I am attempting to combine two groupings(sum), EPL and POL and relabel them as something, say "Other GL". The current output is this. I've attempted adding a formula in the criteria but it is not working. I have also attempted adding another column in the design view with a formula alone.
The best way to "combine" data rows for grouping (i.e. sums) is to create a preliminary query which reassigns the individual source rows to a common value. Then use that query as the source for the other query(ies). (Such a preliminary query could be either a nested query -a.k.a. subquery-, or a saved query. I personally prefer saved queries since they can be edited and viewed using the standard Access Query Designer, whereas subqueries can only be edited as SQL text.)
Without other database schema or SQL statement to work with, all I can show is a SQL snippet showing the altered selection:
SELECT iif(Claims2.Grouping = 'EPL' Or Claims2.Grouping = 'POL', 'Other GL', Claims2.Grouping) As AltGrouping, ...
FROM Claims2
For what it's worth, the same iif() statement could also be inserted directly into the your query as a "calculated field"--within the query designer just copy and paste it into the Field cell in place of Grouping. But a saved query that adjusts labels preliminary to final queries can be reused and makes later queries simpler.
Related
I have a subform in form which is created from two linked SQL tables. I run the subform from a query. I have 2 left joins in these tables. Then I have multiply expression of two columns, each column from one table. Then I run it, everything works fine, but other can't open the subform. The error code is like this:
Access this expression is typed incorrectly or it is too complex to be evaluated. for example a numeric expression may contain too many complicated elements...
Often this will fail as the database starts to grow as well. Don't be afraid to use those complex queries but just create a static temporary table. It will ultimately be faster (lookup in a table vs multiple query calls) and easily bypass these complex embedded calculation calls.
PS
Sometimes I would create ComplexQueryA, then ComplexQueryB would use that as the datasource and do another calculation etc, but ultimately when my final results were done I would always dump into a static table otherwise the application would be way too slow!
Can i use another column in InList clause?
Example,
i have created a variable and below is the formula.
IF [query1.column1] inList ([query2.column2]) then SUM([query1.amountColumn])
Else 0
OR is it possible to put variable after inList in formula?
If not possible -- is there any other alternative to this?
I see two possible approaches. I will to use the eFashion universe for both solutions.
Solution #1
Here are my 2 queries to begin...
Run your queries. Click on the columns you want to compare, [query1].[column1] and [query2].[column2] in your case; [Query 1].[Month] and [Query 2].[Month] for me. Right-click and merge them. They must be dimensions and of the same data type.
Now create a variable based on [Query 2].[Month Name] which you can filter on to eliminate the results from Query 1 that do not match up to anything in Query 2.
[UV Month Name]=[Query 2].[Month Name]
The key here is you need to change the Qualification to "Detail" and set the Associated Dimension to what we just merged by clicking three dots to the right. Choose [Month Name] not from either query, but the merged dimension.
Now build out your table with whatever object you want from Query 1 and add in the variable we just created.
Now add a filter on that variable to only show row where it is not null.
And you are done.
Pros
Works when limiting query (query2) has a relatively large number of values (compare to Cons for Solution #2).
Cons
More complicated to set up
May run into universe or performance issues related to query being filtered (query1).
Solution #2
Building upon Solution #1, I duplicated Query 1 and renamed it Query 3. Now you can choose "Results from another query" to get the [query1].[column1] InList ([query2].[column2]) logic you want.
If you take this approach then you don't need to do the merge, variable, and filter. The results of the query are filter before being returned by the report.
Pros
Simple
Cons
The number of values coming from your second query must be relatively small. It varies by database or maybe even your universe. I have found if it is over 1,000 values I get an error when I run the query that it is "too complex".
I am currently working with different tables and queries in Access and I can't find a way to do something very simple. I have the following :
Two queries, qry1 and qry2
One table, tbl1
Both queries and the table have a "NET" field of type float (or double)
What I'd like to do is create a very simple report which would give me the total of the NET column for each of those three objects. I have tried to insert a text box in a blank report and selecting sum(NET) on qry1 in Control Source but it doesn't work, it simply prints '#Error' with no more information.
