I have a UI that lets the user make changes to the problem facts before and after the solving process, i.e. I am doing repeated planning. However, the constraint matches do not get updated when I apply those changes to the score director.
My problem fact changes look something like this:
solutionBusiness.doProblemFactChange(scoreDirector -> {
Patient p = patientAdmissionSchedule.getPatientList().get(0);
scoreDirector.beforeProblemFactChanged(p);
p.setPreferredRoomCapacity(2);
scoreDirector.afterProblemFactChanged(p);
});
In this case, the scoreDirector would still show me constraint matches with the old preferredRoomCapacity.
The constraint matches only get updated once I start the solving process again. Is there any way to trigger an update of the constraint matches other than starting the solving process?
You need to use the working solution, so:
Patient p = ((MySchedule) scoreDirector.getWorkingSolution()).getPatientList().get(0);
That's a different instance than your original one, see docs chapter "planning clone" etc.
Related
I have a piece of code which does a Buffer-Copy method, but is there any way to check before doing the buffer copy of the record already exists? I do not want to check 'unique keys' in my data dictionary.
This is the code I have at this moment:
CREATE QUERY hQuery.
hQuery:SET-BUFFERS(hBuffer).
hQuery:QUERY-PREPARE("FOR EACH " + hBuffer:NAME + " NO-LOCK ").
hQuery:QUERY-OPEN().
hQuery:GET-FIRST().
DO WHILE NOT hQuery:QUERY-OFF-END:
DO TRANSACTION ON ERROR UNDO:
hDBBuffer:BUFFER-CREATE().
hDBBuffer:BUFFER-COPY(hBuffer) NO-ERROR.
It is unclear what you are trying to accomplish and why you don't want to check unique keys "in my data dictionary" or even what you mean by that.
Your example code is very sketchy and incomplete, maybe someone else can figure out what you are trying to do and why, but I am at a loss to divine the purpose behind it. The use of handles and dynamic queries is especially puzzling. There doesn't seem to be a reason for that or any need to do that.
None the less, if I were coding a routine to copy a buffer, couldn't look up unique indexes in the dictionary, and wanted to pro-actively avoid potential collisions I might write something like this:
define temp-table oLine like orderLine.
for each orderline no-lock:
find oLine of orderLine no-error.
if not available( oLine ) then create oLine.
buffer-copy orderLine to oline.
end.
(Using static coding to keep the example simple.)
(I wouldn't really use OF - it is on my personal forbidden list, I think it is terrible from a documentation and maintenance perspective.)
I believe, as Tom has mentioned in his reply, it'd be most appropriate to have another dynamic query directed at the hDBBuffer using the BUFFER-FIELDs and BUFFER-VALUEs from hBuffer and check the NUM-RESULTS after you use QUERY-OPEN. Then delete the query for memory purposes.
But yes, you would be looking for the metadata unique keys to achieve that. I understand you don't want to do it, but it's REALLY the best way, can't stress it enough.
Now if you would really like to check for the existence of ALL the record data, look into the BUFFER-COMPARE method. You could create a second dynamic query, then cycle all records there by using buffer-compare to match the entire record you're looking at to the one you're assessing whether to create, or list the ones you wish to include or exclude. This approach is way less performatic, though, please keep that in mind.
What I wanted is to display an alert when I move to the next row if the record that I inserted is already one of the records in the multi record block.
and in what trigger must I put it?
There are several options you can use.
One is to POST values entered (in WHEN-NEW-RECORD-INSTANCE) trigger. It will, well, post everything you entered so far. Then, you can write a WHEN-VALIDATE-ITEM trigger which SELECTs from that table and checks whether such a value already exists. Alternatively, if there's the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on that (those) column(s), database will do its job itself, i.e. raise an exception.
Another option is to literally loop through all rows in a block and compare the first row's value with all the others, then the second row's values with all of them, etc.
Or, you can use a Record Group (usually used for Lists of Values). Basically, you'd check whether value you entered exists in a record group. More info, along with a FMB file, on Craig's blog.
Or, you can use calculated items, as described enter link description here (FMB attached as well).
As you can see, quite a few ways to do that; explore each of them and pick the one you find the most useful / attractive / easy to implement.
I have a table (key=username, value=male or female) and an index on the values.
After I add an item to the table, I want to update the counts of males and females. However, after a successful write, as the index is a Global Secondary Index, the count query is not consistent.
Is there a way (dynamo db Streams, Lambda, ...) to monitor when the index is up to date?
Note that Im not looking for a solution that involves something else (keep count of increments in redis or ...), what I describe here is a simplified problem to especially ask a question about how can I monitor an index in dynamo.
Thanks!
I am not sure if there is any mechanism currently provided to check this but, you can easily solve this problem by adding a single line of code to your query.
ConsistentRead = True
DynamoDB has a parameter when set as true will make sure that you get latest updated value.
Now, when you add/update the item and then query the data add ConsistentRead option in it, this will ensure that you will have latest count value.
Here is the reference link.
If you are able to accomplish using other technique then please do share it.
Hope that helps.
A totally neo4j noob is talking here,
I like to create a graph to store a set of users, a typical user is as follows:
CREATE
(node_1 {FullName:"Peter Parker",FirstName:"peter",FamilyName:"parker"}),
(node_2 {Address:"Newyork",CountryCode:"US"}),
(node_3 {Location:"Hidden"}),
(node_4 {phoneNumber:11111}),
(node_5 {InternetEmailAddress:"peter#peterland.com")
now the problem is,
Every time I execute this I add 5 more nodes.
