The worst aspect of the Interactive Report (IR) is that you cannot create it using a PL/SQL returning SQL statement. I have gotten around this using two methods:
1) APEX_COLLECTION.CREATE_COLLECTION in the Before Header Process, which takes a SQL statement (that is constructed in PL/SQL in the process), and have the IR's source be select c001 alias1, c002 alias2 ... from apex_collections a where collection_name = '...'
2) Make a badass pipeline function with a parameter list as long as you need and then have the IR's source be select * from table(package_name.pipelined_function_name(:P1_parameter1, :P1_Parameter2))
Is there a performance difference? I originally used the first method but then ran into an occurrence where it was giving me a bug so I tried the pipelined function and found I just liked it better and have tended to use them ever since unless it was inappropriate to do so (namely when there is a large number of items to be passed to the parameter).
First method gives you opportunity to cache data by re-creating the collection only when you need it. Using n00X and d00X columns will give you some additional performance and right column types for the report definition. You can also create a view based on that collection with type casting and column aliases to add more convenience:
create or replace view apx_my_report
as
select n001 id, c001 data, d001 some_date
from apex_collections
where collection_name = 'MY_REPORT'
/
In that case you report source will be like that:
select id, data, some_date from apx_my_report
/
On the other hand, when you need to execute an ad-hoc query every time when page is rendered, it leads to the unavoidable re-creation of a such collection, therefore the performance goes down because of unwanted transaction maintaining: undo, redo etc.
So, it depends.
Related
When I'm trying to filter CustAccount field on CustTableListPage it's taking too long to filter. On the other fields there is no latency. I'm trying to filter just part of account number like "*123".
I have done reindexing for custtable and also updated statics but not appreciable difference at all.
When i have added listpage's query in a view it's filtering custAccount field normally like the other fields.
Any suggestion?
Edit:
Our version is AX 2012 r2 cu8, not a user based problem it occurs for every user, Interaction class has some custimizations but just for setting some buttons enable/disable props. etc... i tryed to look query execution what i found is not clear. something like FETCH_API_CURSOR_000000..x
Record a trace of this execution and locate what is a bottleneck.
Keep in mind that that wildcards (such as *) have to be used with care. Using a filter string that starts with a wildcard kills all performance because the SQL indexes cannot be used.
Using a wildcard at the end
Imagine that you have a dictionnary and have to list all the words starting with 'Foo'. You can skip all entries before 'F', then all those before 'Fo', then all those before 'Foo' and start your result list from there.
Similarly, asking the underlying SQL engine to list all CustAccount entries starting with '123' (= filter string '123*') allows using an index on CustAccount to quickly skip to the relevant data.
Using a wildcard at the start
Imagine that you still have that dictionnary and have to list all the words ending with 'ing'. You would have no other choice than going through the entire dictionnary and checking the ending of every word (due to the alphabetical sorting).
This explains why asking the SQL engine to list all CustAccount entries ending with '123' (= filter string '*123') means that all CustAccount values must be investigated. So the AOS loops through all the entries and uses an SQL cursor to do this. That is the FETCH_API_CURSOR statement you see on the SQL level.
Possible solutions
Educate your end user that using a wildcard at the beginning of a filter string will always be slow on a large table.
Step up the SQL server hardware / allocated resources (faster CPU, more RAM, faster disk, ...).
Create a full text index on CustAccount (not a fan of this one and performance impact should be thoroughly investigated).
I've solve the problem. CustTableListPage query had a sorting over DirPartyTable.Name field. When I remove this sorting, filtering with wildcard working like a charm.
I am running the following query on Google BigQuery web interface, for data provided by Google Analytics:
SELECT *
FROM [dataset.table]
WHERE
hits.page.pagePath CONTAINS "my-fun-path"
I would like to save the results into a new table, however I am obtaining the following error message when using Flatten Results = False:
Error: Cannot query the cross product of repeated fields
customDimensions.value and hits.page.pagePath.
This answer implies that this should be possible: Is there a way to select nested records into a table?
Is there a workaround for the issue found?
Depending on what kind of filtering is acceptable to you, you may be able to work around this by switching to OMIT IF from WHERE. It will give different results, but, again, perhaps such different results are acceptable.
