So, this is probably simple. I need to find a way to check whether a member of a scheme has renewed their membership or let it expire, I need to generate a simple list of those whom have not renewed.... There are complicating factors however, in that I cant use Excel, and it can only be a single step to Crystal reports (though I have solved the issue in Excel using a simple Countifs and if Formula)
Now for the problem.
The membership has specified Start/End Dates in separate columns in the table. It is easy to see whether this, in a row basis has expired. The issue is that if they have renewed, this is logged as a separate table entry linked by a Individual reference to the member. There are also multiple Qualifications I also need to test against.
So, whilst I can test the expiration date, the question is how can I test against the rest of the data, based on whether the Individual Reference and Qualification name and then check whether this is "Current". Doing this would enable me to therefore test whether the Membership has therefore been renewed, or not, on an individual line.
Any advice on methods would be appreciated.
Without knowing what data you have and making assumptions out the wazoo, try something along these lines
select distinct Member_id,
case
when exists (select 1
from members m2
where m2.member_id = m1.member_id
and (m2.expiry_date is null
or m2.expiry_date > '2018-01-25'))
then 'Active'
else 'Expired'
end as mem_status
from members m1
What the exists does is look and see if that member has an active status
Related
I want to create a SQL Server table that has a Department and a Maximum Capacity columns (assume 10 for this scenario). When users add them selves to a department the system will check the current assignment count (assume 9 for this scenario) in the department and compare it to the maximum value. If it is below the maximum, they will be added.
The issue is this: what if two users submit at the same time and the when the code retrieves the current assignment count it will be 9 for both. One user updates the row sooner so now its 10 but the other user has already retrieved the previous value before the update (9) and so both are valid when compared and we end up with 11 users in the department.
Is this even possible and how can one solve it?
The answer to your problem lies in understanding "Database Concurrency" and then choosing the correct solution to your specific scenario.
It too large a topic to cover in a single SO answer so I would recommend doing some reading and coming back with specific questions.
However in simple form you either block the assignments out to the first person who tries to obtain them (pessimistic locking), or you throw an error after someone tries to assign over the limit (optimistic locking).
In the pessimistic case you then need ways to unblock them if the user fails to complete the transaction e.g. a timeout. A bit like on a ticket booking website it says "These tickets are being held for you for the next 10 minutes, you must complete your booking within that time else you may lose them".
And when you're down to the last few positions you are going to be turning everyone after the first away... no other way around it if you require this level of locking. (Well you could then create a waiting list, but that's another issue in itself).
I have a table 'ACCOUNTS', with fields ACCTNO and ACPARENT. One account can be the parent of another. One account can have many children.
It's been discovered that certain external processes are using the 'first child' in certain reports and outputs - but there's no actual 'reason' for any particular child to be 'first', just an unintended bug in the code.
First step in untangling this - I need a query, that can be re-run (but not often, so optimisation is not really a factor) that will identify, for all accounts that are parents, what their 'first child' is.
Problem - the 'first child' isn't necessarily anything to do with record ID. If I run the following query, for example:
SELECT ACCTNO FROM ACCOUNTS WHERE ACPARENT = '80005217';
I get a result of:
ACCTNO
______
80007325
80007310
80007315
80007298
I can absolutely, 100% confirm that for this particular example, account 80007325 is the account ID being used as the 'first child'.
On the flipside, if I run a naive query of:
SELECT A1.ACCTNO, A2.ACCTNO AS CHILDACCOUNT FROM ACCOUNTS A1
INNER JOIN ACCOUNTS A2 ON A1.ACCTNO = A2.ACPARENT
WHERE A1.ACCTNO IN
(SELECT ACPARENT FROM ACCOUNTS);
then if I scroll down to where 80005217 is the parent account, I see the following list:
CHILDACCOUNT
______
80007298
80007310
80007315
80007325
It's sorted, even though it's exactly not what I want.
Is there a query that will get me a list of what I want in a single query? A list of all parent accounts, and their 'first child' as returned by SQL unsorted?
To guarantee records coming in a fixed order we must provide the database with sort criteria in the ORDER BY clause. If there is no attribute which defines "first-ness" then no guarantee is possible. Without an ORDER BY clause the records are essentially in an uncontrolled order, although because of
database internals they often fall into some kind of pattern.
So, what makes account 80007325 the first child WHERE ACPARENT = '80005217'? Clearly not numerical order. Is there some other criterion? Date created? A flag column? Seems like you need to talk to your users. Do they really care which records come first? All the time or just in some specific report?
If your users cannot specify the criteria there's not much you can do...
...although I might be tempted to sort CHILDACCOUNT numerically by ACCTNO whenever it is displayed. At least that would provide consistency, and the users will get used to it.
Good Day,
I need some assistance please. I am rebuilding a third party Access database after it's catastrophic failure and the failure of the 3rd party developer to fix his mess. I am an avid Access Developer and know my way around an Access Database well. I am not a super VBA coder, but I can do more than my bit in VBA as well as a few other languages.
