I have a database in Access 2007 that maintains staff records. Amongst other things it is used to record ethnic origins for Equality purposes. Latest advice on this subject lists 63 possible answers to the question "What is your ethnic origin?". Until now I have been recording data in a Text field, which uses a Combo Box and Value list with only 17 possible answers. Users are not allowed to change the list.
A Value List with 63 items strikes me as cumbersome, although I'm sure it will work.
Does anyone have any suggestions for a 'slicker' approach?
I have decided to create a separate table. Latest advice contains groups of ethnic origins, and each ethnic origin has a code, e.g. "(A)". So I now have a table with fields: Group; Ethnicity;Code.
Related
I'm using Tableau to show some schools data.
My data structure gives a table that has all de school classes in the country. The thing is I need to count, for example, how many schools has Primary and Preschool (both).
A simplified version of my table should look like this:
In that table, if I want to know the number needed in the example, the result should be 1, because in only one school exists both Primary and Preschool.
I want to have a multiple filter in Tableau that gives me that information.
I was thinking in the SQL query that should be made and it needs a GROUP BY statement. An example of the consult is here in a fiddle: Database example query
In the SQL query I group by id all the schools that meet either one of the conditions inside de IN(...) and then count how many of them meet both (c=2).
Is there a way to do something like this in Tableau? Either using groups or sets, using advanced filters or programming a RAW SQL calculated fiel?
Thanks!
Dubafek
PS: I add a link to my question in Tableu's forum because you can download my testing workbook there: Tableu's forum question
I've solved the issue using LODs (specifically INCLUDE and EXCLUDE statements).
I created two calculated fields having the aggregation I needed:
Then I made a calculated field that leaves only the School IDs that matches the number of types they have (according with the filtering) with the number of types selected in the multiple filter (both of the fields shown above):
Finally, I used COUNTD([Condition]) to display the amounts of schools matching with at least the School types selected.
Hope this helps someone with similar issue.
PS: If someone wants the Workbook with the solution I've uploaded it in an answer in the Tableau Forum
"meta/background about the use of code and person using it"
1.site built by professional that left company,
2.I am inexperienced but trying/ want to learn,
3.Customer support site for service reps,
................................................
What im trying to do exactly per stackoverflows parameters.
We have a drop down box listing issues that the customer had in a column labeled "issue_type". I can export via csv entire table load onto excel then give to boss for overall review of what the issues were. However data base has a "hide" column. Its function is that when the row is updated the record is kept but the same "job or call" has only one viewable report on site (the most recently updated one). Hide is a boolean. In conclusion I want to export rows that only has the "hide" column Boolean status at 0, AND to only export the columns "customer", and "issue_type". I can seem to only do one or the other. and have researched a minimum of 4 hours to find answer myself and cannot find a syntax to do both at the same time with phpmyadmin.
I dont want an enormous data that is mostly useless but for issue type and customer but i will have to manually delete all the rows with hide = 1?
Thanks anyone 1st attempt question sorry if not correct for stackflow.
SELECT Customer,Issue_type FROM tickets where hide =0;
Elaborating on what is above for anyone that may be looking for a similar answer, SQL supports the "where" clause of which you can when properly syntaxed select many of your columns and their associated strings, booleans, and numbers to = what your looking for. Wildcards I found later for other uses work as well.
Sorry about the self answer but hopefully someone finds this usefull
I have what I consider a real need to create a query with several hundred columns.
We are working on a mailing for our client. In this mailing, they are listing out several locations where their customers can go to get information. As our designers create the template for this mailing, they are setting up "Slots" for each address. The number of slots on the mailing varies from one mailing to the other, from 6 to possibly 50.
My need for the query is to setup the merge of data into the mailing. I need to provide a query where each mailing is 1 record containing all the information they need for that mailing. I am dynamically creating the SQL statement with the max number of slots on that mailing. With up to 50 slots on that mailing, my query needs to look like this:
MailingID,
LogoLocation,
APNCode,
TFN,
CopyVersion,
Slot1_Name,
Slot1_Address,
Slot1_City,
Slot1_State,
Slot1_DateTime,
...
