As far as I can tell, the search filter in the navigator will only search available database names, not table names.
If you click on a table name and start typing, it appears that a simple search can be performed beginning with the first letter of the tables.
I'm looking for way to be able to search all table names in a selected database. Sometimes there can be a lot of tables to sort through. It seems like a feature that would likely be there and I can't find it.
Found out the answer...
If you type for example *.test_table or the schema name instead of the asterisk it will filter them. The key is that the schema/database must be specified in the search query. The asterisk notation works with the table names as well. For example *.*test* will filter any table in any schema with test anywhere in the table name.
You can use the command
SHOW TABLES like '%%';
To have it always in your tools, you can add it as a snippet to SQL aditions panel on the right.
Then you can always either bring it in your editor and type your search key between %%, or just execute it as it is (It will fetch all the tables of the database) and then just filter using the "filter rows" input of the result set.
Related
So is there a way to filter what Grafana shows in a TABLE type of metric?
My issue is that the table returns values which are really really long like a FQDN but for an Azure resource.
It is absolutely unreadable, so I actually want to parse the output with regex or something, to show me only the specific part. At least a line break would suffice.
The row field in the table is something like
azure:///subscriptions/xxxxxxxxxx-4a5b-81ee-04ea1368a7db/resourceGroups/mc_wintermute_wintermute_eastus/providers/Microsoft.Compute/virtualMachineScaleSets/axxxxxxxxvmss/virtualMachines/13
I only need the
subscriptions/xxxxxxxxxx-4a5b-81ee-04ea1368a7db/
It is easier to view it than explain, a
screenshot
Apparently, there is a VALUE MAPPING section in the table parameters, which accepts regular expressions.
I have data in excel, like below:
and, i have microsoft Word document, like below:
How to mail merge in microsoft word, one to Many row?
I want result like below in microsoft Word:
Thank You Very Much
This can be done, but it's a bit complex. There are a number of possible approaches, outlined at my website.
Since you show the desired result as a table, using a Database field is probably the optimal way to go about it. Insert Database is an old command that's no longer exposed in the Word UI by default. You'll find it in File/Options/Customize Ribbon or Quick Access Toolbar, under All Commands.
The command inserts a field with the name Database, via a set of dialog boxes:
Get Data is the same as what you see in mail merge when selecting the data source. This uses any valid connection method (these days, ODBC or OLE DB - the latter is the default) to bind to the data source. Select the data source containing the "many" information. (Note: the "one" side should be only the unique "one" information; the "many" side should be in a separate data source containing the unique identifier from the "one" side for each item on the "many" side.)
Query options is for setting Query Options (filter/sort what comes in). On the left side of the "equation" you need to select the field that is the identifier in the data source for the one side of one-to-many. On the right side, enter a value you know is in the data so that there's a match.
Table AutoFormat can be used to select a built-in (or user-defined) Table Style.
Insert Data - This is important: activate the checkbox Insert Data as field. This is what will dynamically link the data to the data source and provide a link to the merge information.
OK to insert the data / field.
Press Alt+F9 to view the underlying field codes.
Locate the query information (Select...) near the end of the field code. Change the right side of the Where clause to match the mergefield that provides the "one" side of one-to-many. For example: WHERE ((ID= 1)) would become WHERE ((ID= { Mergefield ID }))
If you don't want to see some of the fields (columns), such as an ID column (the "one" side of one-to-many), edit the list of fields at the beginning of the Select statement.
The result will look something like the following
I'm creating a compliance mailing for my organization, the mailing will include merge fields that identify the office location, physician, and SiteId. The mailing will also include a table of information that is dependent upon the particular SiteId.
I'd like to use the import table function of MS word and set up a query that references a merged field (SiteId) so that the inserted tables populate the appropriate data for the particular site. I'm unable to do this.
How can I set up this document so that I can import only records from my source (an ms access query) that match the SiteId merge field?
Word's mail merge does not support one-to-many relationships. There are ways to coerce it, but only one of them can yield a table as a result and over the years it has become less and less reliable as Microsoft has not regarded it as important enough to maintain...
What you need to do is set up a query that provides ONLY the information you want displayed in the table, plus the key (SiteId). It's best to sort it so that all the SiteId entries list together, and are in the order the data will come through in the mail merge data source.
On the Insert tab go to Text/Quick Parts/Insert Field and select the Database field from the list in the dialog box. Click "Insert Database" and follow the instructions in the dialog box to link in the data. Be sure to set the Query Options to filter on the first SiteId from the data source. When you "Insert Data" make sure to choose the option to "Insert as a field".
This inserts a DATABASE field in the document which you can see by toggling field codes (Alt+F9). The field code can be edited and what you need to do is substitute the literal SiteId value you entered for the query with its corresponding MergeField.
