I was looking to a Code Road Map feature that Toad provides which shows dependencies of Objects.
Can anyone tell me on what basis the Toad Generate the Dependencies? I am assuming that there is a data dictionary view exists dba_dependencies which work at the backend for getting this relation.
So can we write a script to which we pass object name like package name, table_name amongst others that will show the dependency of the object passed by me.
In code Road Map there is an option to generate data for a table ...how does this work?
What is the algorithm behind it? If there is foreign key on the child table and the parent table is empty, how does this work? How it will populate the depending table first and then the child table.
Looking at user_depencies/ dba_dependencies view structure, querying the view with column REFERENCED_NAME equal to the object that you want to query with should provide you with a list of objects where the object you're searching for is referenced.
Second question is too broad & probably only the Toad developers know how they've implemented it. The data dictionaries provide information about the various constraints on a table. My guess would be the algorithm looks at data dictionary & has different code paths for handling constraints / master child relations. Another assumption would use of handled exceptions to ensure the data is generated cleanly.
Related
Context:
I am creating a dashboard in Excel based on the data model I am building in Power Pivot. The source data in the data model is based on various other excel tables I am regularly receiving and copy-pasting into my workbook (their incoming structure is out of my control). My goal is to perform all data processing within Power Pivot/DAX rather than manipulating the data in the worksheets before loading into the model.
Problem:
In my model, I have a table (tabCases) which includes status updates on all cases from a management system. This table has a column named case-ID (not unique). I need to create a lookup-table with unique case-id's where I can create new columns with various KPIs for each case.
How can I do this in Power Pivot?
I found two suggestions in this article but none of them work for me (opt. 1 because it requires a manual creation of the unique ID list and opt. 2 because I don't have a database access).
In my mind there should be something really simple I could do, such as i.e.:
Add new table to data model
Set first column to be equal to DISTINCT(tabCases[caseID])
Is there such a way?
A Linkback Table might help you. Please see the link below:
https://www.sqlbi.com/articles/linkback-tables-in-powerpivot-for-excel-2013/
Thanks
I've just figured out a big mistake I had while creating the dynamodb structure.
I've created 11 tables, whereas one of them is the table mostly refereed to and the others are complementary tables.
For example, I have a table where I hold names (together with other info) called "Names" and another table called "NamesMappings" holding all these names added to the "Names" table so that each time a user wants to add a name to the "Names" table he first tries to put the name in "NamesMappings" and only if it succeed (therefore this name doesn't exist) he can add the name into the "Names" table. This procedure helps if the name is not unique and is not the primary key in the "Names" table and with this technique I don't have to search inside the "Names" table if the name exists, but instead I can try to add it to the "NamesMappings" table and only if it succeed I know this is a unique name.
First of all, I would like to ask you if this is a common approach or there is a better one?
Next, I figured out that with this design I soon reached to 11 tables each has 5 provisioned capacity of read and write which leads to overall 55 provisioned read and write under the free-tier. Then I understood why I get all these payments each month, because as the number of tables is getting bigger, and I leave the provisioned capacity as default (both read/write capacity are 5) I get more and more provisioned capacity.
So, what should be my conclusion from this understanding? Should I try to reduce the number of tables even if it takes more effort to preform scanning and querying inside the table? Or should I split the table same as I do but reduce the capacity of these mappings tables used only for indication if an item exists or not in another table?
If I understand your problem correctly you're missing the whole concept of NoSQL Databases.
Your Names table should have a Hash key (which is similar to a Primary key) that has a uniformly generated identifier (an UUID is a great candidate). This would automatically make this Table queryable by this unique identifier. You said, however, that you don't know the ID but you only know the Name instead. This leads me to think you could create a Global Secondary Index (GSI) on the Name attribute inside the Names table so you can also query by Name. Up to this point, your table structure should look like this:
id | name
Both of them are independently queryable, which gives you a lot of flexibility already.
Now, let's say you want to add the NameMapping attribute (which I don't know how it looks like), you can simply add it under the Names table, getting rid of the NamesMappings table, greatly reducing the number of WCUs and RCUs across your account. Your table structure should now look like this:
id | name | mappings
where mappings is, let's say, a JSON object.
Since you can only query on top level attributes in DynamoDB, you can now perform a query against the name attribute which has a GSI configured. If the query returns nothing, then name is unique. But let's say you still need some data inside the mappings object, then you could query by name and, in your code, you could apply a map/filter/reduce operation on the mappings attribute and decide what to do next.
Remember that duplication is just OK in a NoSQL world. This may look scary if you come from a purely SQL background, but data should be stored in such a way in NoSQL databases that you should be able to fetch all the needed information in one go, therefore avoiding "joins" (joins are still possible in a NoSQL database, but since there are no strong relationships between entities, you need to perform these joins manually on the code level). To give you some real context, imagine you have a Orders table where you keep track of the ordered Products and the Store that the Order belongs to: you'd save both the Products and the Store objects (and not their IDs, as it would happen in the SQL way) inside the Order object, so if you want to query for a given OrderId in the future, you wouldn't need to make extra calls (aka "joins") to the Product/Store tables to fetch the information, since everything would already be stored inside the Order object.
