mysql retrieve partial column - select

I am using TinyMCE to allow users to write in what will eventually be submitted to a database.
TinyMCE includes a button which will insert a "pagebreak" (actually just an HTML comment <!--pagebreak-->).
How can I later pull back everything up to the first occurrence of the pagebreak "tag"? There might be a significant bit of data after that tag which I could discard via php later, but it seems like I shouldn't even bring it back. So I can I SELECT just part of a column if I never know how far in to the data the <!--pagebreak--> will be?
EDIT:
The below answer does work, and will get me where I need to go.. I am just curious as to if there is an equally simple way to handle bringing back the whole column if it is short and thus the pagebreak tag doesn't exist. With the below solution, if no pagebreak is found, an empty string is returned.
If not, then I can easily handle it in the code.

Something like this should get you everything up to the <!--:
SELECT SUBSTRING(my_col FROM 1 FOR POSITION('<!--' IN my_col)-1) AS a_chunk
FROM my_table
Reference for string functions.
Edit:
Just putting OMG Ponies' words into SQL:
SELECT CASE WHEN position('<!--' IN my_col) > 0
THEN SUBSTRING(my_col FROM 1 FOR POSITION('<!--' IN my_col)-1)
ELSE my_col END AS a_chunk
FROM my_table
It sounds like you'll also want a check on the length of the text; whether or not there is a page break. You can use CHARACTER_LENGTH() for that.

why not create another column in your mysql table to store integer value of the position where <!--pagebreak--> is. You'll calculate this value in your script and store this value at same time when you insert the html generated by tinymce.
Then in later retrievals use the value in that column to select the substring from 1 up to the value. This should make your query simpler and maybe improve query performance?

Related

How can I filter the contents in the TABLE panel?

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.

Determining Table to Paste to On The Fly

How do I tell Filemaker what table to paste a value into based on the value? Is there a way to somehow have Filemaker paste a value into a table without hard coding the table name?
Using imported transaction data, I determine which ledger (table) the transaction should be posted to. But I can't seem to get the script to then post it into the right table based on the value.
Screenshot of Script
Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions!
I found a way to do what I was thinking, #AndreasT your suggestion helped.
Case (
Imported_Transactions::Debit_To = "Expenses_All"; "Expenses_All::Description";
Imported_Transactions::Debit_To = "Liability_CrCard_BofA"; Liability_CrCard_BofA::Description;
Imported_Transactions::Debit_To = "Liability_CrCard_CitiBusiness"; Liability_CrCard_CitiBusiness::Description;
)
Using the Case function, I was able to get Filemaker to put the data in the right table. It took some doing, but by putting the tablename::field in quotes, it worked.
Ultimately, though, I found it easier to just use one table and field descriptors to store my data. Simplicity makes it easier to produce reports.
You could use the conditional If script step to determine what table to insert data into based on your input.
Set field by name[ tablename::fieldname ; value ]

Code to assign an ID when button is clicked

I have designed a simple database to keep track of company contacts. Now, I am building a form to allow employees to add contacts to the database.
On the form itself, I have all the columns except the primary key (contactID) tied to a text box. I would like the contactID value to be (the total number of entered contacts + 1) when the Add button is clicked. Basically, the first contact entered will have a contactID of 1 (0 + 1 = 1). Maybe the COUNT command factors in?
So, I am looking for assistance with what code I should place in the .Click event. Perhaps it would help to know how similar FoxPro is to SQL.
Thanks
The method you recommend for assigning ContactIDs is not a good idea. If two people are using the application at the same time, they could each create a record with the same ContactID.
My recommendation is that you use VFP's AutoIncrementing Integer capability. That is, set the relevant column to be Integer (AutoInc) in the Table Designer. Then, each new row gets the next available value, but you don't have to do any work to make it happen.
There are various ways to do this. Probably the simplest is to attempt to lock the table with flock() when saving, and if successful do:
calc max id_field to lnMax
Then when inserting your new record use lnMax+1 as the id_field value. Don't forget to
unlock all
... after saving. You'll want to ensure that 'id_field' has an index tag on it, and that you handle the case where someone else might have the table locked.
You can also do it more 'automagically' with a stored procedure.

Get next available auto_increment ID in PostgreSQL - A better approach?

