Which of these do you think are the best names for date fields?
createdOn/updatedOn
createdDate/updatedDate
creationDate/updatationDate
Other options? Thank you!
I realized some go better with "_On", like "createdOn" and "updatedOn", while others go better with "_Date", like "startDate", "endDate", "dueDate", etc.
That depends on the sort of date field, where you use the field for. I usually use creationDate or createdOn.
It really depends on the platform, language, environment, etc.
You might just use Created or Updated. After all, you probably wouldn't qualify other field names like NameString or LengthInteger.
One convention I do use sometimes is to qualify date fields for what their values represent. For example, some database types like datetime in MS SQL Server don't track what type of date you are working with. Since many people store UTC values in these fields, you might call the field CreatedUTC to give the developer some clue about what type of value is in there.
Related
Which one of the following is preferably used when creating an attribute containing data on when something was established:
"String"
"Text"
"Date"
"Date/Time"
?
Researching, I found that both "String" and "Date" should be able to create "(YYYY-MM-DD)" equally well.
I also found earlier posts here on SO with titles like this one: How to convert date(string type) into date(date time ) in oracle
Obviously there's a point I've missed here. Surely there's a benefit for using one over the other.
(I'm working in MDriven)
Many thanks.
DateTime should be correct. You may also achieve this in MDriven by using a superclass that by inheritance gives all your objects a set of attributes for creation and change. This will give you "automatic" support, if you want the user to enter, then use an attribute with type "DateTime"
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.
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 receiving a syntax error in a form that I have created over a query. I created the form to restrict access to changing records. While trying to set filters on the form, I receive syntax errors for all attributes I try to filter on. I believe this has something to do with the lack of () around the inner join within the query code, but what is odd to me is that I can filter the query with no problem. Below is the query code:
SELECT CUSTOMER.[Product Number], SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Number],
SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Name], SALESPERSON.[Email Address]
FROM SALESPERSON INNER JOIN CUSTOMER ON
SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Number] = CUSTOMER.[Salesperson Number];
Any ideas why only the form would generate the syntax error, or how to fix this?
I was able to quickly fix it by going into Design View of the Form and putting [] around any field names that had spaces. I am now able to use the built in filters without the annoying popup about syntax problems.
I had this same problem.
As Dedren says, the problem is not the query, but the form object's control source. Put [] around each objects Control Source. eg: Contol Source: [Product number], Control Source: Salesperson.[Salesperson number], etc.
Makita recomends going to the original table that you are referencing in your query and rename the field so that there are no spaces eg: SalesPersonNumber, ProductNumber, etc. This will solve many future problems as well. Best of Luck!
Try making the field names legal by removing spaces. It's a long shot but it has actually helped me before.
No, no, no.
These answers are all wrong. There is a fundamental absence of knowledge in your brain that I'm going to remedy right now.
Your major issue here is your naming scheme. It's verbose, contains undesirable characters, and is horribly inconsistent.
First: A table that is called Salesperson does not need to have each field in the table called Salesperson.Salesperson number, Salesperson.Salesperson email. You're already in the table Salesperson. Everything in this table relates to Salesperson. You don't have to keep saying it.
Instead use ID, Email. Don't use Number because that's probably a reserved word. Do you really endeavour to type [] around every field name for the lifespan of your database?
Primary keys on a table called Student can either be ID or StudentID but be consistent. Foreign keys should only be named by the table it points to followed by ID. For example: Student.ID and Appointment.StudentID. ID is always capitalized. I don't care if your IDE tells you not to because everywhere but your IDE will be ID. Even Access likes ID.
Second: Name all your fields without spaces or special characters and keep them as short as possible and if they conflict with a reserved word, find another word.
Instead of: phone number use PhoneNumber or even better, simply, Phone. If you choose what time user made the withdrawal, you're going to have to type that in every single time.
Third: And this one is the most important one: Always be consistent in whatever naming scheme you choose. You should be able to say, "I need the postal code from that table; its name is going to be PostalCode." You should know that without even having to look it up because you were consistent in your naming convention.
Recap: Terse, not verbose. Keep names short with no spaces, don't repeat the table name, don't use reserved words, and capitalize each word. Above all, be consistent.
I hope you take my advice. This is the right way to do it. My answer is the right one. You should be extremely pedantic with your naming scheme to the point of absolute obsession for the rest of your lives on this planet.
NOTE:You actually have to change the field name in the design view of the table and in the query.
Put [] around any field names that had spaces (as Dreden says) and save your query, close it and reopen it.
Using Access 2016, I still had the error message on new queries after I added [] around any field names... until the Query was saved.
Once the Query is saved (and visible in the Objects' List), closed and reopened, the error message disappears. This seems to be a bug from Access.
I did quickly fix it by going into "Design View" of the main Table of same Form and putting underline (_) between any field names that had spaces. I am now able to use the built in filters without the annoying popup about syntax problems.
Extra ( ) brackets may create problems in else if flow. This also creates Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression.
I had this on a form where the Recordsource is dynamic.
The Sql was fine, answer is to trap the error!
Private Sub Form_Error(DataErr As Integer, Response As Integer)
' Debug.Print DataErr
If DataErr = 3075 Then
Response = acDataErrContinue
End If
End Sub
We are saving more than one entity type in one unit of work. There are many DateTime fields in each entity-type. Sometimes, an SqlDateTime overflow exception occurs because a DateTime field is not initialized.
To find the field/property that causes the problem is an annoying task. Does anybody know a debugging technique to find out which field is causing the problem? To check every field is cumbersome.
Thanks a lot for hints.
If you're using the DateTime? nullable type then you can use the property hasValue to check if it is null. If you're using DateTime then I believe it defaults to the min value which is DateTime.MinValue and can be easily checked. The MinValue is something insane like the year Jan 1st 0001, so it makes sense that SQL wouldn't like that
If you're taking something out of the db, then a standard null check works fine.