Alright, so I'm trying to run a query that to display a null value in a field if a duplicate ID exist. There are 2 tables, parent-child relationship. The parent table can have one to many child records. In my scenario, we have fuel tanks that can get many inspections done on them. Tank is the parent table and Tank_Inspections is the child table. There's a capacity data field that I'm getting from the tank table and joining it with the tank inspection record and it shows up twice if multiple inspections exist for that tank. This is fine, however I don't want to double count the capacity and only want to show it once. I've pasted the link to an image of a screenshot of how it should be displayed if multiple records exist for parent table. The highlighted cell should be blank. As you can see, the TankID = 65 has two inspections of different types, since I'm getting the capacity field from the Tank table, it's getting inserted twice. I was to write a query so if two or more inspections exist for tanks, only show the capacity once and "blank" out the other capacity data element. In this case, the highlight cell should be blank. Suggestions?
http://imgur.com/6bYE8wS
This sounds like a job for an analytic function. Since Access doesn't natively support these, there is a hack to accomplish the row_number() analytic function that sounds like it would meet your needs:
Achieving ROW_NUMBER / PARTITION BY in MS Access
You create a query that invokes this self-join and use that instead of the table. Once you have the row number on each row, it would look something like this:
Tank ID Inspection ID Row
59 6841 1
60 6842 1
65 7344 1
65 6843 2
And your capacity formula would change from [Inspection].[Capacity] to something like this:
IIf([Self Join].[Row] = 1, [Inspection].[Capacity], Null)
Related
I have a report with a parameter where the end user chooses a practice name that corresponds to a group of people. Most of these groups have fewer than 10 people, but a small number of them have as many as 150. When there are more than 15 people in a given group, they want separate graphs, each with no more than 15 people. So for most of the groups, we only need one graph. For a few, we need a lot of graphs.
Behind the scenes, I created a graph for each multiple of 15 people, and set them to only be visible if there are actually that many people in the group. This does what I need it to, but it makes the report super slow. As close as I can tell, behind the scenes when an end user runs the report it's still somehow rendering the hidden graphs and slowing it all to heck. (I did find this link which I think suggests this is a known bug.
I need to have one report where the end user selects the practice name, so I can't make two reports, "My practice is normal" and "My practice is ginormous". I thought maybe I could make a conditional sub-report split into those two reports based on the practice name parameter, but that doesn't appear to be possible; you can play around with visibility but I'm guessing that will still cause the invisible graph rendering problem and not help my speed.
Are there any other cool tips I can try to speed up my report, or is this just a case of too many graphs spoiling the broth?
The easiest way would be to generate a group number for every 15 people and then use a list control to repeat the chart for each group.
Here's a very quick example of this in action. I just used some sample data from one of the Adventure Works sample database.
Here's my query that returns every person in each selected department. Note that I have commented out the DELCAREs as these were just in there for testing.
--DECLARE #Department varchar(50) = ''
--DECLARE #chartMax int = 5
SELECT
GroupName, v.Department, v.FirstName, v.LastName
, ChartGroup = (ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY Department ORDER BY LastName, FirstName)-1) / #chartMax -- calc which chart number the person belongs to
, Salary = ((ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 100) * 500) + (ABS(CHECKSUM(NewId())) % 1000) + 10000 -- Just some random number to plot
FROM [HumanResources].[vEmployeeDepartment] v
WHERE Department IN (#Department)
ORDER BY Department
The key bit is the ChartGroup column
ChartGroup = (ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY Department ORDER BY LastName, FirstName)-1) / #chartMax
This will give the first 5 rows in each department a ChartGroup of 0 the next 15 1 and so on. I used 5 rather than 15 just so it's easier to demo.
Here's the dataset results
Now, in your report, add a List, set it's dataset property to your dataset containing your main data (the query above in my case).
Now edit the 'details' rowgroup properties and add a grouping by Practice and ChartGroup (Department and ChartGroup in this example)
In the list box's textbox, right-click then insert a chart.
Set the chart up as required, in my example, I used salary as the values on a pie chart and the employee names as the labels.
Here's the final design ..
Note that I set the department as a multi-value parameter and also set the number of persons per chart (chartMax) as a report parameter.
When I preview the report I get this for 'Engineering' which has 6 employees
Sales has 18 employees so we get this
.... and so on, it will generate a new chart for every 15 people or part thereof.
I have created a report with Data Studio taking values from GA and I have defined a table with several data like age, sex, hour, total users and transaccions.
At the end of the table it shows the total of transactions which are 8 and this data is correct. But If I seek this transactions in the table I only found 2.
Here you can see the table ordered by transactions and you can see how there is only 2.
And these are the sources of the data of the table:
Am I doing something wrong? How can I get the eight transactions in their own column?
Edit I:
The table are ordered descendent by the column "Transactions" (Transacciones) so all the transactions are showed in the first rows. In this case, we've got only 2 transactions.
In string 'Total' Data Studio shows Total not for your split, but just Total (Yes, it's strange). Test it in this way: create a new widget contains only 'Users' or 'Transactions'. You will see that number is the same as in your table in 'Total'.
