A view that hase been running for years selects specific columns from several tables and joins them.
Recently, I added a column to one of the tables, and the vew no longer worked properly.
One of the columns in the query result contained data that was from another column in the table.
I rebuilt the view from a script - no changes to the script - and the problem went away.
The view does not look at the new column.
What is going on?
Your query is using SELECT *. You simply need to recomple it.
When the view is compiled, it compiles the offset of the fields in the record, rather than the names of the field. If the underlying table changes . . . well, the offsets no longer go to the correct positions.
I, unfortunately, learned this once upon a time after about 5 hours of trying to figure out why a number was getting a numeric error -- starting at 6:00 a.m. So, this problem can even effect different types of data.
I do the recompile by scripting out the view as an alter, using SQL Server Management Studio, and then running the code (without any changes). However, you could change the code by putting in the explicit list of columns, and not having this problem in the future.
You can also set up a script that recompiles all your views every evening, to prevent this problem in the future. We now have such a script as well.
Related
I have looked and haven't found a method on here to do this. I am assuming my search is skewed and I just missed it, if this is the case, please let me know.
Anywhooo, I have a large and unwieldy report coming out of SAP every day. Because it will often have some strangeness, we import that into an Access database so we can keep an eye on the stuff we need in our department. I am using a combination of 6 fields to create a primary key in Access. The information in those fields is about the only thing consistent I get out of this SAP report, but the remainder of the data can be considered dynamic and can change from day to day. Usually this is a matter of filling in a few blanks, Occasionally this is changing existing data, and on rare occasions, it may involve deleting data out of a handful of fields.
The SAP report is around 130 columns of data, So I'm looking for an efficient way to roll in the changes without overwriting what folks put in there manually.
EDIT:
Here is the way this is used. SAP (for reasons I'm not going to go into) sometimes will have bad data show up in the daily report. We are using Access to track and put the correct data in to something that we can generate much more accurate summaries. What the users put in is to be considered true and accurate.
The transactions we are tracking can take a long time to complete. Most take around 30 days to complete. That's why I will have blank fields on one day, and several of them to be filled in on the next. We might not get any for the next few days and then a bunch more are filled in later. That is the normal flow.
What I have to account for is the odd occasion where a mistake is made early in the process. At a certain point, an error will break SAP's ability to update anything at all in the report we have to use.
I have 3 fields set up that trigger what my users daily work is going to be. There is a logical flow so that user 1 completes what he needs to do and then that record will show up on User 2's report. These fields will also stop the general update process in an exception report if there is a difference in what is coming in from SAP, and what is already in my database.
What I am looking for is some way to systematically fill in blank fields, on existing records in access. I do not want to overwrite if something is in a field, only the null values. I can do this on one field at a time, but each record has about 130 fields. I'm wondering if there is a way I could do this in just 1 query?
Thanks all! I hope the edit makes more sense now
A simple google for "Access SQL update null values" could have yeilded you what you need. But if all you need to do is fill constant values into empty fields then something like:
UPDATE Table SET Table.field1 = VALUE
WHERE Table.field2 is NULL;
Now if this data is different for each record based on; say data from another field, then you may need to write some VBA to build that value/string for you. But otherwise if you are JUST updating null fields to include data, then a simple UPDATE statement will do
EDIT Based on new info:
So if I'm understanding correctly: you have two tables. One table with the blank fields and another table that contains the values you need.
If this is the case, you can use a similar UPDATE statement, but use an inner join to get the data you need from table B to fill in table A
UPDATE TableA INNER JOIN TableB ON TableA.KeyField = TableB.KeyField
SET TableA.NullField = TableB.NotNullField
WHERE TableA.NullField Is NULL;
Hello helpful internet strangers. I have created a fairly simple database for a client that has one main entry form and a search form that uses unbound text boxes for searching around 15 fields.
Details are below, but here is my problem: When I add new records and use the search form all the fields work as expected and return the correct results in the datasheet. When I sent the database to the client and they add new records, they are not returned in the search. I had them save the database with their records and send it back to me, and I confirmed that when I search for the records they added (I can see the records in the table) they are not returned in the search. If I add new records to the copy they sent me back, my records do appear in the search.
I created the database in Access 2013 on a Windows 8 machine. The client is using Access 2010 on Windows Vista.
The field types are text, dropdown and date. The dropdowns are all based on lookup queries so they store the id number in the main info table and pull the name value from the query. All of the fields in the search query are written to allow nulls, including the date range searches. And again, all fields test out correctly on my machine when I enter the records.
I went on site and compared settings and nothing jumped out at me except the different versions. I also watched the client enter new records and she didn't do anything 'wrong' or unusual. When I try to do a save as 2007-2010 it says I am using features that won't allow for that, but for the life of me I can't think of anything like that since this is really a very straightforward design.
I'm going to do a package as executable, but am highly doubtful that will help. Any insights?
Thanks in advance.
A few things. Most important - always, always develop in the earliest version of Access that the system will be used with. So, you need to rebuild, using Access 2010, period. Try creating a new blank database (in 2010) and importing the objects one (or a few) at a time. Make sure the system is split. One file for the FE (forms, queries, reports, code, etc.) and one for the BE (tables only). Make sure that the Filter On Load property of all forms is set to No. If the recordsource for the form contains a where clause, make sure that the newly entered records meet the criteria for the where clause.
