I am trying to get the CostCenter, MainAccount and Department starting from the LedgerDimension field in the LedgerJournalTrans table.
I found this but I am lost.
http://ax2009developer.blogspot.ro/2014/02/how-create-customize-look-up-for.html
In fact, for this task, I have implemented only queries in AOT. Is there any way to join some tables and get there without taking the X++ approach?
Financial dimensions in AX 2012 are far more complicated than in previous versions.
You should start with this white paper: http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/E/3/4E36B655-568E-4D4A-B161-152B28BAAF30/Implementing_the_Account_and_Financial_Dimensions_Framework_AX2012.pdf
You'll find the tables involved and their relations.
By the way, I recommend you not to build your own queries. As the model is really versatile, it will be first tricky to build your query, then they will not be performant.
You need to use the APIs as they are already built and also as they use the system global object cache to cache data, as the model is not set for fast queries.
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is an easy way to do what you want with queries only and X++ is the way to go.
You could, in theory, create a view that you would use in your query objects. It would have tables DimensionAttribute, DimensionAttributeValueSet DimensionAttributeValueSetItem, and DimensionAttributeValue I think. And multiple instances of each in some cases.
Then in your view, you'd set ranges with your different Attribute names. This is fairly complex, but you could repeatedly use it on any query. I could see value in it for sure, but if you've not worked much with dimensions, you have some learning to do to get that working.
Related
I'm creating my main project functionality right now so it's kind of a big decision to make in my project, I want efficient & scalable solution. I use different API's to fetch users products ultimately for 1 collection to display products information inside a table with possible merge by SKU TITLE from different sources.
I have thought of 2 approaches (In both approaches we add Meteor.userId() to collection insert so each users has it's own products:
1) to create each API it's own collection and fetch the products to it, after or in middle of the API query where I insert it to sourceXProducts also add the logic of merge products by sku and add it to main usersProducts Only the fields I need, and we have the collection of the sourceXproducts if we ever need anything we didn't really include to main usersProducts we can query it and get it so we basically keep all the information possible (because it can come handy)
source1Products = new Meteor.Collection('source1Products');
source2Products = new Meteor.Collection('source2Products');
usersProducts = new Meteor.Collection('usersProducts');
Pros: Honestly I'm not sure, It makes it organized also the way I learned Meteor it seems to be used a lot.
Cons: Meteor collection joins is not supported in core yet, So I have to use a meteor package such as: meteor-publish-composite which seems good but this way might hit performance
2) Create 1 collection and just insert everything the API resonse has and additional apiSource field so we can choose products from X user X api.
usersProducts = new Meteor.Collection('usersProducts');
Pros: No joins, possibly better performance
Cons: Not organized, It can become a large collection maybe it's not good for mongodb
3) Your ideas? :)
First, you should improve the question. You do not tell us anything precise about your schema. What are the entities you have and what type of relations are there and what type of joins do you think you will be doing. How often you will be doing them?
Second, you should rethink your schema and think in the terms of a non-relational database. I see many people coming from SQL world and then they simply design their schema in the same way. Wrong. MongoDB is not SQL and things you learned there you should not try to just reuse here. You should start using features like subdocuments and arrays which can help you solve many basic things you would do in SQL with joins. So, knowing your schema would help us help you design the schema. For example, see this answer and especially the comments for the discussion for a similar type of question you are asking here.
Third, have you evaluated various solutions which exist out there? There are many, but you have not shown us that you tried any of them and how it worked for you. What were pros and cons of them, for you and your project?
Fourth, if you are lazy to evaluate, you can just use peerlibrary:peerdb and peerlibrary:related. They are simply perfect. You should trust me. I am their author.
This is entity framework:
var department = _context.Departments
.Include(dep => dep.Employees.Select(emp => emp.ContactTypes))
.SingleOrDefault(d => d.Id == departmentId);
Here I expect one department to be returned containing all related employees and all contact types for each employee.
This is ormlite servicestack:
I have no idea. When I look at the docu/samples: https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.OrmLite
They write:
Right now the Expression support can satisfy most simple queries with a strong-typed API. For anything more complex (e.g. queries with table joins) you can still easily fall back to raw SQL queries as seen below.