You have 10 per page, change this view to match the total number of records. The reminder are likely on following pages
I am struggling in the creation of a report including four tables.
Those tables should be the same for each account. I use just one dataset. When I run the report, the data is good, but tables listing appears wrong.
First all BALANCE DETAIL tables for all accounts selected are listed, then all DEBIT TRANSACTION tables for all accounts selected are listed etc.
For each account the page should show up just like this
Please give me an easy-to-understand answer since I am really a beginner in this sector.
It might be easier to this with 5 separate datasets, but I think you can do it with just on also.
Create on 'main' table on the dataset. use 4 detail rows, 1 column
Group it on accountnumber
In each detail of the main table, insert a new table with the same dataset.
Group those sub-tables also on accountnumber
Add a filter to the subtables. set the subtable accountnumber equal to the outer table account number (you can use the expression builder, but it should read something like this: row['ponum'] equals row._outer["ponum"] )
Good luck!
I know this has been asked before..sort of. And that's why I'm posting. Basically I'm building a report in Crystal that relies, to keep this simple, at least 3 tables.
Table A is inner joined to table B by a unique ID. Table B has a child table that may or may not have data related to this unqiue ID.
As a general example table A is a customer table, table B is a product table and the child table is contains the product number. All customers have a product, but not all customers have product number in the child table. I hope I've explained that simply enough.
My issue is sort of between Crytal and Access and how to query this. When I'm writing behind something in VB it's easy enough to write and execute a query and display the result in the desired manner. However I can't seem to get my query straight... I either end up with a report with cartesian product as the resultset, which displays ok...except that even with the few records I have ends up being about 30k pages..or I end up with a blank dataset because the child table does not have corrisponding data to B.
Using outter joins I've managed to get my results within some amount of reason but not acceptable to a real world report. I'm sure this issue has come up but I can't seem to find any suitable answers and to be honest I'm not even sure what questions to ask being a Crystal n00b.
What I'm really after is the data from Table A, the data from Table B and children tables. While they are logically linked and can be linked with the ID field, it isn't necessary I don't think because I am taking a parameter value for the report of the ID field. And once the tables are filtered, no other action needs to be taken except to dump them back on the report.
So can anybody point me in the right direction? Can I set up individual datasoruces (unrelated) based perhaps in a seperate section? Should I build a tree of queries and logic in my DB to get what I need out? I've been racking my brain and can't seem to find the right solution, any and all advice is apreciated and if I can clarify anything or answer any questions I will.
Thanks in advance.
As per requested below:
Section1
ID fname lname
01 john smith
Section2
ID notifiedDate notifiedTime
01 10/10/2012 12:35PM
S2childAdmin
ID noteName
01 jane doe
This data is logically related and can be related in the DB. However it is not necessary as long as the ID parameter is passed to each table. Querying Section1 inner joined with Section2 works fine. But any other arrangements result in more rows than required and I end up with a report many times duplicated. What I really need is something like Section1 joined with Section2 and S2childAdmin as a freely availble table. Otherwise it multiplies my data or results in a null recordset (because it can return 0 rows)
I think this should help point you in the right direction, though it has been 5 years or so since I did heavy Crystal Reports work.
One option might be to join everything using Outer Joins like you stated you were, then use a Crystal Report 'group' on the Table A ID, with a group based upon Table B ID inside of that. So you would, in the actual 'Detail' area put your table C details if there were any, and then use the Group header/footer for Table A and Table B to show data specific to those objects.
Another possible solution that may fall short of your requirements but might get you thinking in another way, is to create your main report and in it, display the fields from table A. Then below those fields include a sub-report and pass in the unique ID from Table A. You will then have a query inside of the subreport that finds all of the Table B records with that Table A.ID value and displays their details.
At this point you run into a weakness of Crystal Reports (at least as of the last version I used) in that you cannot have a subreport inside of a subreport.
I've got a form in ax 2009, showing filtered records of a table (about 5.000.000 records total, about 1000 shown filtered).
Selecting a couple of those records in the form and deleting them via form-control (alt+f9) is very slow.
One record is deleted immediately, selecting about 20 takes several minutes!
There is only one deleteAction on the table - any idea what could thwart the operation?
edit:
The regarding table has two indices, both don't allow duplicates. First one is an index on an integer field, second one is a combined one of three fields.
createRedIdIndex is not activated.
The filter makes use of one column ( employeeID ) in a queryBuildRange.
deleteAction: another table (B) references the id ( indexed ) of the mentioned table (A). A has a deleteAction on B. setting is "cascade"
The two tables are related via id-field.
The relations can be resolved by an index.
And it's only an amount of about 20 records I want to delete - so I don't go in line with the idea, that the "to-delete-data-amount" is too big!
Also have a look on this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/emeadaxsupport/archive/2010/07/12/forms-with-a-high-number-of-records-take-a-significant-time-to-show.aspx
Consider adding
grid.autoSizeColumns(false);
as suggested in the article.
Do diagnose database performance issues in AX, enable SQL tracing in Tools\Setup in the SQL tab page.
Use the code profiler to see where the time is used.