I am working on a database with two different tables.
The first contains every change in the database like a transaction table. It contains the object that was bought/sold, how many of them where bought/sold, when this tranaction happend and in which place.
The second table contains the total value of every object that should be available in those places.
Now here is my question:
I want to automaticly sum up every entry with the same object and location inside of table one and save this value inside of table two.
BUT
Sometimes there are special entrys in table one which should not be summed up with the other values. They should overwrite the value.
I have an example of how this summing up should look like:
n = normal value, s = special value
n: 1 sum: 1
n: 2 sum: 3
s: 7 sum: 7
n: 5 sum: 12
n: 4 sum: 16
n: 7 sum: 23
s: 20 sum: 20
To help you help me I have some additional informations:
There are 4 columns inside of table one
The first one is called object and contains the object number for which this entry takes effect.
The second column contains the amount of that object. Whether it was bought or sold.
The third column tells me on which locations this transaction belongs to. Which also means that every object has different amounts depending on the location.
The fourth column contains an information why this transaction happend. It tells me if this transaction happend because I bought something or because I sold something OR because I counted my stock.
This is the special indicator which should tell my database not to sum up this value but instead overwrite the previous one with this.
The fifth and last column contains the date when this transaction happend. This is very important because the whole table is sorted by the date. And it tells when those special values come in place.
The other table just contains the summed up value for every object in every location.
This below will return the sum of each record for a particular Object 'MyObj' starting from the last instance of a 'Special' entry (inclusive).
(Untested)
SELECT Sum(a.Amount) AS TheSum
FROM tblMyTable a
WHERE ID_PK> = nz((
SELECT max(ID_PK)
FROM tblMyTable
WHERE Object=a.Object AND IsSpecial=1
),0)
AND a.Object='MyObj'
Related
I am working on a report to show the total number of hours an employee spent working. Our company tracks labor hours by Service Request and Work Order so I need to bring totals for each into the report.
I created two datasets- one for Work Orders and one for Service Requests. Ideally, I would like to combine the total number of Work Order hours with the total number of Service Request hours and present that number listed by employeeID since both datasets have the employeeID field.
I thought it would be as simple as:
=(SUM(Fields!TOTALHOURS_WO.Value, "DataSet1") + SUM(Fields!TOTALHOURS_SR.Value, "DataSet2"))
I don't get an error, however, I am getting a number which repeats for each employee so I know I'm doing something wrong.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Mal,
As #StevenWhite mentioned, LOOKUP is probably the function you are looking for.
Here is an example for you. For the example datasets:
EmployeeID | TOTALHOURS_WO
-----------------------------------
123 | 12
456 | 3
EmployeeNum| TOTALHOURS_SR
-----------------------------------
123 | 2
456 | 5
You will note that each table in a SSRS report needs a DataSet assigned to it. I will assume your table is using our first DataSet, which we will name "DataSet1". The second dataset above will be "DataSet2".
For your total hours you will use an expression. It should look something like this:
=TOTALHOURS_WO + LOOKUP(Fields!EmployeeID.Value, Fields!EmployeeNum.Value, Fields!TOTALHOURS_SR.Value, "DataSet2")
So you will be adding the TOTALHOURS_WO from your local dataset to the result from the LOOKUP function. What lookup is doing is taking the first field from your local dataset, finding a match in the dataset provided to the function (as a string), and returning the field from the row it matched to. The last parameter is the dataset to search.
Just in case you get an error... it's always a good idea to cast data to the type you want to work with in case it comes in wrong. So...
=CINT(TOTALHOURS_WO) + CINT(LOOKUP(Fields!EmployeeID.Value, Fields!EmployeeNum.Value, Fields!TOTALHOURS_SR.Value, "DataSet2"))
This assumes you have a one to one match on employee ID. If you have to SUM both fields you can try this:
=SUM(CINT(TOTALHOURS_WO)) + SUM(LOOKUPSET(Fields!EmployeeID.Value, Fields!EmployeeNum.Value, CINT(Fields!TOTALHOURS_SR.Value), "DataSet2"))
SUM for TOTALHOURS_WO will give you the SUM in your current table group (so make sure you are grouping by staff ID in the table). It will then add it to the SUM of LOOKUPSET. LOOKUPSET works the same as lookup but returns an array of matches instead of the first.
Hope this helps.
I have two tables, one user table and an items table. In the user table, there is the field "items". The "items" table only consists of a unique id and an item_name.
Now each user can have multiple items. I wanted to avoid creating a third table that would connect the items with the user but rather have a field in the user_table that stores the item ids connected to the user in a "csv" field.
So any given user would have a field "items" that could have a value like "32,3,98,56".
It maybe is worth mentioning that the maximum number of items per user is rather limited (<5).
The question: Is this approach generally a bad idea compared to having a third table that contains user->item pairs?
Wouldn't a third table create quite an overhead when you want to find all items of a user (I would have to iterate through all elements returned by MySQL individually).
You don't want to store the value in the comma separated form.
Consider the case when you decide to join this column with some other table.
Consider you have,
x items
1 1, 2, 3
1 1, 4
2 1
and you want to find distinct values for each x i.e.:
x items
1 1, 2, 3, 4
2 1
or may be want to check if it has 3 in it
or may be want to convert them into separate rows:
x items
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 1
1 4
2 1
It will be a HUGE PAIN.
Use atleast normalization 1st principle - have separate row for each value.
Now, say originally you had this as you table:
x item
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 1
1 4
2 1
You can easily convert it into csv values:
select x, group_concat(item order by item) items
from t
group by x
If you want to search if x = 1 has item 3. Easy.
select * from t where x = 1 and item = 3
which in earlier case would use horrible find_in_set:
select * from t where x = 1 and find_in_set(3, items);
If you think you can use like with CSV values to search, then first like %x% can't use indexes. Second, it will produce wrong results.
