I am trying to figure out how to do something that I would think is commonplace, but I cannot find how to do.
Given two Custom Lists, one with a field that is essentially a primary key, and the other with what is essentially a foreign key, I want to show all the rows from the first in one area of the display, and the related records for the selected row of the first, in a second part of the screen.
I am thinking this would be side–by–side web parts on a web-part page.
So:
ID pkID Data ID fkID Data
___________________ ______________________________
| 1 100 Row one. | | 8 100 Related one/one |
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ | 9 100 Related one/two |
2 113 Row two. | 10 100 Related one/three |
3 118 Row n. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
11 113 Related two/one
12 113 Related two/two
13 118 Related n/one
(That is my attempt to show what is established between the two lists. Top row selected on the left, related records from the other row on the right.)
Surely this is common enough that there is a way to readily do this?
I suppose I might need to create a means of asserting that a row is 'selected.'
You will note that I am not useing the ID field that "belongs" to SharePoint.
You can create look up fields to establish that relationship, sharepoint 2010 even allows you to enforce the relationship like in a SQL database. so for instace you can declare what happens if you try to delete a parent if there is childs (Cascade, Prevent, etc).
Have a read here:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-au/sharepoint-server-help/create-list-relationships-by-using-unique-and-lookup-columns-HA101729901.aspx
About visually displaying them, you might have to create some webparts for it, as the only support OOB is the link to the child entity from the main entity on the parent list.
Related
Much ink has been spilled on the topic of sum types in SQL. The standard solutions are called absorption, separation, and partition; see, e.g.: https://www.inf.unibz.it/~montali/teaching/1415/dpm/slides/4.relational-mapping.pdf .
I want to ask about how to encode open sums. Normal sums allow a field to be one of a fixed set of several different types; with open sums, this set is not fixed.
The basic setup in our program: There is a list of "triggers," where each trigger can be one of many different things. Plugins can be written defining new trigger types, although the set of trigger types can be assumed to be known at compile time.
We want a table of all triggers.
Our current best idea:
Dynamically create a materialized view of the following form:
id | id_in_plugin_table | thing_in_main_program_it_refs | plugin_name
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | 27 | 8 | RegexTrigger
2 | 27 | 12 | RidiculouslyUnsafeCustomJSTrigger
This relation is automatically generated from the various plugin tables, each of which have their own ID and a thing_in_main_program_it_refs field.
For illustration, here's what the referenced tables may look like.
RegexTrigger table:
id | thing_in_main_program_it_refs | regex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
27 | 8 | hel*o
RidiculouslyUnsafeCustomJSTrigger
id | thing_in_main_program_it_refs | custom_js
---------------------------------------------------------------------
27 | 12 | (x) => isPrime(x.length())
Either use two roundtrips to lookup the plugin table and then query it, or combine them into a single SQL program which uses EXEC.
I'm happy with part 1, but not with part 2. Neither option sounds efficient, and the latter option uses EXEC.
So, we're looking for either (a) a better way to dynamically select a table in a query, or (b) a different approach to open sums.
I want to show data in asp.net project.
I have tables name cultural event and event_sub category
Table: event_sub category
id
subcat_name
evnt iD
1
solo
5
2
duet
3
3
solo
4
AND
Table: cultural event
ID
NAME
S_DATE
END DATE
ENTRY FEES
ESUBCAT ID
EID
1
JUST Dance
2017-2-03
2017-2-05
100
1
5
Now I want to display an event details from cultural table
JUST Dance | 2017-2-03 | 2017-2-05 | 100 on my web page (asp.net) |
I want to show event by ESUBCAT ID and by EID, means want to show solo event from EID=5 or anything as per the requirement.
I am showing in repeater...whats the right way to do it?
I have linkbuttons like:
solo
duet
grup
When user will click on solo he should get the information of event from cultural table by its category. That means he must get info of solo event from EID 5 only.
If clicked on duet only info of duet cat should be displayed.
Your schema makes no sense whatsoever, maybe it's bad design or bad naming convention, but it seems that you have data about an event on 2 different tables with two foreign keys.
You have 2 sub_cats both named solo but they have different ids and evnt_iD. What's the point?
You are also missing some sort of aspx that will display the data you'll get from the DB.
Have a look at the following link and create a skeleton that fetches the data and displays it on the web page and then we'll help you out on how to filter it from the UI.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/web-pages/overview/getting-started/introducing-aspnet-web-pages-2/displaying-data
Hi I was wondering if there is a way to split long column values in this case I am using SSRS to get the distinct values with the number of product ID against a category into a matrix/pivot table in SSRS. The problem lies with the amount of distinct category makes it a nightmare to make the report look pretty shall we say. Is there a dynamic way to split the columns in say groups of 10 to make the table look nicer and easy to read. I was thinking of using in operator then the list of values but that means managing the data every time a new category gets added. Is there a dynamic way to present the data in the best way possible? There are 135 distinct category values
Also I am open to suggestions to make the report to nicer if anyone has any thoughts. I am new to SSRS and trying to get to grips with its.
