Cascading List of Values with many to many relationship - plsql

I am developing an application which tracks class attendance of students in a school, in Apex.
I want to create a page with three level cascading select lists, so the teacher can first select the Semester, then the Subject and then the specific Class of that Subject, so the application returns the Students who are enrolled in that Class.
My problem is that these three tables have a many-to-many relationship between them, so I use extra tables with their keys.
Every Semester has many Subjects and a Subject can be taught in many Semesters.
Every Subject has many classes in every Semester.
The students must enroll in a subject every semester and then the teacher can assign them to a class.
The tables look something like this:
create table semester(
id number not null,
name varchar2(20) not null,
primary key(id)
);
create table subject(
id number not null,
subject_name varchar2(50) not null,
primary key(id)
);
create table student(
id number not null,
name varchar2(20),
primary key(id)
);
create table semester_subject(
id number not null,
semester_id number not null,
subject_id number not null,
primary key(id),
foreign key(semester_id) references semester(id),
foreign key(subject_id) references subject(id),
constraint unique sem_sub_uq unique(semester_id, subject_id)
);
create table class(
id number not null,
name number not null,
semester_subject_id number not null,
primary key(id),
foreign key(semester_subject_id) references semester_subject(id)
);
create table class_enrollment(
id number not null,
student_id number not null,
semester_subject_id number not null,
class_id number,
primary_key(id),
foreign key(student_id) references student(id),
foreign key(semester_subject_id) references semester_subject(id),
foreign key(class_id) references class(id)
);
The list of value for the Semester select list looks like this:
select name, id
from semester
order by 1;
The the subject select list should include the names of all the Subjects available in the semester selected above, but I can't figure the query or even if it's possible. What I have right now:
select s.name, s.id
from subject s, semester_subject ss
where ss.semester_id = :PX_SEMESTER //value from above select list
and ss.subject_id = s.id;
But you can't have two tables in a LoV and the query is probably wrong anyway...
I didn't even begin to think about what the query for the class would look like.
I appreciate any help or if you can point me in the right direction so I can figure it out myself.