I'm trying to replicate a report from old Oracle Discoverer to OBIEE.
The issue is that when I had the "pivot table prompts" to the OBIEE analysis. I'm left with duplicates instead of unique values in the drop down field. Can anyone explain how I can keep this from occurring? This only happens when I add three or more attributes/columns to the "pivot table prompts" section. This worked in Oracle Discoverer….
Be sure, for the physical connection you have defined, that you have checked the below option:
Also, I know there was a bug around this sort of functionality occurring if the column properties were set to repeat, but that is not a common thing people do, and is probably not your scenario, but it is worth a look: Bug 13147411 : 11G PROMPT IS DISPLAYING REPEATING VALUES WHEN ITEM PROPERTIES SET TO REPEAT
As mentioned by rmoff, incorrect keys can often lead to this issue. As he said, you can check the nqquery.log to see the physical SQL, or enter SET VARIABLE LOGLEVEL=4; in the SQL prefix on the advanced tab, then run your report again. This will generate a log in the admin pane of the tool that you can check easily.
The dropdown list is built from the dimension you have defined, so if your key is incorrect you'll get duplicates. Check the physical SQL in nqquery.log if in doubt to see what SQL OBIEE is generating that returns the duplicates, and make sure you have defined your logical dimension correctly.
The issue was resolved by moving "Repeat" to "Suppress" for the individual columns that I was prompting on in the pivot!
We did this a lot throughout my department because we use the exports for further manipulation rather than using OBIEE only for high level overview and summation. Each row must hold the value in order to filter, so the "Repeat" functionality is often selected.
Thanks for the help/answer!!!
I'm hoping this will be a rather simple question to answer, as I'm not looking for any specific code. I have a table on a classic asp page populated from an sql server. I've just set the table up so that each row is clickable and takes you to a page to edit the data in the row. My question is this: Would I be better off trying to use the recordset that populated the table or should I reconnect to the db and pull just the record I want edited.
As always; It Depends. It depends on what you need to edit about the record. It depends on How far apart your DB and site are from each other. It depends on which machine, if the DB and site are on separate machines, is more powerful.
That being said, you should make a new call for that specific record. The reason mainly being because of a specification you made in your question:
...and takes you to a page to edit the data in the row
You should not try to pass a record set between pages. There are a few reasons for this
Only collect what you need
Make sure data is fresh
Consider how your program will scale
On point 1 there are two ways to look at this. One is that you are trying to pass the entire record set across a page when you only need 1 record. There are few situations where another DB call would cost more than this. The other is you are only passing one record which would make me question your design. Why does this record set have every item related to a record. You are selecting way too much for just a result list. Or if the record is that small then Why do you need the new page. Why can you not just reveal an edit template for the item if it is that minimal.
On point 2 consider the following scenario. You are discussing with a coworker how you need to change a customer's record. You pull up this result set in an application but then nature calls and you step away from you desk. The coworker gets called by the customer and asked why the record is not updated yet. To placate the customer your coworker makes the changes. Now you are using an old record set and may overwrite additional changes your coworker made while you were away. This all happens because you never update the record set, you always just pass the old one from page to page.
On point 3 we can look back a point 1 a bit. let us say that you are passing 5 fields now. You decide though that you need a comments field to attach to one of your existing fields. do you intend to pass 2000 characters of that comment field to the next page? How about if each of the 5 need a comment field? Do you intend to pass 10,000 characters for a properly paged record set of 10? do you not do record set paging and need to pass 10,000 characters for a full 126 records.
There are more reasons too. Will you be able to keep your records secure passing them this way? Will this effect your user's experience because they have a crummy computer and cannot build that quick of a post request quickly? Generally it is better to only keep what you need and in most situations your result set should not have everything you need to edit.
I am reworking and expanding a somewhat complex database schema that has a small number of tables and queries but they are closely related. The only problem I had with it was that in one of the tables the 2 fields that were relating to another table were using the field name of the record and not the ID of the record.
I changed the referring fields data type from text to number and entered some data. The queries and the reports work fine with 1 exception:
There is one report that uses both referring fields. One of the fields is ok but the other one shows symbols instead of numbers. ( The IDs in my sample entries were 14 and 20 and the symbols shown were a double barred music note /alt code 14/ and the symbol for an end of a paragraph /alt code 20/ ) Investigating further I have found that if I make a query that contains the query source for the report both fields display fine, but if I add another table to that query the second field once again shows symbols instead of numbers.
I have found a workaround of this by converting those fields back to text and the id fields in the other tables to text as well. This text key will probably haunt me later on, so I'd like to make it right before it is too late.
This is all access 2010 btw. The source file was already in 2010 (couldn't open in 2007 even)
Sounds like a corruption issue for sure. I would try adding a new column and run an update query to populate it with the values from the old column (maybe use cint(indexfield)), then delete the old column.
It might also be a good idea to decompile the database. This often helps resolve corruption issues.