If I use 'Add Existing field' and drag&drop 'NET' from tbl1 and then edit it to add sum it works but it is repeated for each row which is obviously not what I want. It feels like I'm missing something here or that I might not be using the right tool.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Have you considered the DSum() function? Create three text boxes and set the control source for each text box as follows:
=DSum("NET", "qry1")
=DSum("NET", "qry2")
=DSum("NET", "tbl1")
Note: Aggregate functions (e.g., DSum, DLookup, etc.) have poor performance compared to performing the calculations within a query. It's not clear from your question whether that's an option for you or not.
I have joined 5 tables and done transformation on these tables. Now I got a single table at the end. Now I want to perform sql query on this single table to filter records. But I don't know how to perform simple sql query on this table. I have attached a snap shot which shows the resulting table. How I get this resulting data set as the source? I want to populate my destination after filter out this data.
I am using SSIS 2008.
Click here to see the Table on which I want to perform a simple sql query
SELECT * FROM `first_table`
where `some_column` =
(
SELECT `*`
FROM second_table
WHERE
`some_column2`='something'
LIMIT 1
)
Try this code This will help. You can even use this to connect all those four tables with each other.
From the image you posted, it looks like you have a set of data in the dataflow you're trying to query against. You need to do one of two things at this point. Either you insert the data into a table in the database and use another data flow to query it, or you use use a conditional split (or multicast and conditional splits) to filter the rows down further from there.
Without more detail about what you're actually trying to accomplish, these are the recommendations I can determine.
You could send the rows into a record set destination, but you aren't able to query it like a regular table and you'd need some C#/VB skills to access it to do more than a FOR EACH loop.
Assuming your sql query that you want to run against the resulting table is simple, you can use a script component task. By simple, I mean, if it is of this nature:
SELECT * FROM T WHERE a = 'zz' and b = 'XX' etc.
However, if your query has self joins, then you would be better of dumping the outcome of joining those 5 tables in to a physical table, and go from there.
It appears that query is going to be real straight-forward; in that case using a script component would be helpful.
A separate question: It's advisable to do the sorting at the database level. You are using 5 sort tasks in your solution. Can you please elucidate the reason?
I need to do a count on the items in a joined result set where a condition is true. I thus have a "from join where where" type of expression. This expression must end with a select or groupby. I do not need the column data actually and figure it is thus faster not to select it:
count = (from e in dc.entries select new {}).Count();
I have 2 questions:
Is there a faster way to do this in terms of the db load?
I have to duplicate my entire copy of the query. Is there a way to structure my query where I can have it one place for both counts and for getting say a list with all fields?
Thanks.
Please pay especial attention:
The query is a join and not a simple table thus I must use a select statement.
I will need 2 different query bodies because I do not need to load all the actual fields for the count but will for the list.
I assume when I use the select query it is filling up with data when I use query.Count vs Table.Count. Look forward to those who understand what I'm asking for possible better ways to do this and some detailed knowledge of what actually happens. I need to pull out the logging to look into this deeper.
Queryable.Count
The query behavior that occurs as a
result of executing an expression tree
that represents calling
Count(IQueryable)
depends on the implementation of the
type of the source parameter. The
expected behavior is that it counts
the number of items in source.
In fact, if you use LinqToSql or LinqToEntities, Queryable.Count() is sent into the database. No columns are loaded to memory. Check the generated sql to confirm.
I assume when I use the select query it is filling up with data when I use query.Count vs Table.Count
This is not true. Check the generated sql to confirm.
I have to duplicate my entire copy of the query. Is there a way to structure my query where I can have it one place for both counts and for getting say a list with all fields
If you need both the count and the list, get the list and count it.
If you need the count sometimes and other times you need the list... write a method that returns the complex IQueryable, and sometimes call .Count() and other times call .ToList();
I do not need the column data actually and figure it is thus faster not to select it.
This is basically false in your scenario. It can be true in a scenario where an index covers the result columns, but you don't have any result columns.
In your scenario, whatever index is chosen by the query optimizer, that index can be used to make the count.
Sum up: Query optimizer will perform the optimization you desire.
//you can put a where condition here
var queryEntries = from e in dc.entries select e;
//Get count
queryEntries.Count();
//Loop through Entries, so you basically returned all entries
foreach(entry en in queryEntries)
{}