I'm using SSAS Tabular, where I have two tables with a 1:n relationship, Position and Transaction. There is an active 1:n relationship on PositionID
Position
+------------+------+--------+
| PositionID | Type | Source |
+------------+------+--------+
| C1000 | A | 1 |
+------------+------+--------+
| C1200 | B | 2 |
+------------+------+--------+
| C1400 | C | 1 |
+------------+------+--------+
Transaction
+---------+------------+--------+
| TransID | PositionID | Amount |
+---------+------------+--------+
| 1 | C1000 | 150 |
+---------+------------+--------+
| 2 | C1000 | 200 |
+---------+------------+--------+
| 3 | C1400 | 350 |
+---------+------------+--------+
I want to create a calculated column on table Transaction which has the following logic:
IF Position[Type]="A" AND Position[Source]<>1 THEN Transaction[Amount] * -1 ELSE Transaction[Amount] * -1
I've tried using the RELATED function in DAX but its not detecting the related Position table; when I type it manually it returns the error "cannot find table":
=IF(RELATED(Position[Type]) = 'A' && RELATED(Position[Source]) <> 1;-1*Transaction[Amount];Transaction[Amount])
I have no duplicates on the table which is on the 1 side of the 1:n relationship. Should I try a different DAX function?
I tried using LOOKUPVALUE, and so far it looks good.
=IF(LOOKUPVALUE(Position[Type];Position[PositionID];Transaction[PositionID])="A"&&LOOKUPVALUE(Position[Source];Position[PositionID];Transaction[PositionID])<>"1";-1*Transaction[Amount];Transaction[Amount])
Related
I am very new to database design and am using MS Access to try achieve my task. I am trying to create a database design that will allow for the name and description of two items to be queried
on a single row of information. Here is the problem: certain items are converted to other particular items -
any item can have multiple conversions performed on it, and all conversions will have two (many) items involved.
In this sense, we have a many-to-many relationship which necessitates the use of an intermediate table. My
tables must be structured in a way that allows for me to, in one row, query the Item ID's and names
of which items were involved in conversions.
My current table layout is as follows:
Items
+--------+----------+------------------+--+
| ItemID*| ItemName | ItemDescription | |
+--------+----------+------------------+--+
| 1 | DESK | WOOD, 4 LEG | |
| 2 | SHELF | WOOD, SOLID BASE | |
| 3 | TABLE | WOOD, 4 LEG | |
+--------+----------+------------------+--+
ItemConversions
+------------------+--------------+
| ConversionID(CK) | Item1_ID(CK) |
+------------------+--------------+
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 1 |
+------------------+--------------+
Conversions
+---------------+----------+----------+
| ConversionID* | Item1_ID | Item2_ID |
+---------------+----------+----------+
| 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 |
+---------------+----------+----------+
What I want is for it to be possible to achieve the kind of query I described above, though I don't think
my current layout is going to work for this, since the tables are only being joined on Item1_ID. Any advice
would be appreciated, hopefully my tables are not too specific and this is easily understandable.
A sample query output might look like this:
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| ConversionID | Item1_ID | ItemName | Item2_ID | ItemName |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 1 | 2 | SHELF | 1 | DESK |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
I got it working how I wanted to with the help of June7's suggestion - I didn't know you could add in tables
multiple times in the query design page (very useful!). As for the tables, I edited the layout so that I have only
Items and Conversions (I deleted ItemConversions). Using the AS sql command I was able to write a query that pulls
the data I want from the tables. The table and query layout can be seen below:
Items
+--------+----------+------------------+--+
| ItemID*| ItemName | ItemDescription | |
+--------+----------+------------------+--+
| 1 | DESK | WOOD, 4 LEG | |
| 2 | SHELF | WOOD, SOLID BASE | |
| 3 | TABLE | WOOD, 4 LEG | |
+--------+----------+------------------+--+
Conversions
+---------------+----------+----------+
| ConversionID* | Item1_ID | Item2_ID |
+---------------+----------+----------+
| 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 |
+---------------+----------+----------+
Query:
SELECT
Conversions.ConversionID,
Conversions.Item1_ID,
Conversions.Item2_ID,
Items.ItemName,
Items_1.ItemName,
FROM
(
Conversions
INNER JOIN
Items
ON Conversions.Item1_ID = Items.ItemID
)
INNER JOIN
Items AS Items_1
ON Conversions.Item2_ID = Items_1.ItemID;
I am new to working with databases and I want to make sure I understand the best way to add or remove data from a database without making a mess of any related data.
