Using either a view and/or stored procedure, I can return the results of executing an MDX query against SQL Analysis Services (using OPENROWSET against a linked SSAS Server into SQL).
Unfortunately, the resultset doesn't include a PK field...or for that matter, even a column which COULD act as a PK if I were to hack the model.
Can anyone think of a hacktacular trick I can use to:
Add a field to my result which inserts some auto-incrementing value (to act as a PK candidate)
Somehow set this field to be the PK so that I can easily build an entity off of it?
I'm 99% sure the answer is "no". At this point I can already get data back from SSAS by using an SSRS report with OData rendering...but I have to create my types manually when I use play w/ LINQ.
If someone can nail #1 & #2 for me, this may be a potentially better way to access the data since the Modeler would create my types (entities) for me.
Thanks!
I'm not sure I understand why you can't have a column that could act as a primary key. I just ran a similar query against one of my cubes filtered to a list of members and each column name contained the member name. Here is an example:
Submission:
SELECT Measures.members ON ROWS,
Customer.[CustomerIdKeyField].[UniqueCustomerId] ON COLUMNS
FROM [Postage Prints]
Returned:
(colum header) [Measures].[MeasuresLevel].[MEMBER_CAPTION] [Customer].[CustomerIdKeyField].&[UniqueCustomerId]
(row) Measure1 9.6800000000000015
(row) Measure2 22
(row) Measure3 1
Related
Context
I have three tables in my SQL Server database: 1) School, 2) College, 3) University.
Then I have another table: Tags.
Each of the three tables (School, College, University) can have Tags associated with them. For which purpose I have three association tables: SchoolTags, CollegeTags, UniversityTags.
Problem
I am trying to create a user-defined function that will take the name of association table as parameter (i.e. 'SchoolTags') and the Id of the entity (school/college/university) and will return a list of tags associated with that entityId.
The issue I am having is I have got to join Tags with a table whose name will come in as parameter. For that I am creating a dynamic query. And we can not run dynamic queries in SQL Server user-defined functions.
Question
Any idea how can that be acheived?
Note: I want separate association tables as I have created and do not want to convert them into a generic association table and I do not want to add If-Else based on table names in my function so that if a new association table is created, I do not need to update my function.
I am using Microsoft SQL Server.
Whatever language you are using, you would probably use if:
begin
if table = 'school' then
begin
. . .
end;
else if table = 'college' then
. . .
end;
The exact syntax depends on the scripting language for the database you are using.
What you desire is impossible. You cannot pass a table name as a parameter to a UDF and use dynamic sql in the UDF to then create and execute a statement that is specific to the table passed as the argument. You already know that you have no choice but to use if-else statements in your UDF to achieve your goal - it is your pipe-dream of "never having to update (or verify) your code when the schema changes" (yes - I rephrased it to make your issue more obvious) that is a problem.
There are likely to be other ways of implementing some useful functionality - but I suggest that you are thinking too far ahead and trying to implement generic functions without a clear purpose. And that is a very difficult and trouble-prone path that requires sophisticated tsql skills.
And to re-iterate the prior responses, you have a schema problem. You purposely created three different entities - and now you want a common function to use with any of them. So before you spend much time on this particular aspect, you should take some time to think carefully about how you intend to use (i.e., write queries against) these tables. If you find yourself using unions frequently to combine these entities into a common resultset, then you have might have a mismatch between your actual business and your model (schema) of it.
Consider normalizing your database in related, logical groupings for one EducationInstitution table and one JoinEducTags table. Those tables sound like they maintain the same structure but of different typology and hence should be saved in one table with different Type field for School, College, University, etc.
Then, add necessary constraints, primary/foreign keys for the one-to-many relationship between all three sets:
You never want to keep restructuring your schema (i.e., add tables) for each new type. With this approach, your user-defined function would just need to receive value parameters not identifiers like tables to be run in dynamic querying. Finally, this approach scales better with efficient storage. And as you will see normalization saves on complex querying.
Is it possible to get information about whether a child table has reference to a parent table through a certain record? For example, tblParent has a record whose primary key value is 5. I want to know whether tblChild_A, tblChild_B and tblChild_C have one or more records in them where the foreign key value is 5. Well it's definitely possible by querying each of the child tables individually but I want to know whether there's any system query or stored procedure or whatever that produces a tabular output from all those tables together.
If it's possible in MS SQL Server then please also inform what's its counterpart in MS Access. Regards.
