Here I am trying to get the record for my products where the # swab location in Main table matches the count of swab locations in swab Table and Users can checked off the Y/N to verify that the description of the locations are correct.
Here is the example of my 2 tables.
tblMainEquipment
Asset_ID EquipmentName Num_SwapLocations Verified
234 Saijimon 2 N
235 Pasquale 3 N
tblMainSwapLocations
Asset_ID Swap_location
234 Particle Cannon
234 RailGun
235 Particle Cannon
I use the following query to count the number of records, i avoided using a having query to combine both tables since it is not updatable.
qryMainSwapLocationCount
SELECT MSL.Asset_ID, Count(Asset_ID) AS [Count]
FROM tblMainSwapLocation AS MSL
GROUP BY MSL.Asset_ID;
This will give me the result of
qryMainSwapLocationCount
Asset_ID count
234 2
234 1
I used the following as a record source for my form to allow users to verify the inputs.
SELECT MEQ.Asset_ID, MEQ.Equipment_Name,MEQ.Num_swapLocations MEQ.Verified
FROM tblMainEquipment AS MEQ, qryMainSwapLocationCount AS MSLC
WHERE (((MEQ.Asset_ID)=[MSLC].[Asset_ID]) AND ((MEQ.Num_SwapLocations)=[MSLC].[Count]);
This result would be
tblMainEquipment
Asset_ID EquipmentName Num_SwapLocations Verified
234 Saijimon 2 N
However this record set is not editable. Is there any reasons for this?
I think you should put your table tblMainEquipment as your recordsource and bring all the fields from that on to your form:
Then insert an unbound textbox (perhaps close to your Num_SwapLocations field for easy comparison):
Then in this new textbox, put the following in the ControlSource:
=DCount("ASSET_ID","tblMainSwapLocations","ASSET_ID=" & [Asset_ID])
Then open your form and it should count the number of records in table tblMainSwapLocations that have the same Asset_ID as the record currently showing:
You'll then be able to update the Verified field in your tblMainEquipment table.
Related
I've been using Databasedevelopment.co.uk's excellent example on how to do a continuous form select with a invisible button overlaying a checkbox to assign employees to a specific shift. I'd like to make it so that said continuous form also has a dropdown of the different Paycodes so that when they are selected I can use a combobox to indicate "Regular Pay, Overtime, etc....". I'm running into a wall because with the query as-is from the example, the recordset for the Paycode field is not updateable.
Messing with the primary key for the employee's table fixes the paycode issue but prevents the selection code from working properly.
I'm a bit out of my depth here, what's the easiest way to accomplish this?
SELECT CAT.EmployeeID, CAT.FirstName, CAT.LastName, ASGN_TEMP.ShiftNum, ASGN.PayCode, IIf(ASGN_TEMP.[ShiftNum] Is Null,0,-1) AS IsSelected
FROM tblEmployees AS CAT
LEFT JOIN (SELECT ASGN.EmployeeID, ASGN.ShiftNum, ASGN.PayCode FROM tblAssignedEmployees AS ASGN
WHERE ASGN.ShiftNum = Forms!frmMainMenu![txtShiftNum]) AS ASGN_TEMP
ON CAT.EmployeeID = ASGN_TEMP.EmployeeID;
Paycode is a static table with an ID, a Paycode and a description and would only correspond with each record in "tblAssignedEmployee". That is to say, there is no relationship between the employee or the shift with what Paycodes are available, I'd just like a second table for ease of updates.
---EDIT---
Table: Employees
ID
EmployeeID
Firstname
LastName
1
1234
Bob
Jones
2
9999
Mary
Sue
Table: AssignedEmployees
ID
EmployeeID
ShiftNum
PayCode
1
1234
1
OT
2
9999
2
Regular
3
1234
2
OT
Table: PayCodes
ID
PayCode
Desc
1
Regular
Regular Pay
2
OT
Overtime
I have a very big transaction table on DB2 v11, and I need to query a subset of it as efficiently as possible. All I need is the total count of the set (not known in advance, it's based on criteria, lets say 1 day) and the ID of the first record, and the ID of the last record.
The old code was fetching the entire table, then just using the 1st record ID, and the last record ID, and size, and not making use of the rest. Now this code is timing out. It's a complex query of several joins.
IS there a way to just fetch the size of the set, 1st record, last record all in one select query ?