I have seen there is a JoinSqlBuilder class but I do not think it can return nested collections.
Maybe what I want is not possible but maybe I can do a compromise like get all employees for the departmentId. Then I inmemory foreach the employees and fetch all contact types for a certain employeeId. Creating the hierarchy and assigning the lists would still be my job.
But I hope there is a shorter solution.
What would also be fine is when the query however it might look like return an object (Dynamic?) with 3 flat properties: Department, Employees, ContactTypes and assign thoese properties to my DTO.
Ok, please don't take this as a definitive answer, but more just my take on the situation (I don't use service stack very much) however...
When I first started to use EF many years ago, I came across a similar situation, where the references just would not load. Like you I was faced with the likely hood of having to enumerate the individual collections myself and write a lot of extra code for an operation the ORM should be able to handle easily.
What I ended up doing, was to use auto-mapper, which basically reduce all the multiline loops I had everywhere to a single line mapping statement.
Granted, I still had to do one mapping statement for each linked property, but it reduced the code I had to write, and more importantly got me up and running until EF improved, or I found a better way of doing things.
Let me stress, I'm not proposing this as an answer, and it's a bit big for a comment, I'm simply suggesting shifting your thought in a different direction, that may help a better solution come to the surface.
I'd like to learn about using catalogs correctly.
I have about 30 useful content types, about 50 indexes in catalog.xml, and about 45 metadatas. There are just three types which account for most of the site's data - and I may need millions of these. I've been reading, and there's lots to do, but I want to have the basic configuration right before I begin all that.
This page told me that any non-default indexes should not be added to the portal_catalog. I've even read people explaining how removing one, or two of the default indexes makes a performance difference.
My question is: what are the rules for dividing up the indexes into different catalogs, and for selecting which catalog(s) index which type(s)?
So far I have created one additional catalog, used to catalog all indexes for my 'site-setup' objects (which I have caused to no longer be indexed in portal_catalog). The site-setup indexes are very often used, but more rarely modified than others, so I thought it was correct to separate them from objects which are reindexed more often. I'm not sure if that's the main consideration though.
Another similar question (a good example of the kind of thing I want to solve): how would you handle something like secondary workflow review_state variables? I give each workflow's review_state variable an index (and search on them quite often), but some of my workflows are only used on just a few types. (my most prolific objects have secondary workflows...)
I'd be very grateful for advice!
Campbell
This won't cover everything but I'll bring up some points..
Anything not in the portal_catalog won't work with collections, folder_contents view, getFolderContents method, search, portlet collections, related items(I think) and anything else the assumes you're using the portal_catalog.
I like to use an additional catalog when I need to be able to query the data but it only affects a sub-set of the content objects.
Use collective.indexing to speed up indexing operations.
Mount the catalogs on their own mount points so you can cache them differently from the rest of the site(so you can cache the whole catalog). Then, you can even serve the the catalogs from dedicated zeoserver.
Also, if your content doesn't have to be cataloged by the portal_catalog(with all the constraints listed), you may even want to think about if you need it as a full-fledged (archetype|dexterity) type in the first place. You can use a more slim repoze.catalog to catalog arbitrary objects(which could be very simple data) for whatever your purpose is and get even more performance. Or better yet, look into Solr for indexing it for VERY good performance.
On more thing, depending on the type of data you're storing, you could even look into using a relational database for a data store. But I don't know what kind of queries, indexes, data, etc you have...
30 different types seems like a lot but I don't know what your use case is. Care to share? Perhaps there is a better way to do it.
I am currently working to rework the data system of our application. Basically, it is designed so that people can add all the custom fields they want, with only a few constant/always-there fields.
Our current design is giving us plenty of maintenance problems. What we do is dynamically(at runtime) add a column to the database for each field. We have to have a meta table and other cruft to maintain all of these dynamic columns.
Now we are looking at EAV, but it doesn't seem much better. Basically, we have many different types of fields, so there would be a StringValues, IntegerValues, etc table... which makes things that much worse.
I am wondering if using JSON or XML blobs in the database may be a better solution, specifically because in most use cases, when we retrieve anything out of these tables, we need the entire row. The problems is that we need to be able to create reports for this data as well.. No solution really makes custom queries look easy. And searching across such a blob database will surely be a performance nightmare when reports are ran.
