AX allows you to enter basic SQL into View ranges. For example, in an AOT view's range, for the match value, you could enter (StatRepInterval.Name == 'Weekly'). This works nicely.
However, I need to do a more advanced lookup on a View, using a subquery. Can anyone suggest a way to do this?
This is what I would like to use, but I receive an error: "Query extended range failure: Syntax error near 34."
(StatRepInterval.Name == (SELECT FIRSTONLY StatRepInterval.Name FROM StatRepInterval WHERE StatRepInterval.PrintDirection == 1 ORDER BY StatRepInterval.Name DESC))
I've tried a lot of different variants of the subquery, from straight T-SQL to X++ SQL, but nothing seems to work.
Thanks for the help.
Sub-queries are not supported in query expressions.
This may be solved by using additional datasources with inner or outer joins as you observed.
See the spec and Axaptapedida on query expressions.
I found a way to do this. It isn't pretty, and I'm going to leave the question unanswered for a bit, should someone else have a more graceful solution.
Create a source View that contains all fields I wish to return, plus calculated fields that contain my subquery results.
Create a second View that uses the first as a data source, and applies all the necessary ranges.
Works pretty nicely.
Probably inefficient if there were large tables of data, but this is in a relatively small section of AX.
Related
Before asking the question, I don't speak English very well. We apologize for asking again because it is difficult to understand other similar questions.
Question : I want to use linq query with multiple conditions in UiPATH.
Condition 1 : If there is "A" in row, change it to "Alpha".
Condition 2 : If there is "B" in row, change it to "Beta".
...
Condition n(it may be more than 10) : If there is "O" in row, change it to "Omega".
I used the "find and replace" activity, but the higher the number, the slower the processing. As a solution to this, I learned about linq query, but it is difficult to apply and use the basic example.
please help.. thanks..
Linq is suitable for querying or selecting certain rows based on conditions. It is not suitable for updating the data table as such.
You could use to select all rows with A using below statement and use it in a for loop to update the value from A to Alpha
So there is a couple ways you could do this.
Option 1 -
If it's a DataTable that your using then utilise the 'For Each Row' activity.
Then within the for each.
Use the Assign activity
So this would change the value of that row. So you could add your if statement there.
Option 2 -
Use the Invoke Code Activity - set language to C# (or VB - whichever you prefer)
In the Arguments, put your DataTable you are using.
Then go to Edit Code and Input your Linq Statement there.
I have a Pesky SSRS report Problem where in the main query of my report has a condition that can have more than 1000 choices and when user selects all it will fail as my backend database is Oracle. I have done some research and found a solution that would work.
Solution is
re-writing the in clause something like this
(1,ColumnName) in ((1,Searchitem1),(1,SearchItem2))
this will work however when I do this
(1,ColumnName) in ((1,:assignedValue))
and pass just one value it works. But when I pass more than one value it fails and gives me ORA-01722: Invalid number error
I have tried multiple combination of the same in clause but nothing is working
any help is appreciated...
Wild guess: your :assignedValue is a comma-separated list of numbers, and Oracle tries to parse it as a single number.
Passing multiple values as a single value for an IN query is (almost) never a good idea - either you have to use string concatenation (prone to SQL injection and terrible performance), or you have to have a fixed number of arguments to IN (which generally is not what you want).
I'd suggest you
INSERT your search items into a temporary table
use a JOIN with this search table in your SELECT
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.
We have a database with some fields that are varchar(max) which could contain lots of text however I have a situation where I only want to select the first for example 300 characters from the field for a paginated table of results on a MVC web site for a "preview" of the field.
for a simplified example query where I want to get all locations to display in the table
(this would be paginated, so I don't just get everything - I get maybe 10 results at a time):
return db.locations;
However this gives me a location object with all the fields containing the massive amounts of text which is very time consuming to execute.
So what I resorted to before was using SQL stored procedures with the:
LEFT(field, 300)
to resolve this issue and then in the Linq to SQL .dbml file included the stored procedure to return a "location" object for the result.
However I have many queries and I don't want to have to do this for every query.
This maybe a simple solution, but I am not sure how I can phrase this on a search engine, I would appreciate anyone who can help me with this problem.
You can use functions that directly translate to those functions too, this is useful when you need to translate code that functionally works just fine in SQL at no risk in LINQ.
Have a look at System.Data.Objects.EntityFunctions
Locations.Select(loc=>System.Data.Objects.EntityFunctions.Left(loc.Field,300))
This will get directly translated into a LEFT on the server side.
EDIT: I misread LEFT for LTRIM. Here's all the String functions that can't be used in LINQ to SQL. Have you tried String.Substring()?
Your best option is to map the stored procedure and continue using it. Here is an excellent article with screen shots showing you how to do so.
If you're not using the designer tool you can also call ExecuteCommand against the DataContext. It isn't pretty, but it's what we have for now.
I found something like this worked for me:
return from locationPart in db.locations
select new LocationPart
{
Description = locationPart.description,
Text = locationPart.text.Substring(0,300)
};
Not ideal because I have to use "select new" to return a a different object, but it seems to work.
I'm tasked with adding an option to our search, which will return results where a given field doesn't begin with a letter of the alphabet. (The .StartsWith(letter) part wasn't so hard).
But I'm rather unsure about how to get the results that don't fall within the A-Z set, and equally hoping it generates some moderately efficient SQL underneath.
Any help appreciated - thanks.
In C# use the following construct, assuming db as a data context:
var query = from row in db.SomeTable
where !System.Data.Linq.SqlClient.SqlMethods.Like(row.SomeField, "[A-Z]%")
select row;
This is only supported in LINQ to SQL queries. All rules of the T-SQL LIKE operator apply.
You could also use less effective solution:
var query = from row in db.SomeTable
where row.SomeField[0] < 'A' || row.SomeField[0] > 'Z'
select row;
This gets translated into SUBSTRING, CAST, and UNICODE constructs.
Finally, you could use VB, where there appears to be a native support for the Like method.
Though SQL provides the ability to check a range of characters in a LIKE statement using bracket notation ([a-f]% for example), I haven't seen a linq to sql construct that supports this directly.
A couple thoughts:
First, if the result set is relatively small, you could do a .ToList() and filter in memory after the fact.
Alternatively, if you have the ability to change the data model, you could set up additional fields or tables to help index the data and improve the search.
--EDIT--
Made changes per Ruslan's comment below.
Well, I have no idea if this will work because I have never tried it and don't have a compiler nearby to try it, but the first thing I would try is
var query = from x in db.SomeTable
where x.SomeField != null &&
x.SomeField.Length >= 1 &&
x.SomeField.Substring(0, 1).All(c => !Char.IsLetter(c))
select x;
The possiblility exists that LINQ to SQL fails to convert this to SQL.