I've read that reordering the list in order to fetch the 1st record(so fetch with Desc, then change to Asc) is not efficient.
sample table 1 TRANSACTION_RECORDS:
tdID TIMESTAMP name
-------------------------------
123 2020-03-31 john
234 2020-03-31 dan
456 2020-03-01 Eve
675 2020-04-01 joy
sample table 2 TRANSACTION_TYPE:
invoiceId tdID account
------------------------------
897 123 abc
898 123 def
877 234 mnc
899 456 opp
Sample query
select Min(tr.transaction_id), Max(tr.transaction_id)
from TRANSACTION_RECORDS TR
join TRANSACTION_TYPE TT
on TR.tdID=tt.tdID
WHERE Date(TR.TIMESTAMP) = '2020-03-31'
group by tr.tdID
order by TR.tdID ASC
This results in multiple columns, (but it requires the group by)
123,123
234,234
456,456
What I want is:
123,456
As I mentioned in the comments, for this query you don't need Group BY and neither Order by, just do:
select Min(tr.transaction_id), Max(tr.transaction_id)
from TRANSACTION_RECORDS TR
join TRANSACTION_TYPE TT
on TR.tdID=tt.tdID
WHERE Date(TR.TIMESTAMP) = '2020-03-31'
It should work as expected
Using Access 2010 and its version of SQL, I am trying to find a way to relate two tables in a query where I do not have strict, unique values in each table, using concatenated fields that are mostly unique, then matching each unmatched next record (measured by a date field or the record id) in each table.
My business receives checks that we do not cash ourselves, but rather forward to a client for processing. I am trying to build a query that will match the checks that we forward to the client with a static report that we receive from the client indicating when checks were cashed. I have no control over what the client reports back to us.
When we receive a check, we record the name of the payor, the date that we received the check, the client's account number, the amount of the check, and some other details in a table called "Checks". We add a matching field which comes as close as we can get to a unique identifier to match against the client reports (more on that in a minute).
Checks:
ID Name Acct Amt Our_Date Match
__ ____ ____ ____ _____ ______
1 Dave 1001 10.51 2/14/14 1001*10.51
2 Joe 1002 12.14 2/28/14 1002*12.14
3 Sam 1003 50.00 3/01/14 1003*50.00
4 Sam 1003 50.00 4/01/14 1003*50.00
5 Sam 1003 50.00 5/01/14 1003*50.00
The client does not report back to us the date that WE received the check, the check number, or anything else useful for making unique matches. They report the name, account number, amount, and the date of deposit. The client's report comes weekly. We take that weekly report and append the records to make a second table out of it.
Return:
ID Name Acct Amt Their_Date Unique1
__ ____ ____ ____ _____ ______
355 Dave 1001 10.51 3/25/14 1001*10.51
378 Joe 1002 12.14 4/04/14 1002*12.14
433 Sam 1003 50.00 3/08/14 1003*50.00
599 Sam 1003 50.00 5/11/14 1003*50.00
Instead of giving us back the date we received the check, we get back the date that they processed it. There is no way to make a rule to compare the two dates, because the deposit dates vary wildly. So the closest thing I can get for a unique identifier is a concatenated field of the account number and the amount.
I am trying to match the records on these two tables so that I know when the checks we forward get deposited. If I do a simple join using the two concatenated fields, it works most of the time, but we run into a problem with payors like Sam, above, who is making regular monthly payments of the same amount. In a simple join, if one of Sam's payments appears in the Return table, it matches to all of the records in the Checks table.
To limit that behavior and match the first Sam entry on the Return table to the first Sam entry on the Checks table, I wrote the following query:
SELECT return.*, checks.*
FROM return, checks
WHERE (( ( checks.id ) = (SELECT TOP 1 id
FROM checks
WHERE match = return.unique1
ORDER BY [our_date]) ));
This works when there is only one of Sam's records in the Return table. The problem comes when the second entry for Sam hits the Return table (Return.ID 599) as the client's weekly reports are added to the table. When that happens, the query appropriately (for my purposes) only lists that two of Sam's checks have been processed, but uses the "Top 1 ID" record to supply the row's details from the Return table:
Checks_Return_query:
Checks.ID Name Acct Amt Our_Date Their_Date Return.ID
__ ____ ____ ____ _____ ______ ________
1 Dave 1001 10.51 2/14/14 3/25/14 355
2 Joe 1002 12.14 2/28/14 4/04/14 378
3 Sam 1003 50.00 3/01/14 3/08/14 433
4 Sam 1003 50.00 4/01/14 3/08/14 433
In other words, the query repeats the Return table info for record Return.ID 433 instead of matching Return.ID 599, which is I guess what I should expect from the TOP 1 operator.
