I am implementing a Interactive grid to perform DML operations on a table.
it has combined primary key of two columns
One primary key column is display only and refer to master table and another primary key column I want to have a LOV to select value. LOV is dynamic lov having a display and return value picked from another table.
Inserts are fine but session state item value is set for one row and all the operations are performed on that same row irrespective of which row is selected.
you can see a sample here
https://apex.oracle.com/pls/apex/f?p=128616:2:1964277347439::NO:::
master table name: sample
detail table name: sample_child
primary key in sample child : ID and Name
pop lov is implemented in NAME
LOV values are picked from table: Sample_uncle
LOV display : ID || '-' || NAME
LOV return : ID
you can try to update blabla column of sample_child table to see the issue.
I am not sure how I can give you access to look at the implementation.
I have already tried all the options I can think of
This is to do with your primary keys, the detail table does not appear to have proper ones, thats why it always tried to update the first entry, and I think this is also why every row is marked when you load the table.
Primary keys also do the annoying thing of refusing to be empty, as you can see if you insert a new row, the middle column(which is a PK) is filled with 't1001'.
Since you are dealing with simple tables(and not a whole bunch of joined tables) I always consider it best to use ROWID as PK. So set ROWID as PK for the master table, and ROWID for the detail table. And have the detail table have a Master table be your master table, and then click on the first column in the detail table and set the master column for it. And I also personaly always hide the column that is linked.
I would advise you use ROWID whenever possible as its just so much easier to work with, it does mean you might need to set up a validation to prevent someone adding duplicated values for your actual PK, but since the PK is in the underlying table, they cant enter it anyways(but if you have a validation, the error will be much prettier), whilst if the column is a PK, APEX will prevent duplicates by default.
I hope this helps
Related
I am updating a single column in a table using Linq, take fictitious table below.
MyTable (PKID, ColumnToUpdate, SomeRandomColumn)
var row = (from x in DataContext.MyTable
where b.PKID == 5
select x).FirstOrDefault();
row.ColumnToUpdate = 20;
DataContext.SubmitChanges();
This updates the column to as expected, no surprises here. However when I inspect the SQL commands which are generated, it does this:
UPDATE [dbo].[MyTable ]
SET [ColumnToUpdate ] = #p2
WHERE ([PKID] = #p0) AND ([SomeRandomColumn] = #p1)
This is performing the update, but only if all columns have matched the values of what Entity expects them to be, rather than referencing the Primary Key column on it's own.
If a database column is changed by another process, which is very feasible in this particular project; eg. There is a window between getting the row you want to manipulate, calculating the changes you would like to set the value to, and issuing the update command as a batch of rows. In this situation the query will cause an exception, causing a partial update, unless I trap, reload the data and resend individual queries. It also has a downside that the row information can be quite large (ie, containing HTML mark up for instance), and the whole thing gets passed to SQL and slows the system down when larger batches are processed.
Is there a way of making Linq / Entity to issue update commands based only on the PK column in the Where clause?
I never used LINQ-to-SQL for production projects and I never were aware of it applying optimistic concurrency1 by default.
This is the default behavior:
If a table doesn't have a Timestamp/Rowversion column2, all columns have "Update Check" set to "Always" in the DBML (except primary key columns and computed columns, i.e. all updateable columns).
If a table does have a Timestamp/Rowversion column, this column has "Time Stamp" set to "True" in the DBML and all columns have "Update Check" = "Never".
Either "Update Check" or "Time Stamp" mark a column as concurrency token. That's why in update statements you see these additional predicates on (not so) "random" columns. Apparently, the tables in your model didn't have Timestamp/Rowversion columns, hence an update checks the values of all updateable columns in the table.
1 Optimistic concurrency: no exclusive locks are set when updating records, but existing values of all or selected columns are checked while updating. If one of those column value was changed by another user between getting the data and saving them, an update exception occurs.
2 A column of data type Timestamp or Rowversion is automatically incremented when a record is updated and therefore detects all concurrent changes to this record.
I have one field on my form (field example name "completion_date"). This data is stored to table column "completion_date". When users edits the detail, data is overwritten in the backend table field as a default way of storing the data. How can I pass on the existing data in this column to a new column (completion_date_a) when the user saves a new date in the field.