Does anyone have an example on how to create an Hbase table with a nested entity?
Example
UserName (string)
SSN (string)
+ Books (collection)
The books collection would look like this for example
Books
isbn
title
etc...
I cannot find a single example are how to create a table like this. I see many people talk about it, and how it is a best practice in certain scenarios, but I cannot find an example on how to do it anywhere.
Thanks...
Nested entities isn't an official feature of HBase; it's just a way some people talk about one usage pattern. In this pattern, you use the fact that "columns" in HBase are really just a big map (a bunch of key/value pairs) to let you to model a dimension of cardinality inside the row by adding one column per "row" of the nested entity.
Schema-wise, you don't need to do much on the table itself; when you create a table in HBase, you just specify the name & column family (and associated properties), like so (in hbase shell):
hbase:001:0> create 'UserWithBooks', 'cf1'
Then, it's up to you what you put in it, column wise. You could insert values like:
hbase:002:0> put 'UsersWithBooks', 'userid1234', 'cf1:username', 'my username'
hbase:003:0> put 'UsersWithBooks', 'userid1234', 'cf1:ssn', 'my ssn'
hbase:004:0> put 'UsersWithBooks', 'userid1234', 'cf1:book_id_12345', '<isbn>12345</isbn><title>mary had a little lamb</title>'
hbase:005:0> put 'UsersWithBooks', 'userid1234', 'cf1:book_id_67890', '<isbn>67890</isbn><title>the importance of being earnest</title>'
The column names are totally up to you, and there's no limit to how many you can have (within reason: see the HBase Reference Guide for more on this). Of course, doing this, you have to do your own legwork re: putting in and getting out values (and you'd probably do it with the java client in a more sophisticated way than I'm doing with these shell commands, they're just for explanatory purposes). And while you can efficiently scan just a portion of the columns in a table by key (using a column pagination filter), you can't do much with the contents of the cells other than pull them and parse them elsewhere.
Why would you do this? Probably just if you wanted atomicity around all the nested rows for one parent row. It's not very common, your best bet is probably to start by modeling them as separate tables, and only move to this approach if you really understand the tradeoffs.
There are some limitations to this. First, this technique only works to
one level deep: your nested entities can’t themselves have nested entities. You can still
have multiple different nested child entities in a single parent, and the column qualifier is their identifying attributes.
Second, it’s not as efficient to access an individual value stored as a nested column
qualifier inside a row, as compared to accessing a row in another table, as you learned
earlier in the chapter.
Still, there are compelling cases where this kind of schema design is appropriate. If
the only way you get at the child entities is via the parent entity, and you’d like to have transactional protection around all children of a parent, this can be the right way to go.
How to do databse driveen jsp page,
Suppose i have 5 text fields,if user wants to put one of the form field as select box.JSp should identify and return the select box if it define in db as select box.
I dont know how to achieve this,can anyone suggest this.
Regards,
Raju komaturi
There are multiple tasks if you want to do this completely. The world at large has not gone this way and so there are not many tools (if any) for this. But basically here are the main ideas.
1) You want a "data dictionary", a collection of meta-data that tells you what the types and sizes of each column are, and the primary and foreign keys are.
2) For your example of "knowing" that a field should be a drop-down, this almost always means that column value is a foreign key to another table. Your code detects this and builds a listbox out of the values in the parent table.
3) You can go so far as to create a complete form generator for simple tables, where all of the HTML is generated, but you always need a way to override this for the more complex forms. If you do this, your data dictionary should also have column descriptions or captions.
There are many many more ideas, but this is the starting point for what you describe.
I am in the process building myself a simple Linq to SQL repository pattern.
What I wanted to know is, is it possible to set a default sort column so I don't have to call orderby.
From what I have read I don't think it is and if this is the case what would recommend for a solution to this problem.
Would the best idea be to use an attribute on a partial class on my model?
the default order is the clustered index on the table you are pulling from.
What are you wanting to sort on (without sorting on) ?
If you needed something other than having it sorted by the primary key, you could look at supplying a select statement for the table instead of using the runtime generated statement. Look at the properties on the table in the designer -- you should be able to override the runtime generated select, delete, and update statements. I don't personally recommend this, though, since I'm not sure how it will interact with other orderings. I think the intent is more along the lines of allowing you to use stored procedures if you want.
Another alternative would be to create a table-valued function or stored procedure that does the ordering the way you want and has the same schema as the table. If, in the designer, you drag this onto the table, you get a strongly typed method on the data context that you can use to obtain those entities according to the definition of the function/procedure instead of the standard select. Personally I think this introduces fewer maintenance headaches because it makes it more visible, but you do have to remember to use the method instead of the Table property for that entity.