I know I need to use a unique key, but all example I saw can use a unique key for a specific node. So how can I make sure a user doesn't get added if it already exists(I can use email address as unique key).
how do I update the nodes if some changes occur. for example, after a week I want to update the graph to contain the following instead of the previous one.(no duplicates)
CREATE(node_1 {FullName:"Peter Parker",FirstName:"peter",FamilyName:"parker"}),(node_2 {Address:"Newyork",CountryCode:"US"}),(node_3 {Location:"public"}),(node_4 {phoneNumber:11111}),(node_5 {InternetEmailAddress:"peter#peterland.com"),(node_6 {status:"Jailed"})
(NOTE the new update changed location to "public" and added a new node for peter
Seeing as you had a load of nodes anyway.
Some of the data you have modelled as Nodes are probably properties as the other answer suggests, some are possibly correctly modelled as Nodes and one could probably form the or a part of the relationship.
Location public/hidden can be modelled in one of three ways, as a property on the Person, as a property between the Person and the Location or as the relationship type. To understand that first you need to have a relationship.
Your address at the moment is another Node, I think this is correct, but possibly you would want two nodes, related something like this:
(s:State)-[:IN_COUNTRY]-(c:Country)
YMMV and clearly that a US centric model, but you can extend it easilly enough.
Now you could create Peter with a LIVES_IN relationship:
CREATE (p:Person{fullName:"Peter Parker"}), (s:State{name:"New York"}), (c:Country{code:"US"}),
(p)-[:LIVES_IN]->(s), (s)-[:IN_COUNTRY]->(c)
For speed you are better off modelling two relationships which could be LIVES_IN_PUBLIC and LIVES_IN_HIDDEN which means to perform that update that you want above then you have to delete the one and create the other. However, if speed is not of the essence, it is common also to use properties on the relationship.
CREATE (p:Person{fullName:"Peter Parker"}), (s:State{name:"New York"}), (c:Country{code:"US"}),
(p)-[:LIVES_IN{public:false}]->(s), (s)-[:IN_COUNTRY]->(c)
So your complete Q&A:
CREATE (p:Person {fullName:"Peter Parker",firstName:"peter",familyName:"parker", phoneNumber:1111, internetEmailAddress:"peter#peterland.com"}),
(s:State {name:"New York"}), (c:Country {code:"US"}),
(p)-[:LIVES_IN{public:false}]->(s), (s)-[:IN_COUNTRY]-(c)
MATCH (p:Person {internetEmailAddress:"peter#peterland.com"})-[li:LIVES_IN]->()
SET li.public = true, p.status = "jailed"
When adding other People you probably do not want to recreate States and Countries, rather you want to match them, and possibly Merge them, but we'll stick to Create.
MATCH (s:State{name:"New York"})
CREATE (p:Person{name:"John Smith", internetEmailAddress:"john#google.com"})-[:LIVES_IN{public:false}]->(s)
John Smith now implicitly lives in the US too as you can follow the relationship through the State Node.
Treatise complete.
I think you're modeling your data incorrectly here - you're setting up each property of the person as a separate node, which is not a good idea. You don't have any linkages between those nodes, so with this data pattern, later on you won't be able to tell what Peter Parker's address is. You're also not using node labels, which I think could really help here.
The quick question to your answer about updating nodes is that you have to MATCH them, then use SET to modify a property. So if you had a person, you might do this:
MATCH (p:Person { FullName: "Peter Parker" })
SET p.Address = "123 Fake Street"
RETURN p;
But notice I'm making assumptions about the way your data is structured. I'll take that same data you provided, this might be a better way of creating it:
CREATE (node_1:Person {FullName:"Peter Parker",
FirstName:"peter",
FamilyName:"parker",
Address:"Newyork",CountryCode:"US",
Location:"Hidden",
phoneNumber:11111,
InternetEmailAddress:"peter#peterland.com"});
The difference with this suggestion is that I'm putting all the properties into a single node (instead of one property per node) and I'm applying the Person label to the node.
If you structured the data like this, then the update query I provided would work. Structuring the data like you have it, it's not possible to update Peter Parker's address, because there's no relationship between your node_1 and node_2
I have a database in access for institute. there is a [Registers] Table and [Certificates] Table.
I want to give Mark to each of Registers a Mark. I want to set Validation Rule for Each
If [Certificates].[Mark]>70
Then UpdateRecord
SetField
CertificateID "GENERATE AutoNumber"
My Problem is i cant handle the CertificateID Generate with Macro. i cant use DMAX.
looking for a solution to give CertificateID to only Registers who passed the Course.
Tried "After Update" Macro and "After Insert" macro but still didnt success.
is there any other way to give AutoNumber except "DMax"?
Well, i just already found a way but not the best way.
I just added another Table as "Certificates" and renamed current(Certificates) to "Marks".
Tables and Fields
i made a query with Select a "Grade" from Certificates Table and rest from Marks. Whenever i fill a record in Grade table it generate Autonumber for "CertificateID" a new number.
For Validation i set my validation Rule in my form on Grade which i cant fill that field if Marks.Mark is less than 70. ( [Marks].[Mark] < 70)
I know its not a good way.
Still looking for better answer