Developing an Apex Input Form Using Item-Parametrized Lists of Values (LOVs)
Your initial schema design looks good. One recommendation once you've developed and tested your solution on a smaller scale, append to the ID (primary key) columns a trigger that can auto-populate its values through a sequence. You could also skip the trigger and just reference the sequence in your sql insert DML commands. It just makes things simpler. Creating tables in the APEX environment with their built-in wizards offer the opportunity to make an "auto-incrementing" key column.
There is also an additional column added to the SEMESTER table called SORT_KEY. This helps when you are storing string typed values which have logical sorting sequences that aren't exactly alphanumeric in nature.
Setting Up The Test Data Values
Here is the test data I generated to demonstrate the cascading list of values design that will work with the example.
Making Dynamic List of Value Queries
The next step is to make the first three inter-dependent List of Values definitions. As you have discovered, you can reference page parameters in your LOVs which may come from a variety of sources. In this case, the choice selection from our LOVs will be assigned to Apex Page Items.
I also thought only one table could be referenced in a single LOV query. This is incorrect. The page documentation suggests that it is the SQL query syntax that is the limiting factor. The following LOV queries reference more than one table, and they work:
-- SEMESTER LOV Query
-- name: CHOOSE_SEMESTER
select a.name d, a.id r
from semester a
where a.id in (
select b.semester_id
from semester_subject b
where b.subject_id = nvl(:P5_SUBJECT, b.subject_id))
order by a.sort_id
-- SUBJECT LOV Query
-- name: CHOOSE_SUBJECT
select a.subject_name d, a.id r
from subject a
where a.id in (
select b.subject_id
from semester_subject b
where b.semester_id = nvl(:P5_SEMESTER, b.semester_id))
order by 1
-- CLASS LOV Query
-- name: CHOOSE_CLASS
select a.name d, a.id r
from class a, semester_subject b
where a.semester_subject_id = b.id
and b.subject_id = :P5_SUBJECT
and b.semester_id = :P5_SEMESTER
order by 1
Some design notes to consider:
Don't mind the P5_ITEM notation. The page in my sample app happened to be on "page 5" and so the convention goes.
I chose to assign a name for each LOV query as a hint. Don't just embed the query in an item. Add some breathing room for yourself as a developer by making the LOV a portable object that can be referenced elsewhere if needed.
MAKE a named LOV for each query through the SHARED OBJECTS menu option of your application designer.
The extra operator involving the NVL command, as in nvl(:P5_SUBJECT, b.subject_id) for the CHOOSE_SEMESTER LOV is an expression mirrored on the CHOOSE_SUBJECT query as well. If the default value of P5_SUBJECT and P5_SEMESTER are null when entering the page, how does that assist with the handling of the cascading relationships?
The table SEMESTER_SUBJECT represents a key relationship. Why is a LOV for this table not needed?
APEX Application Form Design Using Cascading LOVs
Setting up the a page for testing the schema design and LOV queries requires the creation of three page items:
Each page item should be defined as a SELECT LIST leave all the defaults initially until you understand how the basic design works. Each select list item should be associated with their corresponding LOV, such as:
The key design twist is the Select List made for the CHOOSE_CLASS LOV, which represents a cascading dependency on more than one data source.
We will use the "Cascading Parent" option so that this item will wait until both CHOOSE_SEMESTER and CHOOSE_SUBJECT are selected. It will also refresh if either of the two are changed.
YES! The cascading parent item can consist of multiple page items/elements. They just have to be declared in a comma separated list.
From the online help info, this is a general introduction to how cascading LOVs can be used in APEX designs:
From Oracle Apex Help Docs: A cascading LOV means that the current item's list of values should be refreshed if the value of another item on this page gets changed.
Specify a comma separated list of page items to be used to trigger the refresh. You can then use those page items in the where clause of your "List of Values" SQL statement.
Demonstration of APEX Application Items with Cascading LOVs
These examples are based on the sample data given at the beginning of this solution. The path of the chosen example case is:
SEMESTER: SPRING 2014 + SUBJECT: PHYS ED + Verify Valid Course Options:
Fitness for Life
General Flexibility
Presidential Fitness Challenge
Running for Fun
Volleyball Basics
The choice from above will be assigned to page item P5_CLASS.
Selection Choices for P5_SEMESTER:
Selection Choices for P5_SUBJECT:
Selection Choices for P5_CLASS:
Closing Remarks and Discussion
Some closing thoughts that occurred to me while working with this design project:
About the Primary Keys: The notion of a generic, ID named column for a primary key was a good design choice. While APEX can handle composite business keys, it gets clumsy and difficult to work around.
One thing that made the schema design challenging to work with was that the notion of "id" transformed in the other tables that referenced it. (Such as the ID column in the SEMESTER table became SEMESTER_ID in the SEMESTER_SUBJECT table. Just keep an eye on these name changes with larger queries. At times I actually lost track exactly what ID I was working with.
A Word for Sanity: In the likely event you decide to assign ID values through a database sequence object, the default is usually to begin at one. If you have several different tables in your schema with the same column name: ID and some associating tables such as CLASS_ENROLLMENT which connects the values of one primary key ID and three additional foreign key ID's, it may get difficult to discern where the data values are coming from.
Consider offsetting your sequences or arbitrarily choosing different increments and starting values. If you're mainly pushing ID's around in your queries, if two different ID sets are separated by two or three orders of magnitude, it will be easy to know if you've pulled the right data values.
Are There MORE Cascading Relationships? If a "parent" item relationship indicates a dependency that makes a page item LOV wait or change depending on the value of another, could there be another cascading relationship to define? In the case of CHOOSE_SEMESTER and CHOOSE_SUBJECT is it possible? Is it necessary?
I was able to figure out how to make these two items hold an optional cascading dependency, but it required setting up another outside page item reference. (If it isn't optional, you get stuck in a closed loop as soon as one of the two values changes.) Fancy, but not really necessary to solve the problem at hand.
What's Left to Do? I left out some additional tasks for you to continue with, such as managing the DML into the ENROLLMENT table after selecting a valid STUDENT.
Overall, you've got a workable schema design. There is a way to represent the data relationships through an APEX application design pattern. Happy coding, it looks like a challenging project!

