I've tried to do this in a million different ways. At first I couldn't get it to work at all, but now I've managed to get it to work if I put in values.
What I need to happen is for my query to filter my records based on what I put into my form.
I've used this code in the 'Criteria' section of my MovieYear column, and when I put in numbers into my MovieYear1 and MovieYear2 text boxes in my form, it filters correctly.
Between [Forms]![SearchForm]![MovieYear1] And [Forms]![SearchForm]![MovieYear2]
But if I don't put in any values, it doesn't come up with any records at all. Any help?
I've tried pretty much everything (well, at least I think I have). I've tried using wildcards "*" but then I found out you can't actually use them with Between functions...
I've also trying doing Me.Filter in VBA, but it didn't seem to work. Maybe I just missed something?
This is my form.
Thanks in advance! :)
You can add a check for a Null in the form to the query, for example
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE Between [Forms]![SearchForm]![MovieYear1]
And [Forms]![SearchForm]![MovieYear2]
OR [Forms]![SearchForm]![MovieYear1] Is Null
This will return all records if the first year is null. The second year will be ignored.
You could use a conditional query builder where after checking the value of the boxes you could build the query as per the following cases :
if only MovieYear1 is given then data from all years after MovieYear1 that is date>MovieYear1.
if only MovieYear2 is given then data from all years after MovieYear2 that is date<MovieYear2.
if both are given then use the between clause to get the data.
This can be implemented using CASE WHEN along the lines of following
CASE WHEN MovieYear2 IS NULL then date>MovieYear1
else when MovieYear1 IS NULL then date<MovieYear2
else date between MovieYear1 and MovieYear2
Related
I can copy the contents of one column to another using the sql UPDATE easily. But I need to do it without deleting the content already there, so in essence I want to append a column to another without overwriting the other's original content.
I have a column called notes then for some unknown reason after several months I added another column called product_notes and after 2 days realised that I have two sets of notes I urgently need to merge.
Usually when making a note we just add to any note already there with a form. I need to put these two columns like that, keeping any note in the first column eg
Column notes = Out of stock Pete 040618--- ordered 200 units Jade
050618 --- 200 units received Lila 080618
and
Column product_notes = 5 units left Dave 120618 --- unit 10724 unacceptable quality noted in list Dave 130618
I need to put them together with our spacer of --- without losing the first column's content so the result needs to be like this for my test case:
Column notes = Out of stock Pete 040618--- ordered 200 units Jade
050618 --- 200 units received Lila 080618 --- 5 units left Dave 120618 --- unit 10724 unacceptable quality noted in list Dave 130618
It's simple -
update table1 set notes = notes || '---' || product_notes;
The solution provided by #MaheshHViraktamath is fine, but the problem with simple string concatenation is that if any of the items being concatenated are NULL, the whole result becomes NULL.
Another potential issue is if either field is empty. In that case you might get a result of field a--- or ---field b.
To guard against the first scenario (without putting checks in the WHERE clause) you can use CONCAT_WS like so: CONCAT_WS('---', notes, product_notes). This will combine the two (or however many you put in there) fields with the first parameter, i.e. '---'. If either of those two fields are NULL, the separator won't be used, so you won't get a result with the separator prepended or appended.
There are two issues with the above: if both fields are NULL, the result isn't NULL but an empty string. To handle this case just put it in a NULLIF: NULLIF(CONCAT_WS('---', notes, product_notes), '') so that NULL is returned if both fields are NULL.
The other issue is if either field is empty, the separator will still be used. To guard against this scenario (and only you will know whether it's a scenario worth guarding against, or if this is even desired, based on your data), put each field in a NULLIF as well: NULLIF(CONCAT_WS('---', NULLIF(notes, ''), NULLIF(product_notes, '')), '')
As a result you get: UPDATE your_table SET notes = NULLIF(CONCAT_WS('---', NULLIF(notes, ''), NULLIF(product_notes, '')), '');
I am new to SQL and POSTGRES and had a quick question. Right now I have 2 different tables one with car info and one with partial car info and I would like to sort on car.vin OR partial_car.vin depending if either exists and sending all nulls/empty strings to the end of the sort. Currently my ORDER BY statement looks like:
ORDER BY nullif(coalesce(car.vin, partial_car.partial_vin), '') asc nulls last limit 50 offset 0
My expectation for this is that coalesce will take the first non null value and use that for sorting or it will return null and send that to the end. My results so far I haven't been able to make sense of. There are null values being placed in between actual values etc.. If I make this change coalesce(car.vin, '') again I see it work properly. Anyone have an ideas as to why this is the behavior? Let me know if you need something more from me.
