The database which I report from most often is not properly typed. Almost every field, with the exception of some integers and datetimes, are CHAR fields. This can cause problems with SSRS layouts because some fields have tons of trailing spaces.
This causes layouts to be messy and such. I often rtrim these fields in my scripts to prevent this.
Is there any performance impact if I create a general UDF to automatically perform this on multiple fields in a single script?
Is one function RTRIM. CAST, Convert, etc preferable over the others?
I would not make a function to do this, just use CONVERT() on each improperly typed column in the result, something like this:
SELECT
CONVERT(int,RowInt) AS RowInt
,RTRIM(CONVERT(varchar(15),RowString)) AS RowString
,CONVERT(datetime,RowDatetime) AS RowDatetime
,CONVERT(numeric(10,4),RowNumeric) AS RowNumeric
FROM ...
this way, each column of the result set has the proper data type, and SSRS will know this and can apply formatting to them.
if this is a real chronic problem, and you find you are repeating the CONVERTs too much, you may want to just create some views that do this for you. just watch out making views of views of views.
Related
On some occasion I'd like before UPDATE to make sure which columns are changed. To make it as generic as possible, I don't want to use schema, table or column names in function. I found some solution here in SO and other places, and particularly liked idea to use hstore from this answer
Downside of hstore, as said widely, is it that this way I lose data types, everything is stringified.
But using it in context of trigger (while having no complex cols like json or hstore), where both NEW and OLD have same set of cols with according datatypes, I could think of just one problem: NULL and empty values will be not distinguishable.
What other problems I may be faced with, when I detect changes in trigger function like this:
changes := hstore(NEW) - hstore(OLD);
Alternative seems to use jsonb and then write some jsonb_diff function to discover changes. hstore's offered internal subtract-operation seems way more robust, but maybe I have not considered all weak points there.
I'm using Postgres 9.6.
I'd like to store integers in a table in such a way that selection from that table always output those integers in hexadecimal, without having to call to_hex. I tried creating a domain with a cast, only to learn that casts of domains are noops. I suppose this could be done with a view, but do I have any other options?
No, there is no facility to do that. A view sounds like a good solution.
I am working on a database that (hopefully) will end up using a primary key with both numbers and letters in the values to track lots of agricultural product. Due to the way in which the weighing of product takes place at more than one facility, I have no other option but to maintain the same base number but use letters in addition to this base number to denote split portions of each lot of product. The problem is, after I create record number 99, the number 100 suddenly floats up and underneath 10. This makes it difficult to maintain consistency and forces me to replace this alphanumeric lot ID with a strictly numeric value in order to keep it sorted (which I use "autonumber" as the data type). Either way, I need the alphanumeric lot ID, and so having 2 ID's for the same lot can be confusing for anyone inputting values into the form. Is there a way around this that I am just not seeing?
If you're using query as a data source then you may try to sort it by string converted to number, something like
SELECT id, field1, field2, ..
ORDER BY CLng(YourAlphaNumericField)
Edit: you may also try Val function instead of CLng - it should not fail on non-numeric input
Why not properly format your key before saving ? e.g: "0000099". You will avoid a costly conversion later.
Alternatively, you could use 2 fields as the composite PK. One with the Number (as Long) and one with the Location (as String).
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
This is probably a super simple question, but I'm struggling to come up with the right keywords to find it on Google.
I have a Postgres table that has among its contents a column of type text named content_type. That stores what type of entry is stored in that row.
There are only about 5 different types, and I decided I want to change one of them to display as something else in my application (I had been directly displaying these).
It struck me that it's funny that my view is being dictated by my database model, and I decided I would convert the types being stored in my database as strings into integers, and enumerate the possible types in my application with constants that convert them into their display names. That way, if I ever got the urge to change any category names again, I could just change it with one alteration of a constant. I also have the hunch that storing integers might be somewhat more efficient than storing text in the database.
First, a quick threshold question of, is this a good idea? Any feedback or anything I missed?
Second, and my main question, what's the Postgres command I could enter to make an alteration like this? I'm thinking I could start by renaming the old content_type column to old_content_type and then creating a new integer column content_type. However, what command would look at a row's old_content_type and fill in the new content_type column based off of that?
If you're finding that you need to change the display values, then yes, it's probably a good idea not to store them in a database. Integers are also more efficient to store and search, but I really wouldn't worry about it unless you've got millions of rows.
You just need to run an update to populate your new column:
update table_name set content_type = (case when old_content_type = 'a' then 1
when old_content_type = 'b' then 2 else 3 end);
If you're on Postgres 8.4 then using an enum type instead of a plain integer might be a good idea.
Ideally you'd have these fields referring to a table containing the definitions of type. This should be via a foreign key constraint. This way you know that your database is clean and has no invalid values (i.e. referential integrity).
There are many ways to handle this:
Having a table for each field that can contain a number of values (i.e. like an enum) is the most obvious - but it breaks down when you have a table that requires many attributes.
You can use the Entity-attribute-value model, but beware that this is too easy to abuse and cause problems when things grow.
You can use, or refer to my implementation solution PET (Parameter Enumeration Tables). This is a half way house between between 1 & 2.