I am writing a spring batch application and have an input csv file that has multiple rows with a unique person name and their phone number. In the csv I am guaranteed that the person to phone number is one to one relationship however I want to insert these in a database where there is a one to many relationship on person to phone.
I know how to insert each individually however when inserting the phone I want to get the id that was autogenerated when inserting the person to create the one to many relationship.
Not sure the best way to do that unless I write a custom processor that sends http request to the backend or directly access the database to create the person and then use the writer to create the phone number entry.
Was able to do this by just using a WITH statement around the first insert in the SQL and then use that temporary result to return the id. Then outside do the second insert on the other table using insert into select from. Gave the second insert the id variable and then "consts" for the other column values.
https://gist.github.com/yodigi7/5982bc31662e5160389ccb46b39ae558
Related
Using Java and Oracle.
We need to update changes in Email, UserID of employee to third party.
Actual table is Employee and intermediate table we keep which we will use for comparison of changes before sending to third party.
Following are database designs coming in mind for intermediate table:
Only Single table:
EmployeeiD|Value|Type|UpdateDate
Value is userid or email, type will be 'email' or 'userid'. Update date is kept so to figure out that which of email or userid was different and update to third party.
Multiple Table:
Employee_EmailID
EmpId|EmailID|Updatedate
Employee_UserID
EmpId|UserID|Updatedate
Java flow will be:
Pick employee from actual table.
Pick employee from above intermediate table.
Compare differences. Update difference to third party.
Update above table with updated value and last update date.
Which one is consider as best way, single table approach or multiple table or is there any standard way to implement the same? There are 10,000 Employees in system.
Intermediate table is just storing Delta records i.e Records transferred to third party so that it can be compared next day.
Good database design has separate tables for different concepts. Using the same database column to hold different types of data will lead to code which is harder to understand, prone to data corruption and less performative.
You may think it's only two tables and a few tens of thousands of rows, so does it matter? But that is only your current requirement. What you choose now will set the template for what happens when (say) you need to add telephone numbers to the process.
Now in future if we get 5 more entities to update
Do you mean "entities", like say Customers rather than Employees? Or do you really mean "attributes" as in my example of Employee Telephone Number?
Generally speaking we have a separate table for distinct entities, and all the attributes of that entity are grouped at the same cardinality. To take your example, I would expect an Employee to have one UserID and one Email Address so I would design the table like this:
Employee_audit
EmpId|UserID|EmailID|Updatedate
That is, I have one record which stores the complete state of the Employee record at the Updatedate.
If we add a new entity, Customers then we have a new table. Simple. But a new attribute like Employee Phone Number offers a choice, because an employee can have more than one: work landline, mobile, fax, home, etc. So we could represent this in three ways: a child table with a type column, multiple child tables for each type, or as distinct columns on the Employee record.
For the main Employee table I would choose the separate table (or tables, depending on whether I'm shooting for 6NF). But for an audit table I would choose one record per Employee and pivot the phone numbers like this:
Employee_audit
EmpId|UserID|EmailID|Landline|Mobile|Fax|Home|Updatedate
The one thing I would never do is have a single table with type and value columns. It seems attractive because it means we could track additional entities without any further DDL. But in fact it becomes harder to re-assemble the complete state of an Employee at any given time with each attribute we add. Also it means the auditing process itself is more complicated (because it needs to determine which attributes have changed and whether it needs to audit the change) and more expensive (because changing three attributes on the same record entails inserting three audit records).
Let me describe my problem:
I have a table for all my IT-Services. I reference to this table more than once, for different purposes. Most of the time I need to reference to the name of the service. That's why I keep the name as displayed value.
One Column of that table is a service_id (custom field) which is for example "Service_004". Now in a catalog request Item the User has to fill in the service_id in a reference field.
But since I have the name as displayed value, and I need it in other forms, I am unable to reference to the service_id.
Using the variable attributes field I managed to let the service be found using the autocomplete function. But in the reference field I still get the servicename. I know that I can change the display value in the dictionary, but this breaks other functions. So what I need is to change the display value just for one reference field.
Also I tried to create a new table called IT-Services2 with reference to my table IT-Services. Then I switched the display to true in the new table for my service_id, but this will even change it in the parent table.
Perhaps an onChange client script utilizing g_form.setLabelOf() ?
http://wiki.servicenow.com/index.php?title=GlideForm_(g_form)#setLabelOf
Maybe I'm not fully understanding your question...
I ran into this issue before, what you can do is create select box variable and use an on load client script to populate the list with the service_id(s) from the table you are referencing.
I would write a script include to pull the data from the table and call it from the client script via GlideAjax.
In the salesInvoice ssrs Report i have added a table called carTableEquipTmp which is not there by default, which I insert into along with the other tables(SalesinvoiceTmp and SalesinvoiceHeaderFooterTmp) in SalesInvoiceDP.InsertIntoSalesInvoiceTmp().
Even though my table carTableEquipTmp is getting successfully inserted into, the data doesn't show up on the report if i print a proforma report.