I'm new to postgreSQL, so would really appreciate any pointers from the community.
I am updating some functionality in the CMS of a pretty old site I've just inherited. Basically, I need the ID of an article before it is inserted into the database. Is there anyway anyway to check the next value that will be used by a sequence before a database session (insert) has begun?
At first I thought I could use SELECT max(id) from tbl_name, however as the id is auto incremented from a sequence and articles are often deleted, it obviously won't return a correct id for the next value in the sequence.
As the article isn't in the database yet, and a database session hasn't started, it seems I can't use the currval() functionality of postgreSQL. Furthermore if I use nextval() it auto increments the sequence before the data is inserted (the insert also auto-incrementing the sequence ending up with the sequence being doubly incremented).
The way I am getting around it at the moment is as follows:
function get_next_id()
{
$SQL = "select nextval('table_id_seq')";
$response = $this->db_query($SQL);
$arr = pg_fetch_array($query_response, NULL, PGSQL_ASSOC);
$id = (empty($arr['nextval'])) ? 'NULL' : intval($arr['nextval']);
$new_id = $id-1;
$SQL = "select setval('table_id_seq', {$new_id})";
$this->db_query($SQL);
return $id;
}
I use SELECT nextval('table_id_seq') to get the next ID in the sequence. As this increments the sequence I then immediately use SELECT setval('table_id_seq',$id) to set the sequence back to it's original value. That way when the user submits the data and the code finally hits the INSERT statement, it auto increments and the ID before the insert and after the insert are identical.
While this works for me, I'm not too hot on postgreSQL and wonder if it could cause any problems down the line, or if their isn't a better method? Is there no way to check the next value of a sequence without auto-incrementing it?
If it helps I'm using postgresql 7.2
Folks - there are reasons to get the ID before inserting a record. For example, I have an application that stores the ID as part of the text that is inserted into another field. There are only two ways to do this.
1) Regardless of the method, get the ID before inserting to include in my INSERT statement
2) INSERT, get the the ID (again, regardless of how (SELECT ... or from INSERT ... RETURNING id;)), update the record's text field that includes the ID
Many of the comments and answers assumed the OP was doing something wrong... which is... wrong. The OP clearly stated "Basically, I need the ID of an article before it is inserted into the database". It should not matter why the OP wants/needs to do this - just answer the question.
My solution opted to get the ID up front; so I do nextval() and setval() as necessary to achieve my needed result.
Disclaimer: Not sure about 7.2 as I have never used that.
Apparently your ID column is defined to get its default value from the sequence (probably because it's defined as serial although I don't know if that was available in 7.x).
If you remove the default but keep the sequence, then you can retrieve the next ID using nextval() before inserting the new row.
Removing the default value for the column will require you to always provide an ID during insert (by retrieving it from the sequence). If you are doing that anyway, then I don't see a problem. If you want to cater for both scenarios, create a before insert trigger (does 7.x have them?) that checks if the ID column has a value, if not retrieve a new value from the sequence otherwise leave it alone.
The real question though is: why do you need the ID before insert. You could simply send the row to the server and then get the generated id by calling curval()
But again: you should really (I mean really) talk to the customer to upgrade to a recent version of Postgres

Filemaker: Best way to set a certain field in every related record

I have a FileMaker script which calculates a value. I have 1 record from table A from which a relation points to n records of table B. What is the best way to set B::Field to this value for each of these n related records?
Doing Set Field [B::Field; $Value] will only set the value of the first of the n related records. What works however is the following:
Go to Related Record [Show only related records; From table: "B"; Using layout: "B_layout" (B)]
Loop
Set Field [B::Field; $Value]
Go To Record/Request/Page [Next; Exit after last]
End Loop
Go to Layout [original layout]
Is there a better way to accomplish this? I dislike the fact that in order to set some value (model) programmatically (controller), I have to create a layout (view) and switch to it, even though the user is not supposed to notice anything like a changing view.
FileMaker always was primarily an end-user tool, so all its scripts are more like macros that repeat user actions. It nowhere near as flexible as programmer-oriented environments. To go to another layout is, actually, a standard method to manipulate related values. You would have to do this anyway if you, say, want to duplicate a related record or print a report.
So:
Your script is quite good, except that you can use the Replace Field Contents script step. Also add Freeze Window script step in the beginning; it will prevent the screen from updating.
If you have a portal to the related table, you may loop over portal rows.
FileMaker plug-in API can execute SQL and there are some plug-ins that expose this functionality. So if you really want, this is also an option.
I myself would prefer the first variant.
Loop through a Portal of Related Records
Looping through a portal that has the related records and setting the field has a couple of advantages over either Replace or Go To Record, Set Field Loop.
You don't have to leave the layout. The portal can be hidden or place off screen if it isn't already on the layout.
You can do it transactionally. IE you can make sure that either all the records get edited or none of them do. This is important since in a multi-user networked solution, records may not always be editable. Neither replace or looping through the records without a portal is transaction safe.
Here is some info on FileMaker transactions.
You can loop through a portal using Go To Portal Row. Like so:
Go To Portal Row [First]
Loop
Set Field [B::Field; $Value]
Go To Portal Row [Next; Exit after last]
End Loop
It depends on what you're using the value for. If you need to hard wire a certain field, then it doesn't sound like you've got a very normalised data structure. The simplest way would be a calculation in TableB instead of a stored field, or if this is something that is stored, could it be a lookup field instead that is set on record creation?
What is the field in TableB being used for and how?