Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently working on the development of Sabre SOAP API's for Air(Flights) and using BargainFinderMax(OTA_AirLowFareSearchRQ) to search for flight availability. so in the request, there is a parameter ResponseType that defines the type of response to the requested data.
My Question is: if there is any responsetype which will bring the result grouped based upon the prices. ForExample: a group with one price = $1000 will contain multiple Options of flights (having different timings). For now, I can only get the OTA and GIR response type. which shows separate itineraries having the same price, as shown in the image below:
It has two itineraries with the same data(same price) but different Legs. What I'm actually looking for is that Itineraries with same price be grouped together in a single element.
Same as the response returned in TravelPort if we make LOWFARESEARCH Request and set SolutionResult="false". it gives PricePoint results i.e. Itineraries grouped in a single pricepoint. Can this be possible in sabre?
ResponseType can only have those 2 values, as stated in the request documentation: ResponseType, specify type of the response, valid values: "OTA" - regular OTA response, "GIR" - Grouped Itinerary Response.
If not used, it will default to OTA.
Anyway, even though it is harder to read (by a person), GIR groups almost everything, in order to avoid duplicating data. But, since the price of the whole itinerary is inside the itinerary element, the only way to do what you want is by looping through the itineraries and grouping them together, and it can be achieved using either OTA or GIR. There's nothing built in for that.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
We have existing code to retrieve user detail by component level getPetrson call. Perhaps the last developer did component level getPerson due to performance benefits.
But now I have requriement that all the date fields in the getPerson response must have dates in timezone as per the defined value in requesterTimeZone field.
I have 2 options
Convert all component level getParty into controller level and set timezone. 2. Manually write codes to convert list of 20 - 25 date field values into a timezone defined in requesterTimeZone.
Which one is really performance benificial . is there a way at component level getPerson call to set requesterTimeZone as say IST or PST but the stored value in DB is by default GMT.
I will choose 1st option as per IBM standards. Manually converting timestamp fields which avaialble in most of the BOBjs is tedious job and it is not as per recommendations. I hope you guys enabled OTS, Hence adding controller flow doesn't impact much. If your invoking getParty more than once then save the response instead of calling many times..
Are you calling at business proxy? like Maintain?
Possible let us know the behaviour exactly.
Finally I used the ObjectHierarchyMetadata.addHandler(BusinessObjectTimeZoneConverterHandler); & ObjectHierarchyMetadata.execute(anyBobj);
to convert a anyBObj got using component level get call.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
This is a rather conceptual question:
I am working on a database with tables "product-information" and "buying transactions" - now the product-information table so far features "price" and the buying-transactions table features "amount".
But, some products are supposed to be paid per piece, and some have a price per weight.
Now I am unsure how to go about this without allowing decimal values for amounts.
Should I have the products have a flag if they are to be processed as price per weight and just do further calculations in the surrounding program? That seems to be rather impractical, since it makes aggregation in queries rather impossible. Or should I allow decimals but prohibit them in the user interface for things to be bought by piece, again requiring a flag?
What is the most sensible approach here?
Basically imagine a database containing receipts from groceries shopping and the appropriate information for each product. The user would insert the contents of a cart and the sum total would be calculated and spit out by the program, as well as the calculated price for each article to be paid per weight.
I'm sorry for the stupidity of the question.
Here's what we do for LedgerSMB, and I think the solution works relatively well.
Items are all priced per "unit." Items have a price per unit and a unit descriptor (human readable).
Items sold per piece have a unit of "piece". Items sold per weight have a unit like "kg", "oz", "g" or "T"
Price and quantity sold are both Numeric types without precision specified (so in PostgreSQL at least you have no precision limits).
Our table structure looks something like this (simplified for this question)
CREATE TABLE parts (
id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
sku VARCHAR NOT NULL,
unit BARCHAR(5) NOT NULL,
sell_price NUMERIC,
last_cost NUMERIC,
description TEXT,
obsolete BOOL
);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX parts_sku_active_idx ON parts(sky) WHERE obsolete IS NOT TRUE;
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a report that runs daily. I want to send the output of this report to a csv file. Due to the nature of the report, from time to time some data can be lost (new data is generated when the job is executing so sometimes, some is lost during this process as it is a lengthy job).
Is there a way to cross check on a daily basis that there is not any data from the previous day that has been lost- Perhaps with a tick or cross at the end of each row to show that the data has not been exported as a csv?