Currently, I have a database test bed with a login form that stores 3 values as public variables (gstrLevel as String, gstrUser as String, gintID as Integer). I am able to set my own "permissions" with ease in that once they login I can use the values to control the switchboard etc.
My problem now is the following. We have people recording prospective client interactions and interviews. As part of the process, every time they make contact, they record this into the database and in the process a "followup date" is created. This works like a charm. What I now need to do is warm the users if these followup dates are close or have passed so that prompt action can be taken lest we lose a prospective client.
I have a query that takes the prospective table information, and the notes table information (where the followup date is stored) and then filters the dates correctly. This in turn has been used to create a continues form to display the records that need followup soon. What I cannot seem to do is to get it to only show the logged in users followup records.
I should note that the user/agent field is a lookup field in the prospective table, and thus also creates a combo box in the Followup form. I can lock the form from changes etc, but I can't seem to get it to only display the relevant user/agent details.
I have tried:
DoCmd.ApplyFilter
Me.Filter
Me.FilterOn = True
DLookup as criteria
Using my public variables directly as query criteria
And a few other weird combinations with no success.
My problem, I believe, is the fact that the user/agent is a lookup field, and I am not sure how to filter based on that fact. If I use the gstrUser variable directly I get a type mismatch and if I use gintID directly it shows nothing.
Any ideas or advice would be greatly appreciated.
You probably have a Users table, with a numeric Primary Key (PK), while your gstrUser stores the userName.
So in the source of your Followup form, just add the Users table (joined to the Prospective table on UserId) and apply the filter on the userName field in the Users table (or whatever it's called that matches the contents of gstrUser).
At my workplace there is a "Daily Feedback" database where details are entered of any errors made by Customer Service Officers (CSOs), such as who made the mistake, when, and what service it was for. this is so we can gather data which would show areas where CSO's are repeatedly making mistakes so we can feed this back to them and train them in those areas if need be.
i currently have a report where an CSOs name is entered along with a date range and it produces the report showing the number of errors made for each service for that date range.
the code used is -
=Sum(IIf([Service]="Housing",1,0))
=Sum(IIf([Service]="Environmental Health",1,0))
etc etc for each Service.
The problem i have is that not every CSO does EVERY service and so there are usually a few results showing as "0". and i cannot be sure if thats because they dont do the service or if they are just very good at that service.
Being absolutely useless at SQL (or any other possible way of fixing this) i cannot figure out how to HIDE the entries that produce the zero value.
any help here would be greatly appreciated!
Assuming you have a table with the fields CSO, Service, FeedbackComments you could modify the report record source to
SELECT [CSO], [Service], Count([FeedbackComments])
FROM [FeedbackTable]
GROUP BY [CSO], [Service];
Then services which have no records will not appear on the report.
I don't understand exactly what you want. But I want to mention you can use the COUNT() function along with SUM(). A count >0 will reveal if 0 means '0' instances or '0' errors.
I have a table that has ordernumber, cancelled date and reason.
Reason field is varchar(255) field and it was written by many different sales rep and really hard to group by the reason category I need to generate a report to categorize cancelation reasons. What is the best way to analyse the reasons with TSQL?
Sample of reasons entered by sales rep
cust already has this order going out
cust can not hold for item Called to cancel order
cust doesn't want to pay for shipping
wife ordered same item from different vendor, sent email
cst made a duplicate order, sent email
cst can't hold
Cust doesn't want to go through verification process so is cancelling order
doesn't ant to hold for Bo
doesn't want
Cust called to cancel the order He can no longer get the product he wants
cnt hld
will not comply with export req
cant' hold
Custs request
Cust will not hold for BO
per. cust. request.
BTW I have SQL Server 2005.
part of your problem is that this these aren't truly reason codes. sounds like an issue with your schema to me. if there aren't predefined reason codes to reference and you're allowing free text entry for each reason, then there's really no way to do this directly, outside of pulling distinct reasons back, which is probably not going to be very useful.
just an idea, can you add another column to the table, even if it's in a temp or test environment and then give the business users the ability to assign a code (e.g. 1 for mis-ships, 2 for duplicate orders, 3 for wrong item etc.) to each order cancellation. then perform the analysis on that.
i assume that's what they're expecting from you, but i don't know that i see any better way. you could always perform the analysis yourself if you have the authority/knowledge but this might be painful if you have a ton of cancellations.
edit- i see now that you've tagged this with regex... it would be possible to setup specified keywords to pull out the entries, but there'd have to be some tolerance built in and still manual analysis afterwards for items which don't fall into any specified category due to misspellings etc. /edit
+1 to #jmatthews, you really need to have reason codes that are selected and then possibly allow free-form entry for the full reason.
If this isn't an option you can look into text clustering. Don't expect that to be fast or easy though, it's still an open research topic and is related to both AI and machine learning.
Look at Term Lookup in SSIS, here is an article to read.