Lots of arguments here. I want to know how this can be done in MSSQL Server as well as MS Access.
I described a possible solution on how to do this in SQL Server here: SQL Server: how to know if any row is referencing the row to delete.
Access/Jet/ACE offers no such system query/sproc for this purpose. You'd have to code it up individually, though if you wanted it to be generalized, you could use the TableDefs and Relationships collections to figure out what tables to look at.
My application has one table called 'events' and each event has approx 30 standard fields, but also user defined fields that could be any name or type, in an 'eventdata' table. Users can define these event data tables, by specifying x number of fields (either text/double/datetime/boolean) and the names of these fields. This 'eventdata' (table) can be different for each 'event'.
My current approach is to create a lookup table for the definitions. So if i need to query all 'event' and 'eventdata' per record, i do so in a M-D relaitionship using two queries (i.e. select * from events, then for each record in 'events', select * from 'some table').
Is there a better approach to doing this? I have implemented this so far, but most of my queries require two distinct calls to the DB - i cannot simply join my master 'events' table with different 'eventdata' tables for each record in in 'events'.
I guess my main question is: can i join my master table with different detail tables for each record?
E.g.
SELECT E.*, E.Tablename
FROM events E
LEFT JOIN 'E.tablename' T ON E._ID = T.ID
If not, is there a better way to design my database considering i have no idea on how many user defined fields there may be and what type they will be.
There are four ways of handling this.
Add several additional fields named "Custom1", "Custom2", "Custom3", etc. These should have a datatype of varchar(?) or similiar
Add a field to hold the unstructured data (like an XML column).
Create a table of name /value pairs which are associated with some type of template. Let them manage the template. You'll have to use pivot tables or similiar to get the data out.
Use a database like MongoDB or another NoSql style product to store this.
The above said, The first one has the advantage of being fast but limits the number of custom fields to the number you defined. Older main frame type applications work this way. SalesForce CRM used to.
The second option means that each record can have it's own custom fields. However, depending on your database there are definite challenges here. Tried this, don't recommend it.
The third one is generally harder to code for but allows for extreme flexibility. SalesForce and other applications have gone this route; including a couple I'm responsible for. The downside is that Microsoft apparently acquired a patent on doing things this way and is in the process of suing a few companies over it. Personally, I think that's bullcrap; but whatever. Point is, use at your own risk.
The fourth option is interesting. We've played with it a bit and the performance is great while coding is pretty darn simple. This might be your best bet for the unstructured data.
Those type of joins won't work because you will need to pivot the eventdata table to make it columns instead of rows. Therefore it depends on which database technology you are using.
Here is an example with MySQL: How to pivot a MySQL entity-attribute-value schema
My approach would be to avoid using a different table for each event, if that's possible.
I would use something like:
Event (EventId, ..., ...)
EventColumnType (EventColumnTypeId, EventTypeId, ColumnName)
EventColumnData (EventColumnTypeId, Data)
You are them limited to the type of data you can store (everything would have to be strings, for example), but you the number of events and columns are unrestricted.
What I'm getting from your description is you have an event table, and then a separate EventData table for each and every event.
Rather than that, why not have a single EventCustomFields table that contains a foreign key to the event table, a field Name (event+field being the PK) and a field value.
Sure it's not the best. You'd be stuck serializing the value or storing everything as a string. And you'd still be stuck doing two queries, one for the event table and one to get it's custom fields, but at least you wouldn't have a new table for every event in the system (yuck x10)
Another, (arguably worse) option is to serialize the custom fields into a single column of the and then deserialize when you need. So your query would be something like
Select E.*, C.*
From events E, customFields C
Where E.ID = C.ID
Is it possible to just impose a limit on your users? I know the tables underneath Sharepoint 2007 had a bunch of columns for custom data that were just named like CustomString1, CustomDate2, etc. That may end up easier than some of the approaches above, where everything is in one column (though that's an approach I've taken as well), and I would think it would scale up better.
The answer to your main question is: no. You can't have different rows in the result set with different columns. The result set is kind of like a table, so each row has to have the same columns. You can fake it with padding and dummy columns, but that's probably not much better.
