I have a Data Table visualization.
The statuses have there own values,
1 - Net Banking
2 - Cash On delivery
3 - Mobile payment
Is there any way I can alias these values to their meaning in this data table ?
Related
while using azure form recognizer for medical prescription some key-value pair(like no of quantity and refills ) are not getting extracted.
How can we extract that thing? or we have to use any other machine learning library to do that.
The problem is we have one form and we have created 5 samples out of it for azure form recognizer.
the form is in .tiff format.
no. of refills is usually written as -
n refills, refills n, refills 1,2,3,4,5.
Example: “Odefsey 200-25-25 mg tabs TAKE ONE TABLET BY MOUTH ONCE DAILY. #90 tabs, 3 Refills needs to be broken into
Drug Name: Odefsey
Strength: 200-25-25 mg
Dosage Form: tabs
Directions: ONE TABLET BY MOUTH ONCE DAILY
Quantity: 90
Refills: 3
Quantity and Refills are not recognized by Azure text analytics for Health
We have to extract refills from below pic
Can you please try the latest Form Recognizer release and see if it resolves the issue - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive-services/form-recognizer/whats-new
You can try it out in the Form Recognizer sample tool - https://fott-preview.azurewebsites.net/
In my SpringBoot Application using Prometheus, I created a metric type Count that brings me the following information :-
pre_analise_executadas_total{id_partner="parceiro1",id_person="pessoa2",id_product="produto1",id_proposal="proposta3", id_employee="operador1",} 1.0
For each new proposal generated, prometheus presents me with this information and assigns a value of 1 to the counter, because in this combination of attributes each proposal will be unique.
How can I generate a graph in Grafana that shows the variation in the number of proposals contracted per employee each day of the month?
I am new to querying GA with event label filters and am trying to work out my mistake with the following syntax. I have 3 different event label filters on 3 separate reports which are identical, except for the variation in this query:
Report filter 1: ga:eventLabel==Login - Create Account Step 2
Report filter 2: ga:eventLabel==Login - Create Account Step 2;ga:eventLabel!=Where to Buy Step 2 Submit Query
Report filter 3: ga:eventLabel==Login - Create Account Step 2;ga:eventLabel==Where to Buy Step 2 Submit Query
Now, I would expect that the count of sessions and users I get from report filter #1 would equal the sum of results from report filters #2 and #3. But actually, report filter #2: ga:eventLabel==Login - Create Account Step 2;ga:eventLabel!=Where to Buy Step 2 Submit Query returns counts of users and sessions orders of magnitude larger than the other 2 queries. (like 70K vs 120ish). Feels like there's a classic beginner conceptual error I'm making here, but I'm not sure how to google the the right question. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks for any help.
What you are trying to query with session/user metrics won't really work the reason being is that events are hits and so filtering that way filters on the hits. The way to get around that is to create segments of users that have triggered the events that you are interested in.
Now if you were to report on events/unique events using those filters based on the logic there I would expect #1 and #2 to return the same results and #3 to contain no values.
In Access 2010, I have a little form prior to a report which asks the user for a date range (e.g. 7.7.2015 - 9.9.2015). I pass this date range to the report as filter. The query contains the fields ActDate, Activity and Hours. I now want the report to look like:
Activities from <startDate> to <endDate>:
Activity Total Hours
Reading 5
Writing 8
Talking 3
What I'm getting is
Activities from <startDate> to <endDate>:
Activity Total Hours
Reading 2
Reading 3
Writing 1
Writing 3
Writing 4
Talking 1
Talking 2
The report should sum up equal activities over the selected date range and not display a separate line for each activity which just occured on a different date. Adding a group in the report for activities is no solution (it just adds extra blank lines).
I guess it's possible to build a custom query after the user dialog (in the query I could filter by date range and GROUP BY Activity), but it would be much simpler if the grouping could be done in the report without changing the query. Do I really have to change the query?
I cant seem to get my head around how to create this
Each Bold Letter is a Database Table
I need this to work with Entity Framework
Product
[ Product belongs to one group]
Product Group - [Computer]
[many to many]
[Group has many items]
[Product belongs to one Group Item]
Product Group Item - [Hard Drive]
[many to many]
[Group Items has Many Fields]
[Fields does not change for each product only changes for each Group Item]
Product Group Item Field - [Form Factor]
[Group Item Fields has many values]
[Field Values Change with each product]
Product Group Item Field Values - [ 3.5" ]
I can pretty much get the first 3 to work
my problem is how to do the last two tables
I hope I explained it clear enough
thanks in advance
alt text http://myimgs.net/images/cjgo.gif
maybe this will help or just hurt who knows
Product = is a harddrive
so:
Group - Computer
GroupItem - Harddrive
GroupItemField - Form Factor : GroupItemFieldValue - 3.5"
GroupItemField - Capacity : GroupItemFieldValue - 600MB
etc...
but the field value changes for each product of type Harddrive but the field does not
I think you may be trying to over-generalise your solution.
It seems to me you want to standardise the information you capture for different kinds of products.
E.g. Hard Drives
1 Supplier1 Model 1a 3.5" 600MB
2 Supplier1 Model 1b 3.5" 200GB
3 Supplier2 Model X 2.5" 600MB
And you want to represent the attributes in a single table:
1 FormFactor 3.5"
1 Capacity 600MB
2 FormFactor 3.5"
2 Capacity 200GB
3 FormFactor 2.5"
3 Capacity 600MB
The problem is that over-generalising like this you lose all the data integrity controls that your RDBMS provides.
You may be better off with:
Product (*Id, Name, GroupId, Supplier, Model, ...)
HardDrive (*Id, FormFactor, Capacity, ...)
Monitor (*Id, Resolution, ...)
Memory (*Id, Capacity, Speed, ...)
Each of the above product specific tables has an optional-to-one reference to Product. With such a design, it becomes impossible to capture Monitor attributes for a hard-drive unless you add a Monitor row for the product.
That said, if you're willing to forego integrity controls, or manage them yourself in code, then looking at sample data helps to produce your schema. (I'm going to use the terminology of attributes.)
AttributeValues (*ProductId, *AttributeId, Value) -- Note a problem here: what type should Value be?
You will need some way of indicating what attributes are allowed for each Group:
HardDrive FormFactor Req
HardDrive Capacity Req
Monitor Resolution Req
Monitor Colour Opt
Memory Capacity Req
Memory Speed Req
GroupAttributes (*GroupId, *AttributeId, IsOptional)
Then you need to indicate the group to which a product belongs (so that you can figure out which values need to be filled in)
1 Supplier1 Model 1a HardDrive
2 Supplier1 Model 1b HardDrive
3 Supplier2 Model X HardDrive
4 Supplier2 Model M1 Monitor
Products (*ProductId, Group, SupplierId, ModelNo)
I'm not sure where your GroupItems fit in.
Relationships
Products.GroupId -> Groups.GroupId
Products.SupplierId -> Suppliers.SupplierId
GroupAttribute.GroupId -> Groups.GroupId
GroupAttribute.AttributeId -> Groups.AttributeId
AttributeValue.ProductId -> Products.ProductId
AttributeValue.AttributeId -> Attributes.AttributeId
NOTE
I've illustrated how you can add columns defining rules for the attribute values. You could do the same for the Attributes table where you'd probably at a minimum need to indicate the data-type of the attribute.
You may notice that it won't be long and you'll soon be replicating the meta-data that your RDBMS provides to define tables and columns. The highly generalised solution does have its benefits such as using a simple template mechanism to capture and view products. But it becomes quite a bit more difficult (in code and processing time) to perform other tasks. So I suggest you consider your requirements holistically against the design.