I am working with sensitive information so cant share any of the report details.
This is a fairly common question. Without specifics, it's very hard to give you a concrete answer - but here are a few solutions I've used in the past.
Typically, such reports have "grand total" lines - your widget report might be broken down by month, region, sales person, product type, etc. - but you usually have a "total widgets sold" line. If that's a quick query (you may need to remove joins and other refinements) then running that query after you've generated the report data allows you to compare your report grand total with the grand total at the end of the report. If the results are different, you know that the data changed while running the report.
Another option - SQLServer specific - is to use a checksum over the data you're reporting on. If the checksum changes between the start and end of the reporting run, you know you've had data changes.
Finally - and most dramatically - if the report's accuracy is critical, you can store the fact that a particular row was included in a reporting run. This makes your report much more complex, but it allows you to be clear that you've included all the data you need. For instance:
insert into reporting_history
select #reportID, widget_sales_id
from widget_sales
--- reporting logic here
select widget.cost,
widget_sales.date,
widget_sales.price,
widget_sales......
from widgets inner join widget sales on ...
inner join reporting_history on widget_sales.widget_sales_id = widget_sales.widget_sales_id
---- all your other logic
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a business process that requires taking a "snapshot" of portions of a client's data at a point in time, and being able to regurgitate it later. The data set has some oddities though that make the problem interesting:
The data is pulled from several databases, some of which are not ours.
The list of fields that could possibly be pulled are somewhere between 150 and 200
The list of fields that are typically pulled are somewhere between 10 and 20.
Each client can pull a custom set of fields for storage, this set is pre-determined ahead of time.
For example (and I have vastly oversimplified these):
Client A decides on Fridays to take a snapshot of customer addresses (1 record per customer address).
Client B decides on alternate Tuesdays to take a snapshot of summary invoice information (1 record per type of invoice).
Client C monthly summarizes hours worked by each department (1 record per department).
When each of these periods happen, a process goes out and fetches the appropriate information for each of these clients... and does something with them.
Sounds like an historical reporting system, right? It kind of is. The data is later parsed up and regurgitated in a variety of formats (xml, cvs, excel, text files, etc..) depending on the client's needs.
I get to rewrite this.
Since we don't own all of the databases, I can't just keep references to the data around. Some of that data is overwritten periodically anyway. I actually need to find the appropriate data and set it aside.
I'm hoping someone has a clever way of approaching the table design for such a beast. The methods that come to mind, all with their own drawbacks:
A dataset table (data set id, date captured, etc...);
A data table (data set id, row number, "data as a blob of crap")
A dataset table (data set id, date captured, etc....);
A data table (data set id, row number, possible field 1, possible field 2, possible field 3, ...., possible field x (where x > 150)
A dataset table (data set id, date captured, etc...); A field table (1 row per all possible field types); A selected field table (1 row for each field the client has selected); One table for each primitive data type possible (varchar, decimal, integer) (keyed on selected field, data set id, row, position, data is the single field value).
The first being the easiest to implement, but the "blob of crap" would have to be engineered to be parseable to break it down into reportable fields. Not very database friendly either, not reportable, etc.. Doesn't feel right.
The second is a horror show of columns. shudder
The third sounds right, but kind of doesn't. It's 3NF (yes, I'm old) so feels right that way. However reporting on the table screams of "rows that should have been columns" problems -- fairly useless to try to select on outside of a program.
What are your thoughts?
RE: "where hundreds of columns possible"
The limitations are 1000 columns per table
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a table A having name of people and Table B having name of people and their membership with different organization. Is there any way I can get the total number of membership of each and every people using count function or any way?
Is there any way I can get the total number of membership of each and every people using count function or any way?
Did you try a Pivot? See screenshot below
I have taken a scenario as you mentioned in Andy G's post... with multiple memberships...
You haven't explained how SQL is involved, but if the two tables are both in Excel then you only need to count the number of times each name occurs in the second table, using COUNTIF and copying this formula down the column:
I'm assuming their membership of an organization is not repeated in the 2nd table.
Added It is more complicated knowing that the combination of person and organization repeats in the second table, but it can be done with an array formula. Use Ctrl-Shift-Enter to complete the following formula, then copy it down the column.
=SUM(IF($E$2:$E$13=A2, 1/(COUNTIFS($E$2:$E$13, A2, $F$2:$F$13, $F$2:$F$13))))
I cannot claim origination for this, a colleague of mine Rudi completed it for me.