I have no idea if this is possible or not but I'm trying figure out if it is possible to use iReport Designer to create reports where the user viewing the report is able to control the grouping.
For example I would like the user to be able to re-order the grouping and also change to which degree the report is grouped (only on one field or on multiple ones).
I don't mean SQL grouping btw, I mean for example grouping by Account and then Agent:
| Account | Agent | Invoice | Total |
+----------+---------+----------+-------+
| Account1 | | | |
| | Joe | | |
| | | Invoice2 | $600 |
| | | Invoice1 | $300 |
| Account2 | | | |
| | Sam | | |
| | | Invoice4 | $120 |
| | | Invoice7 | $230 |
| | Joe | | |
| | | Invoice3 | $200 |
+----------+-- ------+----------+-------+
And what I'm trying to figure out is, can you use iReport to make this grouping dynamic? That is, that the user might want to group by Agent first and Account second and rather than have one report for each grouping it'd be nice if there was a way of doing this with iReport.
Yes, it should be possible to create reports like that. But depending on your exact needs it may not be practical (as Alex K indicated).
If you take only your example of grouping on Account then Agent or grouping on Agent then account, it would be simple. Have a parameter that let's the user specify this choice. It would probably be a drop down list. Then in the report you would have fields like this:
Today's version: $F{Account} and $F{Agent}
Dynamic version: $P{AcctFirst} ? $F{Account} : $F{Agent} and $P{AcctFirst} ? $F{Agent} : $F{Account}
Likewise, the group definition would need to include the new AcctFirst param.
But it won't extend nicely. What if the 2 fields are different data types? What if you want to let the user choose from 3 or 4 or N fields? Each of those is solvable... but the report becomes exponentially more complex.
By the way, it's relatively common request. You'll see features like this make their way into JasperReports. But for now it's a tough one.
Related
What I have, are two streams (from two different systems, imported via connectors). Some of the information from the different streams will be used to build combined information.
Currently, I'm working with ksqlDB but I'm having problems with the last step to reduce the information from both streams.
Both streams contains a tree structure (id/parentId), so I've used a second table for each stream to find certain information from the parents, which is then joined into a table containing all the information to do the final reduce.
The main matching column is always the same, however, one or more columns (not fixed) is also needed to do the final match. The columns might also be partial matches between them.
An example output of the table might look like this:
| id | match | matchExtra1 | matchExtra2 | matchExtra3 |
| 1 | 1 | Extra1 | Extra2 | Extra3 |
| 2 | 1 | Extra1 | Extra4 | Extra5 |
| 3 | 1 | Extra6 | Extra7 | Extra8 |
| 4 | 1 | Extra9 | Extr10 | tra8 |
In this case, id 1 and 2 should be matched and id 3 and 4 should be another match.
If this is possible within ksqlDB, that would be great. If needed to work with low-level Kafka, that's fine as long as we can achieve the end result.
Basic flow as I have it right now:
I am having a setup collecting metrics from telegraf into influxdb. Then grafana uses influxdb as data source to display graphs.
My problem is reducing disk usage, so I want to downsample old data (older than 3 days) and keep the new data (younger than 3 days) as is (raw)
I tried Retention Policy (RP) of influxdb and Continuous Queries (CQ) as described in guide:
https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v1.2/guides/downsampling_and_retention
influxdb ("telegraf")
+----------------------------+
| |
| +-----------------------+ |
| | table disk_raw | |
| | CURRENT RP (RAW) +---------+
| | (deleted after 3d) | | |
| +-----------------------+ | |CQ (average 30 min of datapoints into 1)
| +-----------------------+ | |
| | table_disk_ds | | |
| | LONGTERM RP +<--------+
| |(downsampled, kept 90d)| |
| +-----------------------+ |
| +<----+
+----------------------------+ |
|
|
grafana | grafana query
+----------------------------+ |
| | |
| +----------------------+ | |
| | data graph | +-----+
| +----------------------+ |
| |
+----------------------------+
The problem is - this solution is giving you 2 tables, one for raw data and one for downsampled data. CQ is constantly writing out to downsampled data.
That is not so good for me as:
I am using grafana to query influxdb and it reads from single table
to the graph. And I want one graph for both old data and new data.
Using 2 databases increases disk usage
Is there any way to downsample old records in the very same table?
configuring example:
https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v1.2/guides/downsampling_and_retention
grafana query
SELECT mean("used_percent") FROM "disk" WHERE ("device" = 'dm-0') AND $timeFilter GROUP BY time(10s) fill(none)
EDIT2: Here's a workaround implemented with template variables in Grafana
https://github.com/grafana/grafana/issues/4262#issuecomment-475570324
This seems like a really good solution.
ORIGINAL ANSWER
Looking into the example from the influxb page you linked
CREATE CONTINUOUS QUERY "cq_30m" ON "food_data" BEGIN
SELECT mean("website") AS "mean_website",mean("phone") AS "mean_phone"
INTO "a_year"."orders"
FROM "orders"
GROUP BY time(30m)
END
If you specify the same source and target table, namely orders, into both INTO and FROM clauses then the data will be written to the same table.
However, that does not solve your issue.
You would still need two queries to get the data from both retention policies. If you do a generic select * from disk_raw ... Influx will use the default retention policy and return data just from there.
