I know EAV logic and I know what is eav_entity_attribute for. (about eav_entity_* - the same).
But I'm not clear about table eav_entity. It is always empty.
Could someone give some comments please.
I would be glad to get any assumption.
Google gives nothing on this question, as usual)
Doing a grep of the Community Edition code, the only time eav_entity is mentioned is in the config file (/app/core/code/Mage/Eav/etc/config.xml) and in the database setup files (/app/code/core/Mage/Eav/sql/eav_setup/mysql4-install-0.7.0.php).
To me this says that it was put in just before a release and then never actually used. The devs possibly decided to go with a slightly different way of storing the data...
I expected to see all records of all entities in the table eav_entity. But I see that Magento has created separate tables for each of the 8 entities ( customer, customer_address, category, product, order, invoice, shipment, creditmemo) with the following table names ( customer_entity, customer_address_entity, catalog_category_entity, catalog_product_entity, sales_flat_order, sales_flat_invoice, sales_flat_shipment, sales_flat_creditmemo). So eav_entity table is empty and you get data for entities directly from their respective tables.. Some level of de-EAVing the database design :-)
Related
I've been teaching myself SSDT for use on an upcoming project that I expect to be working on. My understanding of the "publish" operation is that it will take my SQL Server Data Project code, use that to generate something like a reference database, and then use that to compare against my target-deploy database, figure out what changes are required to get the schema into line with the reference db, and then make them.
But for a table rename, this did not happen, and I'm hoping somebody can explain what is wrong with my mental model of the process.
I've got a very simple "library" themed test database with tables like "Libraries", "Books", and "Categories". All very simple 2-3 columns just to experiment with. Then I added a 4th table "Books_MM_Categories" to represent a many-to-many link table between "Books" and "Categories".
I published that, and all was as expected. But, I'd deliberately named the link table 'wrong' to that I could try renaming it. So I renamed the sql file in my DB project, and changed its code to instead create a table named "Books_Categories_Link".
This time when I published, I expected the "Books_MM_Categories" table to be deleted from the DB, and the new one added... or to have some kind of sp_rename procedure show up to rename the table.
Instead, what I got was that both tables are now present. I can understand that my sloppy rename would have lost all the data, simply just causing one new table to be created, and the old one dropped, instead of ACTUALLY renamed... But what I can't figure out is why the original table is not dropped. In my mental model of how this works, a table/column/view/sproc that no longer exists in the reference should be likewise eliminated from the published database. If not, then I should expect to see some error messages telling me it chose not to drop the table because of anticipated dataloss.
I did see a couple of post explaining how to use the "refactor" option in the code view window... That is working as I would expect. So I understand how to do it properly going forward.
Can anybody explain whats wrong with my mental model of how this works? I'm sure its working as it is supposed to, but I'd like to understand where I went wrong. Why does a table not listed in my project not get deleted on publish (I've not tried it but expect the same exact behavior if I export a .dacpac first and then use that to perform the deployment of the new scheme.
Thanks
EDIT 1
Somewhat curiously, when running a "Schema Compare" operation, the extra table is detected and flagged for deletion.
Your mental model seems to be correct. Check 'Advanced' options in 'Publish Database' dialog.
In the 'Drop' tab you can enable 'Drop objects in target but not in source' to produce the intended result.
I have taken over a Joomla project that needs rebuilding.
I need to get out the user data and some other data linked to users, I have found most of it in the jos_user table and also a table named jos_comprofiler.
There is data inside of jos_sobipro_field_data that I also need, but I do not know how this table related to anything else can someone please explain? I am able to write SQL and the JOIN statements to get it out once I understand how it all fits together.
Finally the table jos_comprofiler references an avatar which is an image name like '100_4f97c0b3c2c31.jpg' where can I find these images?
Thanks, Jake
I can tell you where those tables are coming from:
- jos_users is the user table used by Joomla core, together with jos_user_profiles for additional profile information.
- jos_comprofiler is a table created by the Community Builder extension from http://www.joomlapolis.com/.
- jos_sobipro_field_data is a table created by SobiPro from http://sobipro.sigsiu.net/
Maybe that helps you find the next steps. Maybe someone else knows more details.
I'm trying to develop a Magento plugin which involves using coupons. Apparently after looking around I found a source that mentions use of a 'salesrule' table for coupons. However when I looked at my database i couldn't find it. However I did find 3 tables that had mention 'coupon' called 'coupon_aggregated', 'coupon_aggregated_order', and 'coupon_aggregated_updated'.
I just wanted to know what is the difference between the 3 tables so I can start using them? I am on the latest version of Magento.
