I am trying to create an SAP data query using SQVI (or SQ01) to display all entries that meet certain criteria. I can use the 'Selection Fields' tab to have a user specify any of these parameters, but I want to be able to query the data with more complex conditions such as a nested 'AND'/'OR'. I have researched the question for a couple hours and have yet to find a solution that works. Here is an example simplified query that I would like to do, written in SQL form:
SELECT t0.name, t0.birthYear, t1.grade, t1.county
FROM t0
INNER JOIN t1 on t0.personID = t1.personID
WHERE t0.name = 'Bob'
AND t0.birthyear = 2000
AND (t1.grade = 12
OR t1.county <> 'Cook');
Now the tricky part is figuring out how to do a nested 'AND' and 'OR' in SQVI. At first, I pulled all the data without these conditions, exported it to Excel, and then performed this logic to get the correct entries that meet these criteria. However, I do not want to do this every time, as it is highly repetitive and there HAS TO be some solution within the SAP environment. Ideally, I would be able to create a query that I can share with co-workers to execute once a week, where they don't need to enter any values to test against 'name', 'birthyear', 'grade', or 'county'. They should be able to type in the code for this query and hit execute, and it should spit out all of the entries that meet all the criteria. I want to be able to hard-code the testing parameters in this instance.
Let me know if this is even possible! If it's not possible using SQVI, what would I need access to in order to do a complex conditional query like this? I do not have write-access on the data, so I am not authorized to use 'DBACOCKPIT' to write the query as SQL (which would be so much simpler).
Related
How can i dynamically transform an SQL-Query?
I know there is a Select.getSelect(), but how can i add fields in the select-query?
Use-case: for a Rest-Query i have a lot of paginated resources and i have an abstraction to create the paginated-query. It takes the SelectConditionStep and adds the rest, depending on additional parameters. It works really well for simple queries, but for queries containing joins a little bit of transformation of the query would required. (Mainly because i can't naively limit the number results, since the join can be a one to many relationship)
The easiest way is to keep a List<Field<?>> where you add the fields for your select() clause, and then create the Select statement only when you actually execute it, instead of passing a Select object around. Example:
List<Field<?>> fields = new ArrayList<>();
// Just some examples:
fields.addAll(getDefaultFields());
fields.addAll(getFieldsFromUI());
fields.addAll(getCalculatedFields());
// Much later on, you finally create the statement:
DSL.using(configuration)
.select(fields)
.from(...)
.fetch();
im trying to run an hql query which aggragets (sum) number of transactions made on a specific account, i dont need a group by since my where clause has a specific account filter (where account = :account)
i do, however, want to return the aggregated value only if it is smaller/bigger than some given value.
when im adding 'having' after the where clause without 'group by' im getting an error -
unexpected token: having
in native sql i succeeded adding 'having' without group by
any ideas on how to make it work with hql?
thanks alot
The reason why databases don't let you mix grouped columns with non-grouped and non-aggregated ones is, that for non-grouped/non-aggregated columns it would have to choose one row's value per group, but doesn't know how to pick one.
If you don't care, then you could just leave it away and if it doesn't matter because they're all the same, you could group by them, too.
It is not hql, but if you have native query, then run it like:
Query query = session.createSQLQuery("select, *** ,... blah blah")
//set If you need
query.setParameter("myparam", "val");
List result = query.list();
In my eyes this is nonsense. 'having' is done for conditions on a 'group by' result. If you don't group, then it does not make much sense.
I would say HQL can't do it. Probably the Hibernate programmers didn't think of this case because they considered it as not important.
And anyway, you don't need it.
If it is a simple query, then you can decide in your java code if you want the result or if you don't need it.
If it is in a subselect, then you can solve the problem with a where condition in the main select.
If you think it is really necessary then your invited to give a more concrete example.
Is there a way to do
"UPDATE Item SET start_date = CURRENT_TIMESTAMP" ?
in Nhibernate without using hql/sql.
I am trying to avoid hql/sql because the rest of my code is in criteria. I want to do something like :
var item = session.get<Item>(id)
item.start_date = current_timestamp
There are two ways and sql is correct one.
Either you will
load all entities, change, update and commit, or
write sql query and let dbms handle most of the work
I am trying to avoid hql/sql because the rest of my code is in criteria
That is not a valid argument. Criteria is an API intended for relational search, and it does not support mass updates.