Here is a scenario I am working with:
I have a Tags table, with an Identity ID column. The Tags can be selected via the web application to categorize stories that are submitted by a user. When the database was first seeded; like tags were seeded in order together. As you can see all the Campuses (cities) were 1-4, the Colleges (subjects) are 5-7, and Populations are 8-11.
If this database is live in production and the client wants to add a new Campus (City) tag, what is the best way to do this?
All the other city tags are sort of organized at the top, it seems like the only option is to insert any new tags at to bottom of the table, where they will end up taking whatever the next ID available is. I suppose this is fine because the Display category column will allow us to know which categories these new tags actually belong to.
Is this typical? Is there better ways to set up the database or handle this situation such that everything remains more organized?
Thank you
+----+------------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------+--------+----------+
| ID | DisplayName | DisplayDetail | DisplayCategory | DisplayOrder | Active | ParentID |
+----+------------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------+--------+----------+
| 1 | Albany | NULL | 1 | 0 | 1 | NULL |
| 2 | Buffalo | NULL | 1 | 1 | 1 | NULL |
| 3 | New York City | NULL | 1 | 2 | 1 | NULL |
| 4 | Syracuse | NULL | 1 | 3 | 1 | NULL |
| 5 | Business | NULL | 2 | 0 | 1 | NULL |
| 6 | Dentistry | NULL | 2 | 1 | 1 | NULL |
| 7 | Law | NULL | 2 | 2 | 1 | NULL |
| 8 | Student-Athletes | NULL | 3 | 0 | 1 | NULL |
| 9 | Alumni | NULL | 3 | 1 | 1 | NULL |
| 10 | Faculty | NULL | 3 | 2 | 1 | NULL |
| 11 | Staff | NULL | 3 | 3 | 1 | NULL |
+----+------------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------+--------+----------+
The terms "top" and "bottom" which you use aren't really applicable. "Albany" isn't at the "Top" of the table - it's merely at the top of the specific view you see when you query the table without specifying a meaningful sort order. It defaults to a sort order based on the Id or an internal ROWID parameter, which isn't the logical way to show this data.
Data in the table isn't inherently ordered. If you want to view your tags organized by their category, simply order your query by DisplayCategory (and probably by DisplayOrder afterwards), and you'll see your data properly organized. You can even create a persistent View that sorts it that way for your convenience.
I'm using Business Objects to construct a simple report on whether a unit is on or off for a given day. When constructing a vertical table, the data is correct and looks like such:
Unit ID | Status | Date
1 | On | 2016-09-10
1 | On | 2016-09-11
1 | Off | 2016-09-12
2 | Off | 2016-09-10
2 | Off | 2016-09-11
2 | On | 2016-09-12
However the cross table I've created, with columns of "date" and rows of "Unit ID" is duplicating Unit ID and having an entire row of 'On' followed by an entire row of 'Off' like:
____| 2016-09-10 | 2016-09-11 | 2016-09-12
1 | On | On | On
1 | Off | Off | Off
2 | On | On | On
2 | Off | Off | Off
instead of what it should be as:
____| 2016-09-10 | 2016-09-11 | 2016-09-12
1 | On | On | Off
2 | Off | Off | On
Any suggestions as to why it's doing this? The table isn't particularly useful if it has these duplicate rows and I can't understand why it's resulting in this odd table.
Turns out what happened is the "Status" field was a dimension type, but the cross table requires the data field to be a measure type. Simply making a new variable that was a measure equal to "Status" solved the issue.