So I am trying to figure out how I can get the query to take the two concatenated fields in Checks and Return, compare them to find matching sets, then select the next unmatched record in Checks (with "next" being measured either by the ID or Our_Date) with the next unmatched record in Return (again, with "next" being measured either by the ID or Their_Date).
I spent many hours in a dark room turning the query into various joins, and back again, looking at functions like WHERE NOT IN, WHERE NOT EXISTS, FIRST() NEXT() MIN() MAX(). I am afraid I am way over my head.
I am beginning to think that I may have a structural problem, and may need to write the "matched" records in this query to another table of completed transactions, so that I can differentiate between "matched" and "unmatched" records better. But that still wouldn't help me if two of Sam's transactions are on the same weekly report I get from my client.
Are there any suggestions as to query functions I should look into for further research, or confirmation that I am barking up the wrong tree?
Thanks in advance.
I'd say that you really need another table of completed transactions, it could be temporary table.
Regarding your fears "... if two of Sam's transactions are on the same weekly report ", you can use cursor in order to write records "one-by-one" instead of set based transaction.
I have two classes Apartment and AdditionalSpace representing tables as below.
Apartment table
ID AREA SOLD
---- ------ ----
1 100 1
2 200 0
AdditionalSpace table
ID AREA APARTMENTID
---- ------ -----------
10 10 1
11 10 1
12 10 1
20 20 2
21 20 2
As you can see Apartment's table has a one-to-many relation with AdditionalSpace table, i.e. Apartment.ID=AdditionalSpace.APARTMENTID.
Question:- How to retrieve total area of a sold apartment including its additional space area.
The SQL which I have used so far to retrieve similar result is :-
select sum(apt.area + ads.adsarea) from apartment apt left outer join (select sum(area) as adsarea, apartmentid from additionalspace group by apartmentid) ads on ads.apartmentid=apt.id where apt.sold=1
I am struggling to find a way in order to implement the above scenario via criteria instead of SQL/HQL. Please suggest. Thanks.
I don't think this is possible in criteria. The closest I can see is to simply get the size of the apartment and the sum of the additional areas as two columns in your result, like this:
Criteria criteria = session.createCriteria(Apartment.class,"a");
criteria.createAlias("additionalSpaces", "ads");
criteria.setProjection(Projections.projectionList()
.add(Projections.property("area"))
.add(Projections.groupProperty("a.id"))
.add(Projections.sum("ads.area")));
Alternatively, if you still want to use Hibernate but are happy to write it in HQL, you can do the following:
select ads.apartment.id,max(a.area)+sum(ads.area)
from Apartment a
join a.additionalSpaces ads
group by ads.apartment.id
This works because HQL allows you to write the + to add together the two projections, but I don't know that an analogous method exists on the projections api.
I'm trying to solve this query where i need to find the the top balance at each base. Balance is in one table and bases are in another table.
This is the existing query i have that returns all the results but i need to find a way to limit it to 1 top result per baseID.
SELECT o.names.name t.accounts.bidd.baseID, MAX(t.accounts.balance)
FROM order o, table(c.accounts) t
WHERE t.accounts.acctype = 'verified'
GROUP BY o.names.name, t.accounts.bidd.baseID;
accounts is a nested table.
this is the output
Name accounts.BIDD.baseID MAX(T.accounts.BALANCE)
--------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------
Jerard 010 1251.21
john 012 3122.2
susan 012 3022.2
fin 012 3022.2
dan 010 1751.21
What i want the result to display is calculate the highest balance for each baseID and only display one record for that baseID.
So the output would look only display john for baseID 012 because he has the highest.
Any pointers in the right direction would be fantastic.
I think the problem is cause of the "Name" column. since you have three names mapped to one base id(12), it is considering all three records as unique ones and grouping them individually and not together.
Try to ignore the "Name" column in select query and in the "Group-by" clause.
SELECT t.accounts.bidd.baseID, MAX(t.accounts.balance)
FROM order o, table(c.accounts) t
WHERE t.accounts.acctype = 'verified'
GROUP BY t.accounts.bidd.baseID;