Related

Efficient insertion of row and foreign table row if it does not exist

Similar to this question and this solution for PostgreSQL (in particular "INSERT missing FK rows at the same time"):
Suppose I am making an address book with a "Groups" table and a "Contact" table. When I create a new Contact, I may want to place them into a Group at the same time. So I could do:
INSERT INTO Contact VALUES (
"Bob",
(SELECT group_id FROM Groups WHERE name = "Friends")
)
But what if the "Friends" Group doesn't exist yet? Can we insert this new Group efficiently?
The obvious thing is to do a SELECT to test if the Group exists already; if not do an INSERT. Then do an INSERT into Contacts with the sub-SELECT above.
Or I can constrain Group.name to be UNIQUE, do an INSERT OR IGNORE, then INSERT into Contacts with the sub-SELECT.
I can also keep my own cache of which Groups exist, but that seems like I'm duplicating functionality of the database in the first place.
My guess is that there is no way to do this in one query, since INSERT does not return anything and cannot be used in a subquery. Is that intuition correct? What is the best practice here?
My guess is that there is no way to do this in one query, since INSERT
does not return anything and cannot be used in a subquery. Is that
intuition correct?
You could use a Trigger and a little modification of the tables and then you could do it with a single query.
For example consider the folowing
Purely for convenience of producing the demo:-
DROP TRIGGER IF EXISTS add_group_if_not_exists;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS contact;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS groups;
One-time setup SQL :-
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS groups (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, group_name TEXT UNIQUE);
INSERT INTO groups VALUES(-1,'NOTASSIGNED');
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS contact (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, contact TEXT, group_to_use TEXT, group_reference TEXT DEFAULT -1 REFERENCES groups(id));
CREATE TRIGGER IF NOT EXISTS add_group_if_not_exists
AFTER INSERT ON contact
BEGIN
INSERT OR IGNORE INTO groups (group_name) VALUES(new.group_to_use);
UPDATE contact SET group_reference = (SELECT id FROM groups WHERE group_name = new.group_to_use), group_to_use = NULL WHERE id = new.id;
END;
SQL that would be used on an ongoing basis :-
INSERT INTO contact (contact,group_to_use) VALUES
('Fred','Friends'),
('Mary','Family'),
('Ivan','Enemies'),
('Sue','Work colleagues'),
('Arthur','Fellow Rulers'),
('Amy','Work colleagues'),
('Henry','Fellow Rulers'),
('Canute','Fellow Ruler')
;
The number of values and the actual values would vary.
SQL Just for demonstration of the result
SELECT * FROM groups;
SELECT contact,group_name FROM contact JOIN groups ON group_reference = groups.id;
Results
This results in :-
1) The groups (noting that the group "NOTASSIGNED", is intrinsic to the working of the above and hence added initially) :-
have to be careful regard mistakes like (Fellow Ruler instead of Fellow Rulers)
-1 used because it would not be a normal value automatically generated.
2) The contacts with the respective group :-
Efficient insertion
That could likely be debated from here to eternity so I leave it for the fence sitters/destroyers to decide :). However, some considerations:-
It works and appears to do what is wanted.
It's a little wasteful due to the additional wasted column.
It tries to minimise the waste by changing the column to an empty string (NULL may be even more efficient, but for some can be confusing)
There will obviously be an overhead BUT in comparison to the alternatives probably negligible (perhaps important if you were extracting every Facebook user) but if it's user input driven likely irrelevant.
What is the best practice here?
Fences again. :)
Note Hopefully obvious, but the DROP statements are purely for convenience and that all other SQL up until the INSERT is run once
to setup the tables and triggers in preparation for the single INSERT
that adds a group if necessary.

Data redundant when getting from SQL Server view?