You could try defining a fixed event data table, with (say) ten of each type of column. Then you'd store the usage metadata in a separate table and just read that in at system startup. The metadata would tell you that event type "foo" has a field "name" mapped to column string0 in the event data table, a field named "reporter" mapped to column string1, and a field named "reportDate" mapped to column date0. It's ugly and wastes space, but it's reasonably flexible. If you're in charge of the database, you can even define a view on the table so to the client it looks like a "normal" table. If the clients create their own tables and just stick the table name in the event record, then obviously this won't fly.
If you're really hardcore you can write a database procedure to query the table structures and serialize everything to a lilst of key/type/value tuples and return that in one long string as the last column, but that's probably not much handier than what you're doing now.
When I create a view I can base it on multiple columns from different tables.
When I want to create a lookup table I need information from one table, for example the foreign key of an order table, to get customer details from another table. I can create a view having parameters to make sure it will get all data that I need. I could also - from what I have been reading - make a lookup table. What is the difference in this case and when should I choose for a lookup table?? I hope this ain't a bad question, I'm not very into db's yet ;).
Creating a view gives you a "live" representation of the data as it is at the time of querying. This comes at the cost of higher load on the server, because it has to determine the values for every query.
This can be expensive, depending on table sizes, database implementations and the complexity of the view definition.
A lookup table on the other hand is usually filled "manually", i. e. not every query against it will cause an expensive operation to fetch values from multiple tables. Instead your program has to take care of updating the lookup table should the underlying data change.
Usually lookup tables lend themselves to things that change seldomly, but are read often. Views on the other hand - while more expensive to execute - are more current.
I think your usage of "Lookup Table" is slightly awry. In normal parlance a lookup table is a code or reference data table. It might consist of a CODE and a DESCRIPTION or a code expansion. The purpose of such tables is to provide a lsit of permitted values for restricted columns, things like CUSTOMER_TYPE or PRIORITY_CODE. This category of table is often referred to as "standing data" because it changes very rarely if at all. The value of defining this data in Lookup tables is that they can be used in foreign keys and to populate Dropdowns and Lists Of Values.
What you are describing is a slightly different scenario:
I need information from one table, for
example the foreign key of an order
table, to get customer details from
another table
Both these tables are application data tables. Customer and Order records are dynamic. Now it is obviously valid to retrieve additional data from the Customer table to display along side the Order data, and in that sense Customer is a "lookup table". More pertinently it is the parent table of Order, because it has the primary key referenced by the foreign key on Order.
By all means build a view to capture the joining logic between Order and Customer. Such views can be quite helpful when building an application that uses the same joined tables in several places.
Here's an example of a lookup table. We have a system that tracks Jurors, one of the tables is JurorStatus. This table contains all the valid StatusCodes for Jurors:
Code: Value
WS : Will Serve
PP : Postponed
EM : Excuse Military
IF : Ineligible Felon
This is a lookup table for the valid codes.
A view is like a query.
Read this tutorial and you may find helpful info when a lookup table is needed:
SQL: Creating a Lookup Table
Just learn to write sql queries to get exactly what you need. No need to create a view! Views are not good to use in many instances, especially if you start to base them on other views, when they will kill performance. Do not use views just as a shorthand for query writing.
Say I'm mapping a simple object to a table that contains duplicate records and I want to allow duplicates in my code. I don't need to update/insert/delete on this table, only display the records.
Is there a way that I can put a fake (generated) ID column in my mapping file to trick NHibernate into thinking the rows are unique? Creating a composite key won't work because there could be duplicates across all of the columns.
If this isn't possible, what is the best way to get around this issue?
Thanks!
Edit: Query seemed to be the way to go
The NHibernate mapping makes the assumption that you're going to want to save changes, hence the requirement for an ID of some kind.
If you're allowed to modify the table, you could add an identity column (SQL Server naming - your database may differ) to autogenerate unique Ids - existing code should be unaffected.
If you're allowed to add to the database, but not to the table, you could try defining a view that includes a RowNumber synthetic (calculated) column, and using that as the data source to load from. Depending on your database vendor (and the products handling of views and indexes) this may face some performance issues.
The other alternative, which I've not tried, would be to map your class to a SQL query instead of a table. IIRC, NHibernate supports having named SQL queries in the mapping file, and you can use those as the "data source" instead of a table or view.
If you're data is read only one simple way we found was to wrapper the query in a view and build the entity off the view, and add a newguid() column, result is something like
SELECT NEWGUID() as ID, * FROM TABLE
ID then becomes your uniquer primary key. As stated above this is only useful for read-only views. As the ID has no relevance after the query.