I've just discovered Access, having always been an Excel/VBA man... and now I've hit a roadblock!
I'm building an inventory database for my employer. I have 2 tables, one containing one column of 'stockID's (lets call this table 'tblWarehouse'), and another containing two columns: a column of 'orderID's and a column of 'stockID's (lets call this table 'tblOrders'). (For the sake of this question, lets disregard things like quantity, price etc)
We don't keep all the goods we sell in our own warehouse, some are sourced directly from the manufacturer to the customer, which means that not all tblOrders!stockID will be present in the list tblWarehouse!stockID. I need to find out when this is the case!
I want to create a third column in tblOrders containing a dummy variable = 1 if that particular item is in our warehouse. In other words, I want to create a calculated column = 1 if tblOrders!stockID can be found in tblWarehouse!stockID. Can this be done?
I've found that I can't reference another table directly, so I've been trying my hand at queries, user defined functions and relationships, but to no avail. I've also been having trouble with the Access-lingo and veritable forest of different places to input seemingly the same expressions... so please, if u have an answer for me, be sure to specify where things are located!
Much obliged!!
If you are linking the two tables in a query using an inner join, only order records having at least one stock entry will be included in the result. In order to include those with no stock entry at all, create a left outer join.
SELECT O.OrderID, IIf(IsNull(MAX(W.StockID)), 0, 1) AS StockAvailable
FROM
tblOrder O
LEFT JOIN tblWarehouse W
ON O.StockID = W.StockID
GROUP BY O.OrderID
You can also determin the join type in the query designer by right clicking a relation line and selecting "Join Properties" and then select "Include ALL records from tblOrders ...". You can make a grouping query by clicking the big Sigma-symbol in the symbol list.
Related
I have a Dashboard with different visuals.
Data is made up of different values for insurance companies.
I want my slicers/filters to not filter all data, but to only highlight the chosen company.
For example, in my slicer I choose the insurance ABN.
Instead of showing me the value for ABN only in my visuals, I want all other values to still be visible and ABN's value to be highlighted in the visuals.
Does anyone know how to do this?
You can use conditional formatting to achieve this. Lets say that we will change the background color to "highlight" a row (or cells, to be precise).
First, we need a slicer, which will not filter our data. We can do this by duplicating our source table, removing the unnecessary columns and making sure there is no relationship between the source and the duplicate. So if we have a source table, named Table, like this:
Right click on it and select Duplicate:
Then right click the title of the column you want to keep and select Remove Other Columns to get a list of company names only (you may also remove the duplicates, but it's not required). Then in the model delete the relation between both tables:
Now you can place a table showing company name and sales from your data source, and a slicer for company name from the duplicate table. At this point selecting values in the slicer should not affect the table.
Now you need to capture the value of the slicer and use it in a measure, which will determine should current row be highlighted or not. You can use SELECTEDVALUE for that, but note that it will give you a value only if there is a one selected in the slicer. If you want to support highlighting of more than one company, it gets a bit more complicated.
Make a new measure in your source table, like this:
Measure = IF(HASONEVALUE('Table (2)'[Company name]);
IF(SELECTEDVALUE('Table (2)'[Company name]) = MAX('Table'[Company name]); 1; 0);
IF(ISFILTERED('Table (2)'[Company name]) && COUNTROWS(FILTER('Table (2)'; 'Table (2)'[Company name] = MAX('Table'[Company name]))); 1; 0))
In case there is only one value selected in the slicer (see HASONEVALUE), then our measure will return 1 (highlight) or 0 (don't), comparing it with the current row.
Otherwise (i.e. there is no selection in the slicer, or there are 2 or more companies selected), then we will look at the filtered list of companies (Table (2)) - if it contains current row, then 1 (highlight), otherwise 0 (don't). But we will also handle the case, where there is no value selected in the slicer. In this case the list will contain all the companies, i.e. all rows will be highlighted. Here comes ISFILTERED. And at the end, if the list is filtered and current row exists in the filtered list, then 1 (highlight), otherwise 0 (don't).
Now, you need to use this measure to change the background of the column - right click each column in your table and select Conditional formatting -> Background color:
Then format by rules, where Measure >= 1 like this:
Now, when there is no selection in the slicer, there are no rows highlighted in the table:
If you select one company, it is highlighted:
It also work if there are multiple companies selected:
Thank you Andrey for your step-by-step explanation which as been incredible helpful. I'd like to follow up with a further question, particularly regarding the comment below.