I have created a view from multiple tables join. In the view, data is not redundant but when I am getting from lambda expression it showing same data two times.
Actually I have made application for mobile recharges where two types of users
Distributer
Retailer
If retailer recharge any number commission add both account for retailer and distributer.
Data in view :
SN RCV_ID RCV_AMT CURRENT_BAL COMM_AMT RCV_UID ID
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 10955 100.00 17.09 0.70 10203 10955
2 10955 100.00 10.85 0.90 10199 10955
View :
SELECT
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY dbo.tbl_recharge.ID) AS SN,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.RCV_ID, dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.RCV_TYPE,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.RCV_AMT, dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.CURRENT_BALANCE,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.PRE_BALANCE, dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.COMM_AMT,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.ADMIN_PROFIT AS RCV_ADMIN_PROFIT,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.CLIENT_PROFIT AS RCV_CLIENT_PROFIT,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.RCV_DATE,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.INSRT_TMSP AS RCV_INSRT_TMSP,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.UID AS RCV_UID,
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.INSRT_USER AS RCV_INSRT_USER,
dbo.tbl_recharge.ID, dbo.tbl_recharge.REF_ID,
dbo.tbl_recharge.NUMBER, dbo.tbl_recharge.STATUS,
dbo.tbl_recharge.AMT, dbo.tbl_recharge.OPERATOR,
dbo.tbl_recharge.TYPE, dbo.tbl_recharge.INSRT_TMSP,
dbo.tbl_recharge.INSRT_USR, dbo.tbl_recharge.UID,
dbo.tbl_operator.OPERATOR AS OPERATOR_NAME,
dbo.tbl_commission.YOUR_PROFIT, dbo.tbl_commission.ClIENT_PROFIT,
dbo.tbl_commission.SERVICE, dbo.tbl_commission.USER_TYPE,
dbo.tbl_commission.OPERATOR_ID, dbo.tbl_user.PRNT_ID,
dbo.tbl_user.USR_TYPE_ID
FROM
dbo.tbl_paymentHistory
RIGHT OUTER JOIN
dbo.tbl_recharge ON dbo.tbl_paymentHistory.RCV_ID = dbo.tbl_recharge.ID
INNER JOIN
dbo.tbl_operator ON dbo.tbl_operator.PROVIDER_ID = dbo.tbl_recharge.OPERATOR
LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.tbl_commission ON dbo.tbl_commission.OPERATOR_ID = dbo.tbl_operator.ID
INNER JOIN
dbo.tbl_user ON dbo.tbl_user.ID = dbo.tbl_recharge.UID
AND dbo.tbl_user.USR_TYPE_ID = dbo.tbl_commission.USER_TYPE
But when I get it from a lambda expression, its gets the first row multiple times :
ViewBag.rechargeHistory = db2.v_recharge_payment_History.OrderByDescending(x => x.SN)
.Where(x => x.INSRT_TMSP >= startDate && x.INSRT_TMSP <= endDate).ToList();
I have spent lots of time but nothing getting......
I have no idea what I do? Is there any solution?
There is a subtle problem with views when used from Entity Framework.
If you have a table, do use it with EF, you need to have a primary key to uniquely identify each row. Typically, that's a single column, e.g. an ID or something like that.
With a view, you don't have the concept of a "primary key" - the view just contains some columns from some tables.
So when EF maps a view, it cannot find a primary key - and therefore, it will use all non-nullable columns from the view as "substitute" primary key.
I don't know what these are in your case - you should be able to tell from the .edmx model or your model classes.
When EF reads data, it checks to see if it already knows the primary key - so it gets your first line of data, stores it and then goes on to read the second line of data from your query. If the substitute primary key that EF applied to the view data is the same (e.g. all non-nullable columns are the same), then it interprets this second line of data **as the same as before* and doesn't look at the rest of the columns.
So the problem really is that you can't have explicit primary keys on a view.
The solution is to include all the underlying table's primary key columns in your view - in that case, every line of data in your view should always have uniquely identifying values, and thus should be interpreted as separate rows of data.

