I have been searching through a lot of different forums, but havent found the help I am looking for, so here we go.
First of all I should inform you that I am well aware, that 1 solution could be to do a SQL join in my sql statement, however this is not so easy as I am using 2 different tables from 2 different databases. So I am interesting in hearing in another solution.
As it is now, I have made 2 queries, and made 2 datatables, and 2 gridviews.
I have succeeded in binding the data in the 2 gridviews, and now I kinda want to "merge" them based on 1 column that they share.
How to do this in VB.net I don't know.
Basically I have 1 table in the database dbo_db_Test_Palle on the server OKPalle. From this I take the following columns and put into my datatable dt and bind to gridview 1.
| Name | ID | Organisation |
In another datatable (dt2) from dbo_db_Test_Palle2 from the server NOTokPalle I take the following columns and put into dt2, and bind to Gridview 2.
| Nickname | City | Hobby | ID
What I would like to show in just one GridView is:
| Name | ID | Organisation | Nickname | City | Hobby |
So basically I wish to add City and Hobby columns, from dt2 to dt, where the posts with ID matches (others I just leave blank).
I really hope someone out here can help me.
Something like this, but it's been a while since I've done this, you might need to hack around with it a little.
Dim ds As New DataSet
ds.Tables.Add(dt)
ds.Tables.Add(dt2)
ds.Relations.Add("rel", dt2.Columns("ID"), dt.Columns("ID"), False)
dt.Columns.Add("Nickname", GetType(System.String), "Parent.Nickname")
dt.Columns.Add("City", GetType(System.String), "Parent.City")
dt.Columns.Add("Hobby", GetType(System.String), "Parent.Hobby")
Related
A query I am working on is showing a rather interesting behaviour that I couldn't debug so far.
This is the query before it gets buggy:
QryCount
SELECT EmpId, [Open/Close], Count([Open/Close]) AS Occurences, Attribute1, Market, Tier, Attribute2, MtSWeek
FROM qrySource
WHERE (Venue="NewYork") AND (Type="TypeA")
GROUP BY EmpId, [Open/Close], Attribute1, Market, Tier, Attribute2, MtSWeek;
The query gives precisely the results that I would expect it to:
#01542 | Open | 5 | Call | English | Tier1 | Complain | 01/01/2017
#01542 | Closed | 2 | Call | English | Tier2 | ProdInfo | 01/01/2017
#01542 | Open | 7 | Mail | English | Tier1 | ProdInfo | 08/01/2017
etc...
But as a matter of fact in doing so it provides more records than needed at a subsequent step thereby creating cartesians.
qrySource.[Open/Close] is a string type field with possible attributes (you guessed) "open", "Closed" and null and it is actually provided by a mapping table at the creation stage of qrySource (not sure, but maybe this helps).
Now, the error comes in when I try to limit qryCount only to records where Open/Close = "Open".
I tried both using WHERE and HAVING to no avail. The query would result in 0 records, which is not what I would like to see.
I thought that maybe it is because "open" is a reserved term, but even by changing it to "D_open" in the source table didn't fix the issue.
Also tried to filter for the desired records in a subsequent query
SELECT *
FROM QryCount
WHERE [Open/Close] ="D_Open"
But nothing, still 0 records found.
I am suspicious it might be somehow related to some inherent proprieties of the COUNT function but not sure. Any help would be appreciated.
Everyone who participated, thank you and apologies for providing you with insufficient/confusing information. I recon the question could have been drafted better.
Anyhow, I found that the problem was apparently caused by the "/" in the Open/Closed field name. As soon as I removed it from the field name in the original mapping table the query performed as expected.
I am sure this question has been asked before, but I'm so new to SQL, I can't even combine the correct search terms to find an answer! So, apologies if this is a repetition.
The db I'm creating has to be created at run-time, then the data is entered after creation. Some fields will have a varying number of entries, but the number is unknown at creation time.
I'm struggling to come up with a db design to handle this variation.
As an (anonymised) example, please see below:
| salad_name | salad_type | salad_ingredients | salad_cost |
| apple | fruity | apple | cheap |
| unlikely | meaty | sausages, chorizo | expensive |
| normal | standard | leaves, cucumber, tomatoes | mid |
As you can see, the contents of "salad_ingredients" varies.
My thoughts were:
just enter a single, comma-separated string and separate at run-time. Seems hacky, and couldn't search by salad_ingredients!
have another table, for each salad, such as "apple_ingredients", which could have a varying number of rows for each ingredient. However, I can't do this, because I don't know the salad_name at creation time! :(
Have a separate salad_ingredients table, where each row is a salad_name, and there is an arbitrary number of ingredients fields, say 10, so you could have up to 10 ingredients. Again, seems slightly hacky, as I don't like to unused fields, and what happens if a super-complicated salad comes along?
Is there a solution that I've missed?