It was human error on my end. The object being sent to client was not being populated properly with partial data. So sorting was correct but was seeing blanks due to those values not being present.
Could somebody please give me a little guidance on rawsqlagg_real function in Tableau. What is right syntax for it when it is used to get data from MySQL.
I used it as per my understanding but I am getting an error "No such column [__measure__3]".
Code:
RAWSQLAGG_REAL("select count(Film Id) from flavia.TableforThe_top_10percent_of_the_user where count(distinct(User Id)) = %1",[it sucks])
I see a few issues here
Instead of WHERE, use HAVING
You have column names like Film Id, you should write them as 'Film Id' instead
Though I must say that it is better to do with LOD calculations as Tableau will be able to do better query optimizations that way. Plus it is less error prone and much easier to write.
I find another issue here in addition to using having instead of where. The filter value should be numeric, or the operator should be like and not =.
where count(distinct(User Id)) = **%1**
I am getting my data from denormalized table, where I keep names and actions (apart from other things). I want to create a calculated field that will return sum of workgroup names but only when there are more than five actions present in DB for given workgroup.
Here's how I have done it when I wanted to check if certain action has been registered for workgroup:
WINDOW_SUM(COUNTD(IF [action] = "ADD" THEN [workgroup_name] END))
When I try to do similar thing with count, I am getting "Cannot mix aggregate and non-aggregate arguments":
WINDOW_SUM(COUNTD(IF COUNT([Number of Records]) > 5 THEN [workgroup_name] END))
I know that there's problem with the IF clause, but don't know how to fix it.
How to change the IF to be valid? Maybe there's an easier way to do it, that I am missing?
EDIT:
(after Inox's response)
I know that my problem is mixing aggregate with non-aggregate fields. I can't use filter to do it, because I want to use it later as a part of more complicated view - filtering would destroy the whole idea.
No, the problem is to mix aggregated arguments (e.g., sum, count) with non aggregate ones (e.g., any field directly). And that's what you're doing mixing COUNT([Number of Records]) with [workgroup_name]
If your goal is to know how many workgroup_name (unique) has more than 5 records (seems like that by the idea of your code), I think it's easier to filter then count.
So first you drag workgroup_name to Filter, go to tab conditions, select By field, Number of Records, Count, >, 5
This way you'll filter only the workgroup_name that has more than 5 records.
Now you can go with a simple COUNTD(workgroup_name)
EDIT: After clarification
Okay, than you need to add a marker that is fixed in your database. So table calculations won't help you.
By definition table calculation depends on the fields that are on the worksheet (and how you decide to use those fields to partition or address), and it's only calculated AFTER being called in a sheet. That way, each time you call the function it will recalculate, and for some analysis you may want to do, the fields you need to make the table calculation correct won't be there.
Same thing applies to aggregations (counts, sums,...), the aggregation depends, well, on the level of aggregation you have.
In this case it's better that you manipulate your data prior to connecting it to Tableau. I don't see a direct way (a single calculated field that would solve your problem). What can be done is to generate a db from Tableau (with the aggregation of number of records for each workgroup_name) then export it to csv or mdb and then reconnect it to Tableau. But if you can manipulate your database outside Tableau, it's usually a better solution
Can anybody help me understand the expected format of data for creating MVA (multi-value)
attributes in Sphinx?
I have a MySQL function which returns a row of comma-separated integers, collated with
GROUP_CONCAT, as a blob. I have two further MVA attributes which collate the results of a
JOIN statement, with GROUP_CONCAT, as a blob (as generated by ThinkingSphinx). These are all included in my sql_query in my sphinx.conf.
I've tried running the SQL on a small result set in the console, and it works: for all
the MVA columns, the results are a blob containing data such as:
2432,35345,342347,8975,453645
and so on. The two MVA attributes generated with the JOIN/GROUP_CONCAT combination index correctly. However, the MVA attribute generated with the MySQL function causes the
indexing to fail silently (seemingly little or no data is indexed). This is despite the query working absolutely fine in the console..
So the data format seems to be identical, but Sphinx is rejecting one of the columns. Does anybody know of any gotchas with defining MVA attributes which might help me debug
this?
I've never used thinking-sphinx (being a PHP shop here), but I don't think you should be group_concat'ing your results. From a working example in one of my sphinx.conf files:
sql_attr_multi = uint categories from query; SELECT entry_id, cat_id FROM exp_category_posts
I solved this problem eventually. It was happening because of something
which seemed unrelated: a 'sql_attr_str2ordinal' attribute which seemed to be affected
(or effect) the SQL query/indexing in ways I don't fully understand.
See: http://www.sphx.org/forum/view.html?id=2867
Fortunately, in my case I was able to remove it entirely, and indexing now seems to work.