Say you want check if item ab is present and you do %ab% it will return rows with abc abcd abcde .... .
If you have many users and items, then I'd suggest create separate table users with an PK userid, another items with PK itemid and lastly a mapping table user_item having userid, itemid columns.
If you know you'll just need to store and retrieve these values and not do any operation on it such as join, search, distinct, conversion to separate rows etc. etc. - may be just may be, you can (I still wouldn't).
Storing complex data directly in a relational database is a nonstandard use of a relational database. Normally they are designed for normalized data.
There are extensions which vary according to the brand of software which may help. Or you can normalize your CSV file into properly designed table(s). It depends on lots of things. Talk to your enterprise data architect in this case.
Whether it's a bad idea depends on your business needs. I can't assess your business needs from way out here on the internet. Talk to your product manager in this case.
This task is to be completed using SAP Business Objects WebI 4.2.
I have a table in the following format:
Company Date Amount
A 1/1/2014 100
A 16/2/2014 400
I have a variable called Month that has the Month for each transaction.
I want the table to look like:
Company January February
A 100 400
How can this be done without making a calculated field for each month?
In Webi you can't easily place a distinct category (Company) next to the values of another category (Month) in the same header row. So you have two options:
1) Create a regular horizontal table with three columns: Company, Month, & Value
2) Create a crosstab table with the Company on the left/vertical axis and the Month on the top/horizontal axis. Your values would be in the middle.
Note: if you wanted to do a lot of manual coding, you could set it up the way you want. The first column would hold your Company variable. The next column, "January" would require a formula:
=if([Month]=January) Then [Value]
You'd then have to create 11 more columns, with variables for each:
=if([Month]=February) Then [Value]
=if([Month]=March) Then [Value]
=if([Month]=April) Then [Value]
etc...
It would be tedious to do, and personally I'd go for one of the first two options. But it would work!
I have a table with records each representing an appointment. I have the name of the contactthe appointment is with, and the date. In another table I have a field that contains how many appointments each contact is supposed to have during the day. There are 12 entries for each contact, because some are expected to have different numbers during different months.
I am able to call up the data for the appropriate contactfor the appropriate month. It looks great in the graph when I count up the number of entries for Contact A and put next to it the expected number of entries from the related table.
The problem I'm running into now is that I need to add up all of the expected appointments between all of the entities. So:
::ContactName:: ::appointments:: ::expected::
Contact A 12 10
Contact B 33 34
Contact C 18 27
Getting the roll up for the actual appointments is easy, a simple COUNT summary field in a subsubsummary section. But what of the expected? Because ContactA had 12 appointments that means that there will be 12 records for them, so putting a summary field for the expected column is would return 120 for all Contact A's. Instead, given the dataset above, I need the calculation to return 71. Does this issue make sense? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
If I am following this correctly, you need to divide the amount of expected appointments between the entries of the group, then total the result. So something like:
Sum ( Entities::Expected ) / GetSummary ( sCount ; EntityID )
(this would be easier if we knew the names of your tables and fields).
P.S. The term "entity" has a specific meaning in the context of a relational database. Consider using another term (e.g. "contacts").
Added:
Using your example data, you should see the following results in the above calculation field:
in the 1st group of 12 records: 10 / 12 = .8333333333333333
in the 2nd group of 33 records: 34 / 33 = 1.0303030303030303
in the 3rd group of 18 records: 27 / 18 = 1.5
When you sum all this up (using a summary field defined as Total of this calculation field), you should get 71 (or a number very near 71, due to rounding errors).
Note: in the above calculation, sCount is a summary field defined in the Appointments table as Count of [ any field that cannot be empty ], and EntityID is the field by which your records are sorted and grouped (and it must be a local field).
It seems I've hit a brick wall in MS Access 2010.
It's kind of hard to explain what I'm trying to achieve, so I'll start with a basic example. Let's say we have two tables: A and B.
A:
ID Price Item
1 5 ABB
2 4 ATV
3 2 CCC
B:
ID Price limit Chosen item
1 3
2 4
3 5
4 6
What I'm trying to achieve is create a Relation from table A to B. Each record in table B has to have associated table A record. It should be based on table A field 'Price' and table B field 'Price limit' in a way that the price of selected record from Table A is lower than the price limit imposed in table B record.
That is, the possible table A records for the first table B record is only CCC, for second - ATV and CCC, while for third and fourth all records are valid.
As far as my limited access knowledge goes, I've figured that I should write a query in "Chosen item" field row source property. I've tried writing it myself, however, without success. Here's what I've come up with:
SELECT [Table A].[ID], [Table A].[Item]
FROM [Table A]
WHERE [Table A].[Val] > [Val];
But it does not work. Could somebody please point me to the right direction?
I think that you want something like this where the dropdown box only contains relevant items:
You can set this up by setting the row source of the combo to say,
select item from ta where price<=forms!tb!pricelimit
And adding a little code
Private Sub Form_Current()
Me.Chosenitem.Requery
End Sub
Note that this method comes with a warning. Usong dropdowns like this on a continuous form can seriously mess up the display of your data on any rows other than the current row. In this case, the display is fine, because the bound column and the data to be displayed are the same, however, if the selection was:
Row Source: select id,item from ta where price<=forms!tb!pricelimit
Bound Column: 1
Column Widths : 0cm;2cm
Data would appear to disappear from records when the selection for the current record produced a list that did not contain IDs for other rows. That is to say, if the selection for the current rows returned IDs 1 and 2 and the next row already had ID 3 chosen, the combo for the next row would appear to empty, and so on down the page.