can use m__biophys_all_active to see if a cell in that table has an all-active model.
FYI: The ApiCellTypesSpecimenDetail table is a denormalized table, which means it combines a complex set of relationships among tables into a single flat table.
You could similarly use the following, more generic query to find the all-active models.
http://api.brain-map.org/api/v2/data/query.xml?criteria=model::NeuronalModel,rma::criteria,neuronal_model_template[name$eq'Biophysical - all active']&num_rows=150
My crystal report pulls data about books, including an identifier (isbn, issn order number etc.), author, and publisher.
The ID field stores multiple ways to identify the book. The report displays any of the identifiers for that record. If one book has two identifiers; issn and order number, the report currently displays one apparently at random.
How can I make it prioritise which type to use based on a preset order? I figured some sort of filter on the field could work, but I haven't figured out how. I can't edit the table, but I can use SQL within the report.
If all the different types of ID are stored in a single field, your best bet is to use a SQL Command inside your report to separate them into multiple virtual fields.
Go to Database Fields / Database Expert, expand the connection you want to use, and pick Add Command. From here you can write a custom SQL statement to grab the information you're currently using, and at the same time separate the ID field into multiple different fields (as far as the report will be concerned, anyway. The table will stay unchanged.)
The trick is to figure out how to write your command to do the separation. We don't know what your data looks like, so you're on your own from here.
Based on the very little information that you have provided and if i was to make a guess.I suggest you make use of the formula field in your report and then use something like this to accomplish your goal.
IF ISNULL{first_priority_field_name} OR {first_priority_field_name} = '' THEN
{second_priority_field_name}
ELSE
{first_priority_field_name}
Use nested IF statement in case there are more than 2 identifier fields.
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 am implementing a GWT CellTable with paging and sorting by multiple columns dynamically.
The basics can be found in the CellTable Developer's Guide.
However, the dynamic example does not tell how to find out by which column the user wants to sort (it simply sorts by the 'name' column). That's not enough in my case, as I want to allow the user to sort by different columns.
The only solution I could think of, which is not very elegant, is to keep track of which column is sorted in ascending order or not (using table.getColumnSortList(indexOfColumn).isAscending()) and then figuring out which one has been clicked by comparing the values for each column (the one that changed is probably what the user clicked).
This involves keeping information in my classes that should be available somewhere in the CellTable! But I can't find that information!
Thanks for any help.
I found the answer. As explained in the javadocs for com.google.gwt.user.cellview.client.ColumnSortList:
An ordered list containing the sort history of Columns in a table. The 0th item is the ColumnSortInfo of the most recently sorted column.
So, to know which column was last sorted by, you simply do:
ColumnSortInfo info = table.getColumnSortList().get(0);
Column<Type> sortByColumn = info.getColumn();
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.