Here is an example of my problem
enter image description here
Are your column names coming back from the database under the SubCat field you note in the comments above? If so I imagine your dataset looks something like this
Subcat | Logno
---------+---------------
SubCatA | 34
SubCatB | 65
SubCatC | 120
SubCatD | 8
SubCatE | 19
You can edit this so that there is an index of each individual category being returned also, using the Row_Number() function. Add the field
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY SubCat ASC) AS ColID
To your query. This will result in the following.
Subcat | LogNo | ColID
-----------+--------------+----------
SubCatA | 34 | 1
SubCatB | 65 | 2
SubCatC | 120 | 3
SubCatD | 8 | 4
SubCatE | 19 | 5
Now there is a numeric identifier for each column you can perform some logic on it to arrange itself nicely on the page.
This solution involves a Tablix, nested inside a Matrix nested inside a Matrix as follows
First create a Matrix (Matrix1), and set it’s datasource to your dataset. Set the Row Group Properties to group on the following expression where ‘4’ is the number of columns you wish to display horizontally.
=CInt(Floor((Fields!ColID.Value - 1) / 4))
Then in the data section of the Matrix (bottom right corner) insert a rectangle and on this insert a new Matrix (Matrix 2). Remove the leftmost row. Set the column header to be the Column Name SubCat. This will automatically set the column grouping to be SubCat.
Finally, in the Data Section of Matrix 2 add a new Rectangle and Add a Tablix on it. Remove the Header Row, and set it to be one column wide only. Set the Data to be the information you wish to display, i.e. LogNo.
Finally, delete the Leftmost and Topmost rows/columns from Matrix 1 to make it look tidier (Note Delete Column Row only! Not associated groups!)
Then when the report is run it should look similar to the following. Note in my example SubCat = ColName, and LogNo = NumItems, and I have multiple values per SubCat.
Hopefully you find this helpful. If not, please ask for clarification.
Can you do something like this:
The following gives the steps (in two columns, down then across)
I have a client with a large database of entries that need sorting.
In short, I have two tables I'm working with, they are in excel but i can import them into MySQL if I need to.
Table 1 Columns (List of apartments).
Owner ID
--------
350
350
1
169
169
Table 2 Columns (List of apartment owners).
Owner ID | Owner Name
---------|-----------
350 | Foo
1 | Bar
169 | Foorbar
Now I can either sit and do a search and replace for well over 1100 apartment listings but Im guessing that there is a regex or formulea out there that can basically search and replace all the ID's in the Table 1 apartments list and match them up to their owner name in Table 2.
The purpose of this is to ensure that when the CSV import to the new website happens, the apartment owner is saved as the Owners name, not the ID.
Thanks in advance
you can use vlookup: =Vlookup(Table1[#Owner_ID],Table2[[Owner ID]:[Owner Name]],2,0)
click me to see a video to see vlookup
I`m new to data warehousing, but I think my question can be relatively easy answered.
I built a star schema, with a dimension table 'product'. This table has a column 'PropertyName' and a column 'PropertyValue'.
The dimension therefore looks a little like this:
surrogate_key | natural_key (productID) | PropertyName | PropertyValue | ...
1 5 Size 20 ...
2 5 Color red
3 6 Size 20
4 6 Material wood
and so on.
In my fact table I always use the surrogate keys of the dimensions. Cause of the PropertyName and PropertyValue columns my natural key isn`t unique / identifying anymore, so I get way too much rows in my fact table.
My question now is, what should I do with the property columns? Would it be best, to put each property into separate dimensions, like dimension size, dimension color and so on? I got about 30 different properties.
Or shall I create columns for each property in the fact table?
Or make one dimension with all properties?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Your dimension table 'product' should look like this:
surrogate_key | natural_key (productID) | Color | Material | Size | ...
1 5 red wood 20 ...
2 6 red ...
If you have to many properties, try to group them in another dimension. For example Color and Material can be attributes of another dimension if you can have the same product with same id and same price in another color or material. Your fact table can identify product with two keys: product_id and colormaterial_id...
Reading recommendation:
The Data Warehouse Toolkit, Ralph Kimball
Your design is called EAV (entity-attribute-value) table.
It's a nice design for the sparse matrices (large number of properties with only few of them filled at the same time).
However, it has several drawbacks.
It cannot be indexed (and hence efficiently searched) on two or more properties at once. A query like this: "get all products made of wood and having size or 20" will be less efficient.
Implementing constraints involving several attributes at once is more complex
etc.
If it's not a problem for you, you can use EAV design.