A pseudo code logic for a particular update strategy transformation query is given. I need to write it in informatica update strategy Sql query. I am using an unconnected lookup transformation. As I am very new to this , I am unable to make an query for this logic.
If(record does not exists in target table)
If(dbcal is not set)
Insert
Else
Reject
Else if(record exists in target table)
If(dbcal is not set)
Update
Else
Delete
My logic is like
iif((isnull(recordname),iif(isnull(dbcal),dd_insert)),
dd_update, dd_delete)
Please suggest a valid query. TIA
Ah well then, much as I love homework... good luck 😋
Based on you pseudo code, it should be something like below.
iif(isnull(recordname),
iif(isnull(dbcal),
dd_insert,
dd_reject),
iif(isnull(dbcal),
dd_update,
dd_delete)
)
Related
I am trying to delete a set of data in the target table based on a column (year) from the lookup in IICS (Informatica Cloud).
I want to solve this problem using pre/post sql commands but the constraint is I can't pass year column to my query.
I tried this:
delete from sample_db.tbl_emp where emp_year = {year}
I want to delete all the employees in a specific year i get from lookup return
For Ex:
I got year as '2019', all the records in table sample_db.tbl_emp containing emp_year=2019 must be deleted.
I am not sure how this works in informatica cloud.
Any leads would be helpful.
How are you getting the year value? A pre/post SQL may not be the way to go unless you need to do this as part of another transformation, i.e., before or after the transformation runs. Also, does your org only have ICDI, or also ICAI? ICAI may be a better solution depending on the value is being provided.
The following steps would help you achieve this.
Create an input-output parameter in your mapping.
Assign the result of your lookup in an expression transformation to the parameter using SetMaxVariable
Use the parameter in your target pre SQL as
delete from sample_db.tbl_emp where emp_year = $$parameter
Let me know if you have any further questions
I have this situation. Starting from a table, I have to check all the records that match a key. If records are found, I have to check another table using a key from the first table and so on, more on less on five levels. There is a way to do this in a recursive way, or I have to write all the code "by hand"? The language I am using is Visual Fox Pro. If this is is not possible, is it al least possible to use recursion to popolate a treeview?
You can set a relation between tables. For example:
USE table_1.dbf IN 0 SHARED
USE table_2.dbf IN 0 SHARED
SET ORDER TO TAG key_field OF table_2.cdx IN table_2
SET RELATION TO key_field INTO table_2 ADDITIVE IN table_1
First two commands open table_1 and table_2. Then you have to set the order/index of table_2. If you don't have an index for the key field then this will not work. The final command sets the relation between the two tables on the key field.
From here you can browse both tables and table_2's records will be filtered based on table_1's key field. Hope this helps.
If the tables have similar structure or you only need to look at a few fields, you could write a recursive routine that receives the name of the table, the key to check, and perhaps the fields you need to check as parameters. The tricky part, I guess, is knowing what to pass down to the next call.
I don't think I can offer any more advice without at least seeing some table structures.
Sorry for answering so late, but the problem was of course that the recursion wasn't a viable solution since I had to search inside multiple tables. So I resolved by doing a simple 2-Level search in the tables that I needed.
Thank you very much for the help, and sorry again for answering so late.
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.
Say i have something like this:
somerecord SOMETABLE%ROWTYPE;
Is it possible to access the fields of somerecord with out knowing the fields names?
Something like somerecord[i] such that the order of fields would be the same as the column order in the table?
I have seen a few examples using dynamic sql but i was wondering if there is a cleaner way of doing this.
What i am trying to do is generate/get the DML (insert query) for a specific row in my table but i havent been able to find anything on this.
If there is another way of doing this i'd be happy to use but would also be very curious in knowing how to do the former part of this question - it's more versatile.
Thanks
This doesn't exactly answer the question you asked, but might get you the result you want...
You can query the USER_TAB_COLUMNS view (or the other similar *_TAB_COLUMN views) to get information like the column name (COLUMN_NAME), position (COLUMN_ID), and data type (DATA_TYPE) on the columns in a table (or a view) that you might use to generate DML.
You would still need to use dynamic SQL to execute the generated DML (or at least generate static SQL separately).
However, this approach won't work for identifying the columns in an arbitrary query (unless you create a view of it). If you need that, you might need to resort to DBMS_SQL (or other tools).
Hope this helps.
As far as I know there is no clean way of referencing record fields by their index.
However, if you have a lot of different kinds of updates of the same table each with its own column set to update, you might want to avoid dynamic sql and look in the direction of statically populating your record with values, and then issuing update someTable set row = someTableRecord where someTable.id = someTableRecord.id;.
This approach has it's own drawbacks, like, issuing an update to every, even unchanged column, and thus creating additional redo log data, but I believe it should be considered.
I am writing a simple program to insert rows into a table.But when i started writing the program i got a doubt. In my program i will get duplicate input some times. That time i have to notify the user that this already exists.
Which of the Following Approaches is good to Use to achieve this
Directly Perform Insert statement will get the primary key violation error if it is duplicate notify otherwise it will be inserted. One Query to Perform
First make a search for the primary key values. If found a Value Prompt User. Otherwise perform insert operation.For a non-duplicate row this approach takes 2 queries.
Please let me know trade-offs between these approaches. Which one is best to follow ?
Regards,
Sunny.
I would choose the 2nd approach.
The first one would cause an exception to be thrown which is known to be very expensive...
The 2nd approach would use a SELECT count(*) FROM mytable WHERE key = userinput which will be very fast and the INSERT statement for which you can use the same DB connection object (assuming OO ;) ).
Using prepared statements will pre-optimize the queries and I think that will make the 2nd approach much better and mre flexible than the first one.
EDIT: depending on your DBMS you can also use a if not exists clause
EDIT2: I think Java would throw a SQLExcpetion no matter what went wrong, i.e. using the 1st approach you wouldn't be able to differ between a duplicate entry or an unavailable database without having to parse the error message - which is again a point for using SELECT+INSERT (or if not exists)