If i add test values to the carTableEquipTmp table in SalesInvoiceDP.processReport() they show up on the proforma invoice, but there's no way for me to get any parameters needed to set in the correct data into the table at this point. If i stop at this point in the debugger none of the data is present because processreport() is being called from a lower level in the code.
I think it might be a problem with maybe pack/unpack or that the proforma code runs from a server instance as the code run when it is proforma is quite different.
I can see that SalesInvoiceJournalPostBase.CreateReportData() creates an instance of salesInvoiceDP
salesInvoiceDP = new SalesInvoiceDP();
salesInvoiceDP.parmDataContract(salesInvoiceContract);
salesInvoiceDP.parmUserConnection(new UserConnection(true));
salesInvoiceDP.createData();
And that this might have something to do with it... but i still cant get the data i want in the carTableEquipTmp table.
So any idea on how to make Ax 2012 accept this new table i have added as it gets inserted into just like the other tables and there seems to be no problem...
I hope you guys can help.
The SalesInvoice report has two data classes you need to look at for the data provider, SalesInvoiceDP and SalesInvoiceDPBase. SalesInvoiceDPBase extends SrsReportDataProviderPreProcess, so there are a couple extra steps you need to take in order to add new datasources to the report.
In the salesInvoiceDP class, there is a method called useExistingReportData(), which re-inserts the pro-forma temp table data under a user connection, so the SrsReportDataProviderPreProcess framework will pick it up in your report. When the pro-forma process creates the report data, it doesn't insert with a user connection so it doesn't get added to the report. This method only gets called when the report is being run pro-forma.
You will need to add your temp table to this method, and follow the pattern for the other tables, so your code will look something like this:
//this is different from the buffer you insert your data with
CarTableEquipTmp localCarTableEquipTmp;
...
recordList = new RecordSortedList(tableNum(carTableEquipTmp));
recordList.sortOrder(fieldNum(carTableEquipTmp, RecId));
//You will need to add a field to relate your temp table
//to the current invoice journal, and insert it in
//InsertIntoSalesInvoiceTmp() if thats where you're inserting your table.
while select localCarTableEquipTmp
where localCarTableEquipTmp.JournalRecId == jourRecId
{
recordList.ins(localCarTableEquipTmp);
}
delete_from localCarTableEquipTmp
where localCarTableEquipTmp.JournalRecId == jourRecId;
recordList.insertDatabase(this.parmUserConnection());
This method re-inserts your data under the framework and deletes the original data. The data that was re-inserted will then get picked up by the framework and show in your report. If you open CarTableEquipTmp in the table browser, you will most likely see data still there from all the times you have tried running the report. This is why we have the delete_from operation after we re-insert the data. When data is inserted under a userConnection, it is automatically deleted when the report is finished
The other method you will want to modify is SalesInvoiceDP.setTableConnections(), and you will just need to add the following line:
CarTableEquipTmp.setConnection(this.parmUserConnection());
This will set the user connection for your table when running regular (not pro-forma). You will probably want to delete the data that is stored currently in your temp table using alt+F9 from the table browser.
Other than that it's all standard RDP stuff, but it sounds like you have that part working fine. Your temp table must be of type "Regular" for this to work.
Simple parent/child scenario like Order and OrderLineItems. I am inserting a new Order, the OrderID is an identity column (sql server). I'm also inserting OrderLineItems in the same SaveChanges transaction. I need to get the new OrderID into the OrderLineItems, but not sure how to do it. I have the appropriate FK relationships setup properly. When I save, I get an error that OrderID is a required field in OrderLineItems.
Will I have to split this out into 2 server calls? First to insert the Order, which will return the OrderID. And then another to insert the OrderLineItems?
The Breeze documentation discusses this topic (key generation) at several points including but not limited to: http://www.breezejs.com/documentation/save-changes, http://www.breezejs.com/documentation/extending-entities and http://www.breezejs.com/documentation/add-new-entity.
The basic idea idea is that providing that your model and metadata are set up properly, breeze can assign a temporary id in place of the identity column for use in linking your order and orderlineitem entities prior to being saved. As part of the save process, Breeze updates these temporary keys to their "real" key values and updates the local cache as well upon successful completion of the save.
I have a Tags table whose schema consists of only ID and Name (unique). Now, from the GUI user can enter tags for a BlogPost. When the data is saved, with tags stored in an array of string (names), I want to add tags whose names don't yet exist to the Tag table and ignore tags whose names already exist AND get back the list of all tag entities (including the existing and newly added ones). How can I do this in Entity Framework in just 1 SQL roundtrip?
For the returned tags, I want to associate them to the to-be-added BlogPost object (which is just instantiated and not stored in DB via EF yet). Is it still possible that this step can be combined with #1 in 1 single roundtrip or must I have to issue another query?
I don't believe the Entity Framework does batch inserts at all (at present). So if you must keep the number of DB roundtrips so low, you're probably going to have to use a stored procedure or a database trigger. Fortunately, the Entity Framework supports stored procedures which return entity types. There is documentation on MSDN about this. You could create a proc which accepts a string list of tags and returns tag entity instances. Alternately, you could add a VARCHAR column to your post table for a delimited list of tags, and parse it in the trigger.