"You can use SELECTEDVALUE for that, but note that it will give you a
value only if there is a one selected in the slicer. If you want to
support highlighting of more than one company, it gets a bit more
complicated."
In my model, I've linked a third table (Table (3)) to Table (2) with a many to one relationship with Table (2). Therefore when I click on Table (3), it will filter Table (2), which acts as a slicer for Table (1).
When only 1 value is filtered in Table (2), it conditionally formats the cells in Table (1). However, when more than 1 value is filtered in Table (2), conditional formatting fails.
As I'm looking to avoid manually selecting multiple values in the slicer (Table (2)), I was wondering if there's a workaround for SELECTEDVALUE such that it is able to conditionally format when I filter more than 1 value in Table (2).
I need to get sales figures from open orders, sorted by code. The items are separated in the stock table by lot number (for traceability reasons) but the lot numbers do not appear in the orders table. The only link between the 2 tables is the part number.
When my query
SELECT code, SUM(qty*price) AS Sales
FROM orders INNER JOIN stock ON orders.partno = stock.partno
GROUP BY code
started returning strange results (very high sales figures for a given code), I changed it to
SELECT DISITNCT orders.partno, stock.lot, stock.code
FROM orders INNER JOIN stock ON orders.partno = stock.partno
and noticed that if several lots of a given part are in stock they are all returned
Part1 LotA code
Part1 LotB code
Part1 LotC code
which means that if a customer orders 300 units of Part1, my query returns 900 and my sales figure is multiplied by 3.
How can I work around that?
It must be noted that I do not work from a database but from a group of tables, the structures of which can sometimes be whimsical.
You should really use table.column or alias.column reference when writing queries. As your question stands, we do not know which table the PRICE comes from... the parts table or the lots table. If you are dealing with inventory tracking such as FIFO or LIFO method accounting, you must have an association to the lot table for inventory being tracked/sold.
Now, why are you getting large numbers? That is because of a Cartesian result. If you are not familiar with that, for each record in one table joined to another, it is returning however many matches.
So, if you have an order of one line item, there is only one line item in a products available table. So this is simple 1:1 ratio. Now, you have your STOCK table that can have multiple records for the exact same part number. You are now returning the same original order line item for EACH LOT ENTRY in the Stock table. So now, for your 1 item, you are getting 3 lots (1:3 result).
I know this is important from a cost-of-goods sold basis, hence your need to know which "lot" it is joined to so you only get that one specific record for proper pricing.
If however, you do have a generic product table of everything you sell, and that table has a generic common price no matter which "lot" was used for the sale, I would join to that table instead for your report. But you will still have the accounting issue of inventory, cost-of-goods, etc.
I am starting to use all de PowerBI tools for a customer.
On the data they have three shops (1,2 and 4, named in the table "botiga") and diferent departments (named in the table "departament").
I need to calculate the sales (named "vendes" or Ventas[import]) of all the departments and all the shops but I have to exclude in the calculation the ones that correspond to the shop 1 and 2 and also correspond to the department 61.
All the realated columns are in the same table named "Ventas"
I did it and it Works with this measure:
vendes sense carnisseria:=[Vendes]-SUMX(FILTER(Ventas;Ventas[Botiga]<>"4" && Ventas[Departament]="61");Ventas[Import])
Vendes:=sum(Ventas[Import])
But I am sure that theri is a better way to do it, I have tried to do like in excel when we do SUMIF but doesn't seems to work.
I use FILTER beacouse I want that the data filters used in the associated pivot table remain.
Calculate is like a supercharged Sumif.
Try something like
Carnisseria:=
[vendes] - Calculate([vendes];Ventas[Botiga]<> "4"; Ventas[Departament]="61")
I would also check that you want any shop that isn't #4 or if you want just shops #1 and #2. While that yields the same results right now, it may not in the future.
I'm stuck and confused and hopefully can get some help here. I have a query that pulls info from two tables and a report that reads it. My two tables are as such: One of the is a Contact list with phone numbers, names, and addresses. The other table is a paid history. The PhoneNumber field is how they're tied together. There are no duplicate entries in the Contact table but there are multiple paid instances per phone number in the other table.
My report groups them on the phone number, but I also need it to sort by date. My date field is marked as time/date, and it is in the paid table. The issue I'm running into is that I can either Group on PhoneNumber OR sort on the Date field but not both. When I set the Group as the top level, it ignores the Sort that I have set below it. If I take the sort and drag it up so that it becomes the top level, it won't group. When it doesn't group I'm left with multiple instances of the same Contact info... as in I get a new listing for every date that it has ever paid, whereas I need one a single Contact listing with each paid instance to be grouped underneath it.