One option is to create a database trigger, e.g.
create or replace trigger trg_bu_date
before update on your_table
for each row
begin
:new.completion_date_a := :old.completion_date;
end;
/
Littlefoots' answer is correct, but you could also do this in apex with very little work. Suppose your form items are P1_COMPLETION_DATE and P1_COMPLETION_DATE_A, both mapped to their respective database column. P1_COMPLETION_DATE_A is hidden. Add a computation to P1_COMPLETION_DATE_A with point "After Header" and type "Item". Pick P1_COMPLETION_DATE as item.
Now when you save the form, the value of P1_COMPLETION_DATE_A will be set to the value of P1_COMPLETION_DATE when it was selected.
I've been able to create APEX forms with reports and interactive grids successfully, but when I tried to just create a simple DML form, using the wizard, I get a page where I can create a row, but I can't see the existing data in the table.
This particular table always has only one row and I just need a form to update that 1 row. How can I get this view to open in update mode?
If you don't know ahead of time what any of the values in one of the columns, you can use ROWID as the primary key and set it to the row's ROWID in order to trigger the automatic row fetch process.
Create a hidden item called P1_ROWID. Its Source should be set to Database Column, ROWID.
On the Automatic Row Fetch process, set Primary Key Column to ROWID and Primary Key Item to P1_ROWID.
Create an additional process, to run before the automatic row fetch process, that executes a query like the following:
select rowid into :P1_ROWID from mytable;
I need to update the some tables in my application from some other warehouse tables which would be updating weekly or biweekly. I should update my tables based on those. And these are having foreign keys in another tables. So I cannot just truncate the table and reinsert the whole data every time. So I have to take the delta and update accordingly based on few primary key columns which doesn't change. Need some inputs on how to implement this approach.
My approach:
Check the last updated time of those tables, views.
If it is most recent then compare each row based on the primary key in my table and warehouse table.
update each column if it is different.
Do nothing if there is no change in columns.
insert if there is a new record.
My Question:
How do I implement this? Writing a PL/SQL code is it a good and efficient way? as the expected number of records are around 800K.
Please provide any sample code or links.
I would go for Pl/Sql and bulk collect forall method. You can use minus in your cursor in order to reduce data size and calculating difference.
You can check this site for more information about bulk collect, forall and engines: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/issue-archive/2012/12-sep/o52plsql-1709862.html
There are many parts to your question above and I will answer as best I can:
While it is possible to disable referencing foreign keys, truncate the table, repopulate the table with the updated data then reenable the foreign keys, given your requirements described above I don't believe truncating the table each time to be optimal
Yes, in principle PL/SQL is a good way to achieve what you are wanting to
achieve as this is too complex to deal with in native SQL and PL/SQL is an efficient alternative
Conceptually, the approach I would take is something like as follows:
Initial set up:
create a sequence called activity_seq
Add an "activity_id" column of type number to your source tables with a unique constraint
Add a trigger to the source table/s setting activity_id = activity_seq.nextval for each insert / update of a table row
create some kind of master table to hold the "last processed activity id" value
Then bi/weekly:
retrieve the value of "last processed activity id" from the master
table
select all rows in the source table/s having activity_id value > "last processed activity id" value
iterate through the selected source rows and update the target if a match is found based on whatever your match criterion is, or if
no match is found then insert a new row into the target (I assume
there is no delete as you do not mention it)
on completion, update the master table "last processed activity id" to the greatest value of activity_id for the source rows
processed in step 3 above.
(please note that, depending on your environment and the number of rows processed, the above process may need to be split and repeated over a number of transactions)
I hope this proves helpful
I have a datamart with 5 dimension table and a fact table.
I'm trying to clean a dimension table that has few rows (4000 rows). But, the fact table have millions rows (25GB)(Indexes and partitions).
When I try to delete a row in the table dimension, the process becomes very slow. It's just as slow despite the absence of relationship with a row in the fact table (cascade delete).
Is there any way to optimize this?. Thanks in advance.
Presumably, there is a cascading delete of some sort between the dimension table and the fact table.
Adding an index on the key column in the fact table may be sufficient. Then Oracle can immediately tell if/where any given value is.
If that doesn't work, drop the foreign key constraint altogether. Delete the unused values and add the constraint back in.
You could try these strategies as well :
create another copy of the fact table but, without the dim foreign key column of the table to be cleaned.
create fact_table_new as
select dim1_k, dim2_k, dim3_k, dim4_k, dim5_k (not this column), fact_1, fact_2, ...
from fact_table ;
or
update fact_table
set dim5_fk_col = null
where dim5_fk_col in (select k_col from dim5_table) ;