The way you usually go about this is by running two queries and concatenating the results. In a single request something like
select * from rp_short.diskraw; select * from rp_long.diskraw
EDIT:
Here is a discussion of why it's not possible to do what you (and a lot of other people) want https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb/issues/2625
And also some ways to work around it.
Briefly, one way is to handle the downsampling and high resolution data manually (i.e not with CQ) and keep it in the same retention policy. Another is to use a proxy that would augment the query depending on the time range of the query in order to get the correct data.
I am trying to create a report for a spa technicians schedule for their day. It consists of a scheduled time, and their break times.
I am making a crystal report and have the following set up in Preview:
There is actually two breaks in my database, another one for 4:30 - 5:45. How do I get this second one to show as well?
I have this set up in Design:
#Breaks has the formula ToText(cTime({cmprovblk.from_time}),'h:mmtt') + '-' + ToText(cTime({cmprovblk.to_time}),'h:mmtt').
The desired result, crudely drawn, is:
Here is the table that provides the schedule, filtered by provider_code and sba_date:
provider_code | property_code | sba_date | from_time | to_time
--------------|---------------|------------|-----------|--------
100 | | 2017-04-12 | 09:00 | 17:45
Here is the table that provides the breaks, filtered by provider_code and sba_date:
provider_code | sba_date | from_time | to_time | block_reason_code
--------------|------------|-----------|---------|------------------
100 | 2017-04-12 | 12:45 | 13:30 | lunch
100 | 2017-04-12 | 16:30 | 17:45 | gonehome
Moving the breaks to the Details a section just makes it keep repeating for some reason.. Here's what it looks like:
and this goes on for half the second page.
Here are my links:
You can put another #Breaks formula field just below the existing one and then suppress that with the condition like if {Table1.from_time}="16:30" and {Table1.to_time}="17:45" then false Else true. Similarly do the same for the previous #Breaks formula field too.
Option 1:
Country | Risk Category | Value
USA | Health | 0.75
USA | Market | 0.66
USA | Technology | 0.35
Option 2:
Country | Health Risk | Market Risk | Technology Risk
USA | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.35
Option 1: allows for new risk categories to be dynamically added without needing to add columns when changes occur, but I'll have to run algorithms to find the values I'm looking for as it doesn't work well with LINQ.
Option 2: is easier to work with in entity framework as everything is scaffolded out. however, the database needs to change every time a new category is added. Also, there could potentially be 200+ columns.
Which option is the best for long-term success and maintainability?
Honestly, neither are optimal for long-term & maintainability, but if I'd had to choose I'd go for Option 2.
Since you have a many to many relationship between the country entity and the risk entity I'd separate the information a bit more and do it like this.
Country
ID | Name |
1 | USA |
2 | CANADA |
Risk
Id | Name |
1 | Health |
2 | Market |
3 | Technology |
CountryRisk
CountryId | RiskId | Value |
1 | 1 | 0.75 |
1 | 2 | 0.66 |
1 | 3 | 0.35 |
Option 2.
If every country is always going to have a Health Risk, Market Risk and Technology Risk - You'll never risk repeating data. Databases should never repeat data.
I honestly can't see any benefits to Option 1 over Option 2.
I have a details table of posts and subjects digged from a forum. Row is the single subject (ie postID and subjectIS is the primary key for the table), then I have some measures at subject level and some at post level. For example:
+---------+-------------+--------------+------------+--------------+--------+
| post.ID | post.Author | post.Replies | subject.ID | subject.Rank | year |
+---------+-------------+--------------+------------+--------------+--------+
| 1 | mike | 10 | movie | 4 | 1990 |
| 1 | mike | 10 | comics | 6 | 1990 |
| 2 | sarah | 0 | tv | 10 | 2001 |
| 3 | tom | 4 | tv | 10 | 2003 |
| 3 | tom | 4 | comics | 6 | 2003 |
| 4 | mike | 1 | movie | 4 | 2008 |
+---------+-------------+--------------+------------+--------------+--------+
I want to study the trend of posts and subjects by year and color it by subject.Rank.
Firsts are easily measured putting COUNTD(post.ID) and COUNTD(subject.ID) in rows and 'year' in column.
But if I drag MEDIAN(subject.Rank) in Color, I got a wrong result: it's not calculated at distinct subject.ID level but at row level.
I think I can accomplish it using table calculation features, but I have no idea on how to proceed.
It sounds like you are trying to treat Subject.Rank as a dimension, instead of as a measure. If so, just convert it to a dimension on the worksheet in question by right clicking on the field and choosing dimension. You can also convert it to a dimension in the data pane by dragging the field from the measures section up to the dimensions section. That will tell Tableau to treat that field as a dimension by default in the future.
A field can be treated a dimension in some cases, and a measure in others. Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you are familiar with SQL, dimensions are used to partition data rows for aggregation using the GROUP BY clause.
Finally, count distinct (COUNTD) can be expensive on large datasets. Often, you can get the same result another way. So try to think of other approaches and save COUNTD for when you really need it.
Try using {fixed [1st LEVEL],[2nd level]: median()}
or
Table calculation approach
when you put in median there is an edit table calculation under advance compute using put you fields in there(Make sure its ordered the way you want it to calculate when you select them) then click OK select the at which level and restart every