Slot50_Name,
Slot50_Address,
Slot50_City,
Slot50_State,
Slot50_DateTime
My first attempt was to create a table with all these fields, but I got this error:
The table has been created, but its maximum row size exceeds the allowed maximum of 8060 bytes. INSERT or UPDATE to this table will fail if the resulting row exceeds the size limit.
They only want the data in a CSV file, so I don't need to create a temp table for it.
My problem is that I'm trying to create a standard process and with the number of fields varying like that, I want to set this up in a way that we won't blow up the system every time we try and run it.
I've looked at a few pages and found details on the size limitations of SQL Server and several comments saying a table like this shows a bad database design.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432(v=sql.105).aspx
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/fec1efbb-94ff-4fe9-8d69-12e95c48587d/its-maximum-row-size-exceeds-the-allowed-maximum-of-8060-bytes-insert-or-update-to-this-table-will?forum=transactsql
Work around SQL Server maximum columns limit 1024 and 8kb record size
I'm hoping that someone out there has some experience doing this and can share some insights on how to make this efficient. Is there another way to accomplish this that I don't know about?
UPDATE:
Thanks for all the quick replies.
More detail on my scenario. You get a flyer in the mail and when you turn the flyer over, it lists 50 locations in your county where you could go take a class or attend a meeting or something. All the details for that flyer needs to be in 1 record so they can map the fields on the one page. If that county has 50 address/date/time combinations, they need them included in the 1 record so they can properly slot the flyer. Think giant mail merge where there might only be 100 counties (100 flyers) but each flyer has tons of information.
When the data is actually stored in the database, I'm storing an id for the specific flyer (MailingID) and each address/date/time combo is its own record. It's just the file they need to merge the details onto the creative piece that has to be denormalized like this.
I haven't been able to find any details on limitations on views. Does a View have the same limitations as a table? Would it work to create a view for them that they can download when they need the data?
All the details for that flyer needs to be in 1 record so they can map the fields on the one page That is a questionable assumption. Why can't the data be stored in 50 rows in a 2nd table?
Anyway, if you insist on storing everything in one row you should probable use XML or JSON. That makes all these problems go away. SQL Server has great support for XML. You can even generate XML on the fly. So you could properly store the 50 items in a 2nd table and only combine them into one XML value for query purposes.
I'm not a programmer, but trying to learn. I'm a nurse, and need to pull data for medical referral tracking from a database. I have a piece of GUI software which builds JOIN queries for me to pull things from the database. One of the operators I can use in the drop-down is "IN." The referral documentation is stored in the table as codes made up of one to three letters. For example, the code for a completed dental referral is CDF, and the code for a dental referral is D.
I want to build a report to allow other nurses to pull all their outstanding referrals, so I'll want to pull "D" but not "CDF"
If I use IN as the operator, and set my parameters to 'S','D','BP' {etc} will that also pull the records which have the other, longer codes which contain those same letters? (like CDF, CSR, CBP)
I don't want to test it because I only have access to the production database, and I don't want to hose up actual patient records. Thanks in advance for any help!
Assuming that the column that holds the referral code holds one and only one code per record (which is what it sounds like) the query should function as you want and will not attempt to match substrings.
In any event, there's no danger that a query in the form IN ('S', 'D', 'BP') will match substrings. To perform substring matches in SQL you have to use the LIKE operator.
The situation in which this will not work is if the referral code column holds multiple codes separated by commas. This is an all-too-common mistake in designing databases but if the product you're using is commercial rather than home-grown, I think it's very unlikely to be the case. If it is, searching it is much more difficult.
I am not sure what SQL is exactly, databases I think, would SQL be the thing to use?
I want it so that when a user types into a search box it displays a "did-you-mean" box, that also shows how many other people used that term but I will do later ;)
currently I just want the text to be saved into database (?) and also how many times it's been done.
(new to stackoverflow so sorry if format/whatever is bad)
You just need a three table named something like search_queries which has columns for: id, search_text, and count. Everytime somebody searches just increment the count column where search_text is equal to what they searched for. This is a really broad question though and you need to start by learning the basics and report back here with more specific questions.