The following will remove entire hit record if (some) page inside of it meets criteria. Note two things here:
it uses OMIT hits IF, instead of more commonly used OMIT RECORD IF).
The condition is inverted, because OMIT IF is opposite of WHERE
The query is:
SELECT *
FROM [dataset.table]
OMIT hits IF EVERY(NOT hits.page.pagePath CONTAINS "my-fun-path")
Update: see the related thread, I am afraid this is no longer possible.
It would be possible to use NEST function and grouping by a field, but that's a long shot.
Using flatten call on the query:
SELECT *
FROM flatten([google.com:analytics-bigquery:LondonCycleHelmet.ga_sessions_20130910],customDimensions)
WHERE
hits.page.pagePath CONTAINS "m"
Thus in the web ui:
setting a destination table
allowing large results
and NO flatten results
does the job correctly and the produced table matches the original schema.
I know - it is old ask.
But now it can be achieved by just using standard SQL dialect instead of Legacy
#standardSQL
SELECT t.*
FROM `dataset.table` t, UNNEST(hits.page) as page
WHERE
page.pagePath CONTAINS "my-fun-path"
I'd like to use flyway for a DB update with the situation that an DB already exists with productive data in it. The problem I'm looking at now (and I did not find a nice solution yet), is the following:
There is an existing DB table with numeric IDs, e.g.
create table objects ( obj_id number, ...)
There is a sequence "obj_seq" to allocate new obj_ids
During my DB migration I need to introduce a few new objects, hence I need new
object IDs. However I do not know at development time, what ID
numbers these will be
There is a DB trigger which later references these IDs. To improve performance I'd like to avoid determine the actual IDs every time the trigger runs but rather put the IDs directly into the trigger
Example (very simplified) of what I have in mind:
insert into objects (obj_id, ...) values (obj_seq.nextval, ...)
select obj_seq.currval from dual
-> store this in variable "newID"
create trigger on some_other_table
when new.id = newID
...
Now, is it possible to dynamically determine/use such variables? I have seen the flyway placeholders but my understanding is that I cannot set them dynamically as in the example above.
I could use a Java-based migration script and do whatever string magic I like - so, that would be a way of doing it, but maybe there is a more elegant way using SQL?
Many thx!!
tge
If the table you are updating contains only reference data, get rid of the sequence and assign the IDs manually.
If it contains a mix of reference and user data, you need to select the id based on values in other columns.
I need to be able to run a query such as
SELECT * FROM atable WHERE MyFunc(afield) = "some text"
I've written MyFunc in a VB module but the query results in "Undefined function 'MyFunc' in expression." when executed from .NET
From what I've read so far, functions in Access VB modules aren't available in .NET due to security concerns. There isn't much information on the subject but this avenue seems like a daed end.
The other possibility is through the CREATE PROCEDURE statement which also has precious little documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb177892%28v=office.12%29.aspx
The following code does work and creates a query in Access:
CREATE PROCEDURE test AS SELECT * FROM atable
However I need more than just a simple select statement - I need several lines of VB code.
While experimenting with the CREATE PROCEDURE statement, I executed the following code:
CREATE PROCEDURE test AS
Which produced the error "Invalid SQL statement; expected 'DELETE', 'INSERT', 'PROCEDURE', 'SELECT', or 'UPDATE'."
This seems to indicate that there's a SQL 'PROCEDURE' statement, so then I tried
CREATE PROCEDURE TEST AS PROCEDURE
Which resulted in "Syntax error in PROCEDURE clause."
I can't find any information on the SQL 'PROCEDURE' statement - maybe I'm just reading the error message incorrectly and there's no such beast. I've spent some time experimenting with the statement but I can't get any further.
In response to the suggestions to add a field to store the value, I'll expand on my requirements:
I have two scenarios where I need this functionality.
In the first scenario, I needed to enable the user to search on the soundex of a field and since there's no soundex SQL function in Access I added a field to store the soundex value for every field in every table where the user wants to be able to search for a record that "soundes like" an entered value. I update the soundex value whenever the parent field value changes. It's a fair bit of overhead but I considered it necessary in this instance.