Thanks,
Dan
based on my experience the best solution is based on a normalized set of tables
table salads
id
salad_name
salad_type
salad_cost
.
table ingredients
id
name
and
table salad_ingredients
id
id_salad
id_ingredients
where id_salad is the corresponding if from salads
and id_ingredients is the corresponding if from ingredients
using proper join you can get (select) and filter (where) all the values you need
NET and Linq
And, I have a question about using Linq to search data in the DataGridView
for example I have table like
---------------
ID| Name| Task
1 | bob | Developer
2 | Sam | manager
3 | Dan | Developer
I would like to search developer on the data grip view and put into list
What I tried to do was...
Dim qur = (From r As DataGridViewRow In DataGridView1.Rows Where r.Cells(2).Value.ToString = "Developer").ToList
However it keeps return null error..
I am not really sure why it is returning null error and how to solve this problem...
Does anybody know how to solve this issue?
thanks
While trying to build a data warehousing application using Talend, we are faced with the following scenario.
We have two tables tables that look like
Table master
ID | CUST_NAME | CUST_EMAIL
------------------------------------
1 | FOO | FOO_BAR#EXAMPLE.COM
Events Table
ID | CUST_ID | EVENT_NAME | EVENT_DATE
---------------------------------------
1 | 1 | ACC_APPLIED | 2014-01-01
2 | 1 | ACC_OPENED | 2014-01-02
3 | 1 | ACC_CLOSED | 2014-01-02
There is a one-to-many relationship between master and the events table.Since, given a limited number of event names I proposing that we denormalize this structure into something that looks like
ID | CUST_NAME | CUST_EMAIL | ACC_APP_DATE_ID | ACC_OPEN_DATE_ID |ACC_CLOSE_DATE_ID
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | FOO | FOO_BAR#EXAMPLE.COM | 20140101 | 20140102 | 20140103
THE DATE_ID columns refer to entries inside the time dimension table.
First question : Is this a good idea ? What are the other alternatives to this scheme ?
Second question : How do I implement this using Talend Open Studio ? I figured out a way in which I moved the data for each event name into it's own temporary table along with cust_id using the tMap component and later linked them together using another tMap. Is there another way to do this in talend ?
To do this in Talend you'll need to first sort your data so that it is reliably in the order of applied, opened and closed for each account and then denormalize it to a single row with a single delimited field for the dates using the tDenormalizeRows component.
After this you'll want to use tExtractDelimitedFields to split the single dates field.
Yeah, this is a good idea, this is called a cumulative snapshot fact. http://www.kimballgroup.com/2012/05/design-tip-145-time-stamping-accumulating-snapshot-fact-tables/
Not sure how to do this in Talend (dont know the tool) but it would be quite easy to implement in SQL using a Case or Pivot statement
Regarding only your first question, it's certainly a good idea -- unless there is any possibility of the same persons applying-opening-closing their account more than once AND you want to keep all this information in their history (so UPDATE wouldn't help).
Snowflaking is definitely not a good option if you are going to design a data warehouse. So, denormalizing will certainly be a good choice in this case. Following article almost fits perfectly to clear the air over such scenarios,
http://www.kimballgroup.com/2008/09/design-tip-105-snowflakes-outriggers-and-bridges/
I'm going to start work on a medium sized application, and i'm planning it's db design.
One thing that I'm not sure about is this.
I will have many tables which will need internationalization, such as: "membership_options, gender_options, language_options etc"
Each of these tables will share common i18n fields, like:
"title, alternative_title, short_description, description"
In your opinion which is the best way to do it?
Have an i18n table with the same fields for each of the tables that will need them?
or do something like:
Membership table Gender table
---------------- --------------
id | created_at id | created_at
1 - 22.03.2001 1 - 14.08.2002
2 - 22.03.2001 2 - 14.08.2002
General translation table
-------------------------
record_id | table_name | string_name | alternative_title| .... |id_language
1 - membership regular null 1 (english)
1 - membership normale null 2 (italian)
1 - gender man null 1(english)
1 -gender uomo null 2(italian)
This would avoid me repeating something like:
membership_translation table
-----------------------------
membership_id | name | alternative_title | id_lang
1 regular null 1
1 normale null 2
gender_translation table
-----------------------------
gender_id | name | alternative_title | id_lang
1 man null 1
1 uomo null 2
and so on, so i would probably reduce the number of db tables, but i'm not sure about performance.I'm not much of a DB designer, so please let me know.
The most common way I've seen this done is with two tables, membership and membership_ml, with one storing the base values and the ml table storing the localized strings. This is similar to your second option. Most of the systems I see like this are made that way because they weren't designed with internationalization in mind from the get go, so the extra _ml tables were "tacked on" later.
What I think is a better option is similar to your first option, but a little bit different. You would have a central table for storing all the translations, but instead of putting the table name and field name in there, you would use tokens and a central "Content" table to store all the translations. That way you can enforce some kind of RI between the tokens in the base table and the translations in the Content table if you want as well.
I actually asked a question about this very thing a while back, so you can have a look at that for some more info (rather than repasting the schema examples here).
I also think the best solution is to keep translations on different table. This approach use Open Cart which is open source and you can take a look the way it deals with the problem. Another source of information is here "http://www.gsdesign.ro/blog/multilanguage-database-design-approach/" especially on the comments sections