I am evaluating JasperReports (CE) as a reporting solution for one of my clients.
As for now I like it very much and it looks like a pretty solid platform. One thing I cannot find info about, is the possibility of combining results of sub-queries made to different datasources in one report (not as drill-down sub-reports but as different columns of the same row).
As in example: there is some products info in one database (Firebird), but the sales info, actual stock and purchase prices are stored in a different system, which uses different database (SQL Server of Microsoft). In both databases products are represented with the same product unique code. So I need to query the first database to obtain the "master recordset" for fulfilling some report columns, and then query each product for additional info, which is stored in the second database, combining resulting data from both datasources in the same row as different columns of the same report.
Is it possible with JasperReports? If not, I'd appreciate your suggestions on other reporting solutions being able to fulfill my request.
Since your row data is from different DBs, you need to query the required tables in both Dbs, build a BeanDatasource from the resultsets and pass it on to jasper reports.
Related
We are building a dashboard with many reports. The relationship between tables is defined in microstrategy. We found that Microstrategy is not using different SQL for different reports. It is pulling all the data from Database(which is 46 million) and then applying post processing on those data to generate individual reports.
This is taking lot of time and it is not using the query engine of the database.
How can we configure microstrategy so that it generates different query for different reports and collect only the required data for a particular report and NOT all data.
One way to do that is to use fre form SQL. But we want to have the capability for drag and drop kind of reports.
How can we achieve this?
We are using Microstrategy 10.1
From your description it sounds like Microstrategy is first pulling all data (46 million records) from the DB using its SQL Engine and then applying filtering after this.
If your reports have been created in Microstrategy developer (or web) using attribute filters then each report should correctly execute sql that has explicit where conditions that translate to those attribute filters. e.g. if you have a report with an attribute titled 'Fruit' and you want to only display apples, then you would have an attribute filter on that report that only displays results where 'Fruit' = 'Apple'. This would translate to a where condition in the SQL engine when the report is executed. However, if you are applying a view filter to the report, then the SQL engine will first obtain everything and then filter the entire dataset in the analytical engine, which would be slow especially if there are multiple reports running on the dashboard.
It's important to know how you are bringing the dataset into the dashboard - is it using a cube as a dataset, or a report, or? There are a few ways of achieving the performance you are looking for, here are a couple:
Option 1: Develop each report in Microstrategy developer using attribute filters as desired. This would require that you have all your attribute relationships defined correctly.
Option 2: Have all your 46 million records pulled into a cube. Use the cube as the dataset for the dashboard and then use view filters however you want on the various reports you want to place on the report.
Option 1 + 2: You can combine both of the above options if you wish. Store entire dataset in cube, define several reports (normal reports, not cube reports) that can dynamically source from cube, using filters as required, and then add these reports into your dashboard.
These are the things I would do as first steps:
Check your attributes and attribute relationships are defined and work
Create a test report and try to filter based on one of these attributes
Try to create a few reports, each with different filter conditions based on one of the attributes
Put these reports into the dashboard and see whether each one generates different SQL statements.
This sounds like you have either:
built the reports using view filters (which apply filtering post query execution) rather than applying filter in the generated SQL, or
you don't have attribute relationships defined, such that the system doesn't think the filters you've defined aren't relevant to the fact tables containing the data.
Are you using cubes? I am assuming that what you mean by executing the query once.
You need to replace the the individual reports with new report- regular report- not the ones made out of cubes. Thats the only way
I have two data sources containing list of orders with the exact field structure (one is the archive, and another is the active database). I'm accessing them through OData connection in Tableau.
What I want is to combine these two data sources so the Tableau chart will display all order numbers and information (as opposed to just the active one, which I'm doing with a single data source).
The two tables don't overlap (since whatever is archived is by definition not active), so I cannot join or blend with the primary key Order No. (or any key for that matter).
How can I combine these data sources? Does the fact that the connection is OData make any difference?
For relational databases, the solution is to define custom SQL with two back to back select statements (1 for each table) separated by the SQL UNION ALL keywords
I don't know whether OData sources support UNION ALL
Create TDE file for Archive data and add this file to the current data extract using the option "Append data from file" from Data-->Extract;
I have a fairly simple question concerning a design with a view for how reports would look like when the program is complete. I use Java, with JasperReports for my reporting needs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but JasperReports does not make elements from different tables overlap to make sense, for example, in my case, I would like the the sales and receipt of an Item in a single report ordered by date (Sales and Receipts overlap). I have a sales table and a receipt table in the database.