I have a database table that has a companion many-to-many self-join table alongside it. The primary table is part and the other table is alternate_part (basically, alternate parts are identical to their main part with different #s). Every record in the alternate_part table is also in the part table. To illustrate:
`part`
| part_id | part_number | description |
|---------|-------------|-------------|
| 1 | 00001 | wheel |
| 2 | 00002 | tire |
| 3 | 00003 | window |
| 4 | 00004 | seat |
| 5 | 00005 | wheel |
| 6 | 00006 | tire |
| 7 | 00007 | window |
| 8 | 00008 | seat |
| 9 | 00009 | wheel |
| 10 | 00010 | tire |
| 11 | 00011 | window |
| 12 | 00012 | seat |
`alternate_part`
| main_part_id | alt_part_id |
|--------------|-------------|
| 1 | 5 | // Wheel
| 5 | 1 | // |
| 5 | 9 | // |
| 9 | 5 | // |
| 2 | 6 | // Tire
| 6 | 2 | // |
| ... | ... | // |
I am trying to produce a simple SQL query that will give me a list of all alternates for a main part. The tricky part is: some alternates are only listed as alternates of alternates, it is not guaranteed that every viable alternate for a part is listed as a direct alternate. e.g., if 'Part 3' is an alternate of 'Part 2' which is an alternate of 'Part 1', then Part 3 is an alternate of Part 1 (even if the alternate_part table doesn't list a direct link). The reverse is also true (Part 1 is an alternate of Part 3).
Basically, right now I'm pulling alternates and iterating through them
SELECT p.*, ap.*
FROM part p
INNER JOIN alternate_part ap ON p.part_id = ap.main_part_id
And then going back and doing the same again on those alternates. But, I think there's got to be a better way.
The SQL query I'm looking for will basically give me:
| part_id | alt_part_id |
|---------|-------------|
| 1 | 5 |
| 1 | 9 |
For part_id = 1, even when 1 & 9 are not explicitly linked in the alternates table.
Note: I have no control whatever over the structure of the DB, it is a distributed software solution.
Note 2: It is an Oracle platform, if that affects syntax.
You have to create hierarchical tree , probably you have to use connect by prior , nocycle query
something like this
select distinct p.part_id,p.part_number,p.description,c.main_part_id
from part p
left join (
select main_part_id,connect_by_root(main_part_id) real_part_id
from alternate_part
connect by NOCYCLE prior main_part_id = alternate_part_id
) c
on p.part_id = c.real_part_id and p.part_id != c.main_part_id
order by p.part_id
You can read full documentation about Hierarchical queries at http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28286/queries003.htm
I have a table in which several indentifiers of a person may be stored. In this table I would like to create a single calculated identifier column that stores the best identifier for that record depending on what identifiers are available.
For example (some fictional sample data) ....
Table = "Citizens"
Id | LastName | DL-No | SS-No | State-Id-No | Calculated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | Smith | NULL | 374-784-8888 | 7383204848 | ?
2 | Jones | JG892435262 | NULL | NULL | ?
3 | Trask | TSK73948379 | NULL | 9276542119 | ?
4 | Clinton | CL231429888 | 543-123-5555 | 1840430324 | ?
I know the order in which I would like choose identifiers ...
Drivers-License-No
Social-Security-No
State-Id-No
So I would like the calculated identifier column to be part of the table schema. The desired results would be ...
Id | LastName | DL-No | SS-No | State-Id-No | Calculated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | Smith | NULL | 374-784-8888 | 7383204848 | 374-784-8888
2 | Jones | JG892435262 | NULL | 4537409273 | JG892435262
3 | Trask | NULL | NULL | 9276542119 | 9276542119
4 | Clinton | CL231429888 | 543-123-5555 | 1840430324 | CL231429888
IS this possible? If so what SQL would I use to calculate what goes in the "Calculated" column?
I was thinking of something like ..
SELECT
CASE
WHEN ([DL-No] is NOT NULL) THEN [DL-No]
WHEN ([SS-No] is NOT NULL) THEN [SS-No]
WHEN ([State-Id-No] is NOT NULL) THEN [State-Id-No]
AS "Calculated"
END
FROM Citizens
The easiest solution is to use coalesce():
select c.*,
coalesce([DL-No], [SS-No], [State-ID-No]) as calculated
from citizens c
However, I think your case statement will also work, if you fix the syntax to use when rather than where.