Alternatives to a UNION query in Access 2010 Web Database

I need to assign one of multiple parent types to a single child item. The problem I encounter is that in an Access 2010 web database I cannot create a Union query to bring all the potential parents (from multiple tables) into a single drop down / listbox.
I'm a bit green to all this and could be going about it completely wrong. I'm very open to suggestions. Here is my example:
Contracts are the parent of Subcontracts.
Both Contracts and Subcontracts have a Statement of Work (SoW).
Contracts and Subcontracts can both be direct parents of a SoW.
Each SoW will have only one parent
SoWs are split into paragraphs (not overly consequential)
With a union query I would build the database this way:
Contracts table
Subcontracts table
Union table for contracts and subcontracts
Lookup to union table from SoW table in order to select either a contract or a subcontract as parent from a single data source.
The problem here is that I cannot create a union query in a web database.
My only other thought is to construct the database in this fashion:
Contracts table
Subcontracts table
Contracts SoW table
Subcontracts SoW table
This design (using two tables) might work more effectively for data entry as there could be issues with subforms when attempting to use a union table. I'm not sure as I haven't yet tried. With this method, the Access report should be able to bind the subcontract to the parent contract and display all data in a detail section. However, this design still means that I will use two separate tables to house identical data.
I would put the two contract tables together into one table that would look something like this:
CREATE TABLE ContractTable(
ContactID INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, -- Possibly an autonumber
[various contract columns],
ParentContract INTEGER
);
Note, I know this is not Access friendly syntax. I usually use bigger DBs, but you should be able to get the idea.
Then your query to find parent contracts is SELECT ... FROM ContractTable WHERE ParentContract IS NULL.
To find sub contracts SELECT ... FROM ContractTable WHERE ParentContract IS NOT NULL.
My concern with this approach is that if you need to search through chains of contracts (i.e. A parent of B parent of C parent of D, and you need to go from A to D), you could run into recursive SQL which I don't think Access can handle. You'd have to do it VBA code.

ASP.NET Pivot Table: How to use it with just two tables in the database

I have an Excel sheet that list all the employees in the company with some required training courses. The list is very big and long and I need to incorporate it within the company website. therefore, I am thinking to use the pivot table with the stored procedures in order to make the table flexible for expanding with adding new employees or courses in the future.
The main problem now is how to use it with just two tables in the database which are Employee table and Courses Table.
Employee table consists of: employee name, id, organization, course id
Courses table consists of: course name, course id
I want a pivot table that lists employee name on the first column and lists courses on the first row. then it will show me (yes or no) values under each course for each employee which indicates that employee takes this course or not. Finally I want to see a total of yes on the last row of the table
I know the syntax of the pivot table and I tried to understand it and make it work for this case but I failed.
I am using this valuable resource:
http://www.kodyaz.com/articles/t-sql-pivot-tables-in-sql-server-tutorial-with-examples.aspx
How to use it with this case? Any hint please? I just wanna know the structure of the query
My initial query is:
select
*
from
(
select
employee.Name, employee.id, employee.Organization, courses.id, courses.name
from employee, courses
) DataTable
PIVOT
(
SUM(ID)
FOR Name
IN (
[safety awareness],[general safety orientation],[sms orientation],[emergency responses]
)
) PivotTable
I would definitely use a PivotGrid control like DevXpress has for winforms and ASP.NET.
With such control you can create pivots at design time and even allow end user to drag and drop fields around at runtime and decide for the pivoting logic than save their preferences. Used this for some advanced reporting tools and users loved it.

How should I go about making sure the value pairs in this table are unique?

I am using Visual Web Developer and Microsoft SQL server. I have a tag table "Entry_Tag" which is as follows:
entry_id
tag_id
I want to make the entry_id and tag_id pairing unique. A particular tag can only be applied to an entry once in the table. I made the two columns a primary key. They are also both foreign keys referencing the ids in their respective tables. When I dragged the tables into the Object Relationship Designer it only showed a relationship line between either "Entry_Tag" and "Entry" or when I tried again between "Entry_tag" and "Tag".
The "Entry_tag" table should have a relationship with both "Tag" and "Entry".
How do I go about doing this?
In general, you can add a unique constraint on the table that includes both columns. In this case, including both of the columns in the primary key should have already done this. If you have relationships set up for each field to other tables, then I believe those relationships should be displayed in the query designer... I see no cause for this given the information you've provided - perhaps you need to post more information.
Create an UNIQUE INDEX to for entry_id and tag_id.
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX index_name ON table (entry_id, tag_id)

Resources