The question is, should I redesign my database so that both sales and receipts are stored in the same table, or is there a way jasper reports can merge both tables and make reports overlap in a tabular form?
You can write an SQL query, from which the table in jasper-reports will take it's data.
In this SQL, you can write a join that will get you the data from both of the tables.
So you can leave the design of your tables as it is now.
We create several crystal reports based on SQL Server - usually 2005 or 2008. Broadly there are 2 kind of reports
a) tabular reports - which shows some data in a table (for example, invoice list)
b) document layouts - which shows data in specific format - usually from one or two main tables - and several secondary tables (for example, invoice)
We sometimes use tables directly in crystal. Or create a procedure in SQL and than use that procedure. One invoice could refer to usually around 10-12 tables. Most of these linked using left outer join to the primary invoice table.
What option is better - using tables in crystal (and let crystal create and run the sql query) - or create a query - and than use that query in crystal. Which one will give better performance?
There will be no difference in performance between a query generated by the 'Database Expert' versus the same SQL added to a Command. One caveat: ensure that the record-selection formula can be parsed and sent to the database (a filter applied WhileReadingRecords will definitely be less efficient that a pure-SQL one).
Reasons to prefer the 'Database Expert':
prior to v 2008, Command objects didn't support a multivalued parameter
easier to manage (somewhat subjective)
Reasons to prefer a Command:
you can add hints
you have more finely-grained control over the SQL (e.g. in-line views, CTEs, more-complex JOINs, subselects)
Personally, I try to avoid stored procedures as they offer minimal performance benefits, but require a more-signification investment in development and maintenance.
In the end, there is no substitute for performance. Try you query both ways and measure the results.
Coding it yourself will almost invariably run faster -- after all, you know what your data looks like, and Crystal doesn't. Also, there are things you can do in manual queries (windowing functions, for example) that Crystal can't.
Crystal had tendency to do some crazy stuff behind the scenes. You can view the "Show SQL Query" under the Database menu options to see what it creates. If find it easier to write the query in SQL as I can optimize it myself much easier. I also prefer to do any calculated/formula fields in SQL to and just use Crystal as a display interface. If you do put logic in crystal remember that it is running that logic for every record returned... so if there are conditions that exclude a record from a formula put that first to limit the time spent in the calculation.
I'm really at a loss as to how to procede.
I have a very large database, and the table I'm accessing has approx. 600,000 records. This database is accessed using an accounting application, which provides the report with the SQL query by which this report accesses the database.
My report has a linked subreport which has restrictions that are placed in the report header. When this report is run, the average time to refresh, using a very base query is 36 minutes. When adding two more items to the query, the report takes 2.5 hours.
Here is what I've tried:
cleaned up the report only leaving items in absolutely necessary - no difference
removed most formulas (removing the remaining formulas makes no time difference)
tried editing the SQL query - wasn't allowed because of the accounting application
tried flipping subreport and main report - didn't work
added other groupings - no difference
removed groupings - no difference
checked all the servers for lack of temp disc space - no issue
tried "on demand" subreport - no change
checked Parameters (discrete vs. range) and it is as it should be
tried bursting indexes, grouping on server, etc. - no difference
the report requires 2 passes. I've tried getting it down to one pass unsuccessfully.
There must be something I'm missing.
There does not appear to be any other modifications to the report using regular crystal functions. Is there any way to speed up the accessing of the data without having to go through all 600,000 records? The SQL query that accesses this data is long and has many requests. It is not something I can change.
Can I add something (formula?) that nullifies these requests? I'm reaching now...
Couple of things we have had success with is adding indexes to the databases, and instead of importing tables into the report, we instead wrote a stored procedure to retrieve the desired results.
If indices and stored procedures dont get you where you need to be you have reached the denormalise until it works part of life with a database. You might want to look at creating an MI database with tables optimized for your reporting needs; and some data transformation scripts that can extract the data from production to your MI database. Depending on what it is oracle / ms have tools to help you do this.
We use Crystal Reports with a billing system, and we had queries in the database that take over 1.5 hours to complete. This doesn't even take into account the rendering/formatting of the reports.
We created Materialized Views and force the client to refresh them daily. A materialized view is basically a database view that holds the returned dataset. The dataset is not refreshed unless you explicitly tell it to refresh.
Do you know what the SQL query is? If so, you can move the report outside the accounting application and paste the query directly into the Command in the database expert. I've had to do this in a couple of cases with another application I work with.