When you execute the merge to a new document that should generate a table for each data record corresponding to the SiteId for the record. But, as I said, Microsoft hasn't done a great job of maintaining this, so it may require quite a bit of tweaking and experimenting.
If the results are not satisfactory then you should give up the idea of mail merge and use automation code to generate and populate the documents.
You can find more (albeit somewhat out-dated) information on this topic at http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister/mergfaq1.htm
I have a Crystal Report with a database command:
The command has a join clause that can be removed and read from a table in the database, because it represents static data. I add this table (called _System) to the database expert:
Now I edit the command to remove the join and columns that reference this table. Since the report fields that depended on these columns are no longer mapped, this causes the Map Fields window to appear:
...which does not have the new table in it. If I cancel out of this I am back to where I originally was. If I hit OK without mapping, all of the unmapped fields on the report are deleted (suffice it to say... I was not expecting this >:( )
I have tried adding links between the command and the new table, and refreshing report parameters, but these have had no effect.
One workaround is to manually replace every field in the report, but this is very labour intensive.
Here is the outline of the command before:
SELECT ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
STM.CompanyName AS 'DLRName', STM.Address_1 AS 'DLRAddress', STM.City AS 'DlrCity' --etc
FROM Accounts AS ACT
JOIN _System AS STM ON 1 = 1
GROUP BY ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
STM.CompanyName, STM.Address_1, STM.City --etc
And after:
SELECT ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
FROM Accounts AS ACT
GROUP BY ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName --etc
I have removed the JOIN on the _System table, and all referenced columns.
It appears to not be recognizing your _system table as a new source.
I would :
1) leave your command object SQL unchanged & get the issue worked out with the _System table, then
2) ensure that you are able to establish a join between the command object fields and the _System table fields, and lastly
3) then remap the fields.
Step two I suspect is the source of the problem, as your join condition is "ON 1 = 1" which I assume to mean that you may not have a common key field in both tables.
Note that your original command SQL selects STM.Companyname AS 'DLRName'.
Hence, crystal now know of a field called DLRName, but does not know of a field called CompanyName, hence it cannot make the association between DLRName in the old source, and CompanyName in the new source...
Likewise with the rest of the fields that are being moved from the command object to an attached table. if no name match exists...Crystal cant make the connection. However...it would list all unmatched fields that are on the report, and all unused fields in the recognized data sources, and allow you to specify the matches yourself.
But it does not...which tells me that something has gone wrong with the attempt to attach/open the _System table. Hence..you need to get that worked out first, then make the field adjustments.
If this doesnt get you thru...then show some sample data so I can see how the two tables are relating ( ensure some examples exists where there is a row match from both tables ).
I had the same problem a while ago.
Unfortunately I can't find anything online that helps, or maybe wasn't looking hard enough. I just noticed that in my case, that particular field that isn't showing in the map field dialogue box has nvarchar(max) as its datatype (in view).
I tried to force the datatype with CAST(missingfieldname as nvarchar(20)) as missingfieldname (I did this in the view), and voila, it magically appears in the map field dialogue box.
It seems that field mapping dialogue box aren't showing fields with blob texts.
I know this question was asked 4 years ago. But hopefully, this comment could help future solution seekers regarding this absurd and weird problem. I just got lucky seeing what's unique about that particular missing field.
I have a database of restaurants which I do a full-text search on. The code looks something like this:
SELECT * FROM restaurant WHERE restaurant.search_vector ## plainto_tsquery(:terms);
And search_vector is defined like this:
alter table restaurant add column search_vector tsvector;
create index restaurant_search_index on restaurant using gin(search_vector);
create trigger restaurant_search_update before update or insert on restaurant
for each row execute procedure
tsvector_update_trigger('search_vector',
'pg_catalog.english','title');
Now, a notable problem with this search is the word barbecue. It can be spelled many different ways: barbecue, barbeque, BBQ, B.B.Q., B-B-Q, etc. When somebody searches any of these, I need to search restaurants for all of these terms.
From what I've read online, it seems I need to modify the dictionary (That would be pg_catalog.english, right?), but I'm not sure how to go about this.
Sounds like what you want to do is add a synonym dictionary in front of your english one. This will only work on single words though, so you might have problems with B.B.Q. if it gets parsed as three separate tokens.
Synonym dictionaries in postgresql.org docs
When I drumbled over a similiar problem I came across the option for Query Rewrites, see http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/textsearch-features.html forexample, section 12.4.2.1
This is an easier approach then tackling the dictionary as it allows instantly extending your rewrite rules by just inserting new rules in your rewrite table.