Different tasks, different APIs.
In this case, you can use either HQL or SQL, as the syntax is the same. I recommend the former, because you'll be using your entity/property names instead of table/column ones.
Based on this question:
What is difference between Where and Join in linq?
My question is following:
Is there a performance difference in the following two statements:
from order in myDB.OrdersSet
from person in myDB.PersonSet
from product in myDB.ProductSet
where order.Persons_Id==person.Id && order.Products_Id==product.Id
select new { order.Id, person.Name, person.SurName, product.Model,UrunAdı=product.Name };
and
from order in myDB.OrdersSet
join person in myDB.PersonSet on order.Persons_Id equals person.Id
join product in myDB.ProductSet on order.Products_Id equals product.Id
select new { order.Id, person.Name, person.SurName, product.Model,UrunAdı=product.Name };
I would always use the second one just because it´s more clear.
My question is now, is the first one slower than the second one?
Does it build a cartesic product and filters it afterwards with the where clauses ?
Thank you.
It entirely depends on the provider you're using.
With LINQ to Objects, it will absolutely build the Cartesian product and filter afterwards.
For out-of-process query providers such as LINQ to SQL, it depends on whether it's smart enough to realise that it can translate it into a SQL join. Even if LINQ to SQL doesn't, it's likely that the query engine actually performing the query will do so - you'd have to check with the relevant query plan tool for your database to see what's actually going to happen.
Side-note: multiple "from" clauses don't always result in a Cartesian product - the contents of one "from" can depend on the current element of earlier ones, e.g.
from file in files
from line in ReadLines(file)
...
My question is now, is the first one slower than the second one? Does it build a cartesic product and filters it afterwards with the where clauses ?
If the collections are in memory, then yes. There is no query optimizer for LinqToObjects - it simply does what the programmer asks in the order that is asked.
If the collections are in a database (which is suspected due to the myDB variable), then no. The query is translated into sql and sent off to the database where there is a query optimizer. This optimizer will generate an execution plan. Since both queries are asking for the same logical result, it is reasonable to expect the same efficient plan will be generated for both. The only ways to be certain are to
inspect the execution plans
or measure the IO (SET STATISTICS IO ON).
Is there a performance difference
If you find yourself in a scenario where you have to ask, you should cultivate tools with which to measure and discover the truth for yourself. Measure - not ask.
So I'm extremely new to Linq in .Net 3.5 and have a question. I use to use a custom class that would handle the following results from a store procedure:
Set 1: ID Name Age
Set 2: ID Address City
Set 3: ID Product Price
With my custom class, I would have received back from the database a single DataSet with 3 DataTables inside of it with columns based on what was returned from the DB.
My question is how to I achive this with LINQ? I'm going to need to hit the database 1 time and return multiple sets with different types of data in it.
Also, how would I use LINQ to return a dynamic amount of sets depending on the parameters (could get 1 set back, could get N amount back)?
I've looked at this article, but didn't find anything explaining multiple sets (just a single set that could be dynamic or a single scalar value and a single set).
Any articles/comments will help.
Thanks
I believe this is what you're looking for
Linq to SQL Stored Procedures with Multiple Results - IMultipleResults
I'm not very familiar with LINQ myself but here is MSDN's site on LINQ Samples that might be able to help you out.
EDIT: I apologize, I somehow missed the title where you mentioned you wanted help using LINQ with Stored Procedures, my below answer does not address that at all and unfortunately I haven't had the need to use sprocs with LINQ so I'm unsure if my below answer will help.
LINQ to SQL is able hydrate multiple sets of data into a object graph while hitting the database once. However, I don't think LINQ is going to achieve what you ultimately want -- which as far as I can tell is a completely dynamic set of data that is defined outside of the query itself. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the question, maybe it would help if you provide some sample code that your existing application is using?
Here is a quick example of how I could hydrate a anonymous type with a single database call, maybe it will help:
var query = from p in db.Products
select new
{
Product = p,
NumberOfOrders = p.Orders.Count(),
LastOrderDate = p.Orders.OrderByDescending().Take(1).Select(o => o.OrderDate),
Orders = p.Orders
};