For the second scenario, I want to normalize the spacing of a space-concatenation of field values and optionally strip out user-defined characters. I can come very close to acheiving the desired value with a combination of TRIM and REPLACE functions. The value would only differ if three or more spaces appeared between words in the value of one of the fields (an unlikely scenario). It's hard to justify the overhead of an extra field on every field in every table where this functionality is needed. Unless I get specific feedback from users about the issue of extra spaces, I'll stick with the TRIM & REPLACE value.
My application is database agnostic (or just not very religious... I support 7). I wrote a UDF for each of the other 6 databases that does the space normalization and character stripping much more efficiently than the built-in database functions. It really annoys me that I can write the UDF in Access as a VB macro and use that macro within Access but I can't use it from .NET.
I do need to be able to index on the value, so pulling the entire column(s) into .NET and then performing my calculation won't work.
I think you are running into the ceiling of what Access can do (and trying to go beyond). Access really doesn't have the power to do really complex TSQL statements like you are attempting. However, there are a couple ways to accomplish what you are looking for.
First, if the results of MyFunc don't change often, you could create a function in a module that loops through each record in atable and runs your MyFunc against it. You could either store that data in the table itself (in a new column) or you could build an in-memory dataset that you use for whatever purposes you want.
The second way of doing this is to do the manipulation in .NET since it seems you have the ability to do so. Do the SELECT statement and pull out the data you want from Access (without trying to run MyFunc against it). Then run whatever logic you want against the data and either use it from there or put it back into the Access database.
Why don't you want to create an additional field in your atable, which is atable.afieldX = MyFunc(atable.afield)? All what you need - to run UPDATE command once.
You should try to write a SQL Server function MyFunc. This way you will be able to run the same query in SQLserver and in Access.
A few usefull links for you so you can get started:
MSDN article about user defined functions: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc164062.aspx
SQLServer user defined functions: http://www.sqlteam.com/article/intro-to-user-defined-functions-updated
SQLServer string functions: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181984.aspx
What version of JET (now called Ace) are you using?
I mean, it should come as no surprise that if you going to use some Access VBA code, then you need the VBA library and a copy of MS Access loaded and running.
However, in Access 2010, we now have table triggers and store procedures. These store procedures do NOT require VBA and in fact run at the engine level. I have a table trigger and soundex routine here that shows how this works:
http://www.kallal.ca/searchw/WebSoundex.htm
The above means if Access, or VB.net, or even FoxPro via odbc modifies a row, the table trigger code will fire and run and save the soundex value in a column for you. And this feature also works if you use the new web publishing feature in access 2010. So, while the above article is written from the point of view of using Access Web services (available in office 365 and SharePoint), the above soundex table trigger will also work in a stand a alone Access and JET (ACE) only application.
I want to restrict the execution of my PL/SQL code from repetition. That is, I have written a PL/SQL code with three input parameters viz, Month, Year and a Flag. I have executed the procedure with the following values for the parameters:
Month: March
Year : 2011
Flag: Y
Now, If I am trying to execute the procedure with the same values to the parameters as above, I want to write some code in the PL/SQL to restrict the unwanted second execution. Can anyone help. I hope the question is no ambiguous.
You can use the function result cache: http://www.oracle-developer.net/display.php?id=504 . So Oracle can do this for you.
I would create another table that would store the 3 parameters of each request. When your procedure is called it would first check the "parameter request" table to see if the calling parameters have beem used before. If found, then exit the procedure. If not found, then save the parameters and execute the rest of the procedure.
Your going to need to keep "State" of the last call somewhere. I would recommend creating a table with a datetime column.
When your procedure is called update this table. So, next time when your procedure is called.. check this table to see when was the last time your procedure was called and then proceed accordingly.
Why not set up a table to track what arguments you've already executed it with?
In your procedure, first check that table to see if similar parameters have already been processed. If so, exit (with or without an error).
If not, insert them and do the processing necessary.
Depending on how tight the requirements are, you'll need to get a exclusive lock on that table to prevent concurrent execution.
A nice plus would be an extra column with "in progress"/"done"/"error" status so that you can check if things are going on properly. (Maybe a timestamp too if that's important/interesting.)
This setup allows you to easily clear some of the executions (by deleting some rows) if you find things need to be re-done for whatever reason.
Make an insert in the beginning of the procedure, and do a select for update tolock the table so no one else can process any data and if everything goes ok with the procedure, commit and release the table 😀