Here's my query SQL:
SELECT
tblContributorsLead.FirstName,
tblContributorsLead.LastName,
tblContributorsLead.Address1,
tblContributorsLead.ZipCode,
tblContributorsLead.CityName,
tblPledgesLead.PledgeAmountRecd,
tblPledgesLead.DateRecd,
tblPledgesLead.PhoneNumber,
tblPledgesLead.DispositionTime,
tblPledgesLead.Agent,
tblPledgesLead.CampaignName,
tblPledgesLead.Custom20
FROM
tblContributorsLead
INNER JOIN
tblPledgesLead
ON tblContributorsLead.PhoneNumber = tblPledgesLead.PhoneNumber
WHERE
(((tblPledgesLead.PledgeAmountRecd)>0)
AND ((tblPledgesLead.DateRecd) Is Not Null));
Why would I only be able to either group OR sort but not both at the same time?
Edit: http://icloudbackups.com/stripped.zip is a copy of my database stripped down.
I think I understand now what you wanted - to have the phone number groups with the most recent dates show up at the top. To do this you need to identify the Last (or First if you need it the other way around) DateRecd for each PhoneNumber.
SELECT SortingAndGrouping.LastDate, SortingAndGrouping.PhoneNumber, tblPledgesLead.DateRecd
FROM (tblContributorsLead INNER JOIN tblPledgesLead ON
tblContributorsLead.PhoneNumber = tblPledgesLead.PhoneNumber) INNER JOIN
(SELECT CDate(Format(tblPledgesLead.DateRecd,"MM/DD/YYYY")) As LastDate, tblPledgesLead.PhoneNumber
FROM tblContributorsLead INNER JOIN tblPledgesLead ON
tblContributorsLead.PhoneNumber = tblPledgesLead.PhoneNumber
ORDER BY tblPledgesLead.DateRecd DESC) AS SortingAndGrouping ON
tblContributorsLead.PhoneNumber = SortingAndGrouping.PhoneNumber
ORDER BY SortingAndGrouping.LastDate DESC , SortingAndGrouping.PhoneNumber, tblPledgesLead.DateRecd DESC;
You will need to add the additional fields you want to display (I removed them here for clarity), and have the report enforce the same sorting I have here - Create a group for the LastDate column, then a group for the PhoneNumber column, then have the sorting specified.
I'm working on a VB6 program that connects to a SQL Server 2008 R2 database. In the past I have always used the MSFlexGrid control and populated it manually. Now, however, the guy who is paying me for this wants me to use data-bound grids instead, which forces me to use the MSHFlexGrid control because I'm using ADO and not DAO. So, I have two questions...
First, how would I move a column in a MSHFlexGrid? For example, if I wanted the third column to appear as the sixth column in the grid, is there a simple single line of code that would do that?
Second, believe it or not, I've never had to do anything in a grid other than display the data, as is, from a recordset. Now, however, I have a recordset with some fields that contain just ID numbers that refer to records in other files - for example, a field containing an ID number referring to a record in the Customers table, instead of the field containing the customer's name. What is the easiest way to, instead of having a column showing customer ID numbers from the recordset, having that column show customer names? I thought I read somewhere that there's a way to embed a sql command in a MSHFlexGrid column, but if there is I wouldn't know how to do it. Is this possible, or is there a simpler way to do it?
TIA,
Kevin
The column order would typically be handled by your SELECT statement.
Say you have a Pies table that has a FruitID foreign key related to the FruitID in a Fruits table:
SELECT PieID AS ID, Pie, Fruit FROM Pies LEFT OUTER JOIN Fruits
ON Pies.FruitID = Fruits.FruitID
This returns 3 items: ID, Pie, and Fruit in that order.
Moving columns after the query/display operation is rarely used, but yes ColPosition can be used for that.
Wow! VB6.... Back to the future! :-)
You can move Columns using the ColPosition Property.
This article shows how you could setup the grid to display hierarchical data.
If you just want to display the customer name on the same line as the main data then that is doable as well by just creating the proper SQL for your data source. For that matter you can control the column order the same way as well.
Now, how about considering upgrading to .Net? Just kidding..... No, I'm not. OK. I am, maybe. :-)