Each "row" needs to have anywhere from about 15 to 100(possibly more) attributes/columns associated with it.
We are using SQL Server 2008 and our application interfacing with the database is a C# web application(so, ASP.Net).
what do you think? Use EAV or blobs or something else entirely? (Also, yes, I know a schema free database like MongoDB would be awesome here, but I can't convince my boss to use it)
What about the xml datatype? Advanced querying is possible against this type.
We've used the xml type with good success. We do most of our heavy lifting at the code level using linq to parse out values. Our schema is somewhat fixed, so that may not be an option for you.
One interesting feature of SQL server is the sql_variant type. It's fully supported in .NET and quite easy to use. The advantages is you don't need to create StringValue, IntValue, etc... columns, just one Value column that can contain all the simple types.
This very specific type favors the EAV option, IMHO.
It has some drawbacks though (sorting, distinct selects, etc...). So if you want to use it, make sure you read all the documentation and understand its limit.
Create a table with your known columns and "X" sparse columns using a sequential name such as DataColumn0001, DataColumn0002, etc. When there is a definition for a new column just rename a column and start inserting data. The great advantage to the sparse column is it is indexable.
More info at this link.
What you're doing is STUPID with a database that doesn't support your data type. You should work with a medium that meets your needs which include NoSQL databases such as RavenDB, MongoDB, DocumentDB, CouchBase or Postgres in RDMBS to name several.
You are inherently using the tool in a capacity it was neither designed for, and one it specifically attempts to limit you from achieving success. NoSQL database solutions frequently use JSON as an underlying storage because JSON is inherently schemaless. Want to add a property? Sure go ahead, want to add a whole sub collection? Sure go ahead. NoSQL databases were in part, created specifically to remove rigid schema requirements of RDBMS.
2015 Edit: Postgres now natively supports JSON. This is a viable option for RDBMS. My answer is still correct that you need to use the correct tool for the problem. It is a polygot persistence world.
I'm a former classic ASP programmer and sometimes PHP programmer writing my first ASP.NET application. I'm loving the much-improved ADO.NET functions, but I'm feeling the need to write a database class. Partly I want to consolidate the code that actually interacts with the database, and partly I want to reduce what feels like repetition.
A simple database class is not hard to do, but I'm using parameterized queries as one of my security measures. I'm struggling with how to incorporate this into a class. I wrote a function to return the datatype of a column in the database by passing in the table and column name, but I can't think of a robust way to obtain the table and column name from the SQL query.
My design for the class was to have a Query() function for selecting, and an Execute() function for insert/update/delete. (Not opposed to having more public functions, but didn't want to get ahead of myself.) Both functions take a SQL string and a SortedList for the parameters. It might be possible to get the column name by finding the parameter name in the SQL string and looking in front of the equal sign. Likewise, it should be fairly simple to get the table name when the query is insert, update, or delete, because you only work with one table at a time. The big concern is selecting, because there could be one or more joins, inner selects, etc.
Am I headed in the wrong direction? Anything I'm not thinking of that could make my life easier or more difficult? Anybody written a class for this in any language that could offer some advice?
Don't reinvent the wheel. Look into nHibernate or LINQToSQL (or LINQToEntities) for your ORM needs.
Would second the call to find a tried and tested wheel that works for you, especially if this is your first foray into aspnet... there will be plenty else to keep you busy.
Would add a suggestion for SubSonic, which is perhaps a little lighter than nHibernate, but it really depends on the nature of your project, they are both great tools, and both have saved me months of work over the last few years.
I think since this is your first experience in ASP.NET you would be well advised to look into Linq to SQL. Do some tutorials so you get a feel for how it works before you try to code any Linq queries.
The only reasons I can think of to NOT use Linq to SQL in your case would be if you are not using SQL Server (or need to support other DBs either now or in future), or you cannot use .NET 3.5 runtime for some reason.
Good luck
It sounds to me like your "simple database class" is hiding too many details from the classes that need to use it.
I've written classes that contain a SqlCeEngine and expose methods like "LookupDescription(String Code)" ... I think that kind of design is something you should be looking into. And, consider looking into LINQ. It has a lot to offer.