The table you're looking for is indeed named
salesrule
There's also a table named salesrule_coupon, which contains specific coupon codes linked back to the main salesrule definition.
If your database is missing this table, something bad has happened to your system. Go to
Promotions -> Shopping Cart Price Rules
and create a new coupon code with a distinct title. Then dump your database content and search for the text of your distinct title. That will let you know which table your system is storing salesrules in.
The tables you mentioned above are aggregate data tables used for reporting only.
I have tried really hard to understand the cataloginventory_stock relations - I do know that both the stock_item as well as stock_status tables get updated when a stock item gets modified, but I wasn't able to figure out whether the stock_status_idx table is really required.
From what I can see, the stock_status_idx table contains the same information as the stock_status table. Is it a temporary table only? I did not see any problems with wrong stock status if I manually updated the stock_item and stock_status tables, but did not update the stock_status_idx table.
The thing is.. I thought it's somehow used for caching/the indexer. However, even if I didn't modify the stock_status_idx table, the stock status displayed just fine in the backend and in the frontend.
So, what's the point of the stock_status_idx table?
Thanks so much for your help.
I was wondering the same question and decided to dig as I could not find an answer anywhere.
It seems like the _tmp and _idx are used as temp holders for your indexed data.
For example, you can look at the reindexAll() method in app/code/core/Mage/Catalog/Model/Resource/Category/Indexer/Product.php and you will understand that it is using _idx tables to temporarily store it's data when generating the indexes:
$this->useIdxTable(true);
...
$idxTable = $this->getIdxTable();
....
$query = $select->insertFromSelect($idxTable, ...
At the end of the same method you will notice a nice $this->syncData() method call. You probably guessed it! The function lives in app/code/core/Mage/Index/Model/Resource/Abstract.php and is doing just that, syncs the _idx with main:
$this->_getWriteAdapter()->delete($this->getMainTable());
$this->insertFromTable($this->getIdxTable(), $this->getMainTable(), false);
$this->commit();
Best of luck!
idx table is used only when Magento need select many products based on their stock item, so the index on these tables are faster than use the main inventory tables.
I recommend you to write your data onto this table too. Or better, use Magento API or Magento App over PHP to write into Magento Database, is much more safe.
I looked into this for the same reason (to update stock quantities directly in Mysql) and will use the built in indexer feature of Magento with the "cataloginventory_stock" . I like this feature since it only takes a few seconds to run on my server.
you can reach the magento indexer and get some nice information
/[your store home]/shell then run: /usr/bin/php -f indexer.php info
here is the crontab line for running just the catalog inventory re-index:
30 3 * * * /usr/bin/php -f /home/client/www/shell/indexer.php -- --reindex cataloginventory_stock
We use CRM 4.0 at our institution and have no plans to upgrade presently as we've spend the last year and a half customising and extending the CRM to work with our processes.
A tiny part of model is a simply hierarchy, we have a group of learning rooms that has a one-to-many relationship with another entity that describes the courses available for that learning room.
Another entity has a list of all potential and enrolled students who have expressed an interest in whichever course.
That bit's all straightforward and works pretty well and is modelled into 3 custom entities.
Now, we've got an Admin application that reads the rooms and then wants to show the courses for that room, but only where there are enrolled students.
In SQL this is simplified to:
SELECT DISTINCT r.CourseName, r.OtherInformation
FROM Rooms r
INNER JOIN Students S
ON S.CourseId = r.CourseId
WHERE r.RoomId = #RoomId
And this indeed is very close to the eventual SQL that CRM generates.
We use a Crm QueryEntity, a Filter and a LinkEntity to represent this same structure.
The problem now is that the CRM normalizes the a customize entity into a Base Table which has the standard CRM entity data that all share, and then an ExtensionBase Table which has our customisations. To Give a flattened access to this, it creates a view that merges both tables.
This view is what is used by the Generated SQL.
Now the base tables have indices but the view doesn't.
The problem we have is that all we want to do is return Courses where the inner join is satisfied, it's enough to prove there are entries and CRM makes it SELECT DISTINCT, so we only get one item back for Room.
At first this worked perfectly well, but now we have thousands of queries, it takes well over 30 seconds and of course causes a timeout in anything but SMS.
I'm given to believe that we can create and alter indices on tables in CRM and that's not considered to be an unsupported modification; but what about Views ?
I know that if we alter an entity then its views are recreated, which would of course make us redo our indices when this happens.
Is there any way to hint to CRM4.0 that we want a specific index in place ?
Another source recommends that where you get problems like this, then it's best to bring data closer together, but this isn't something I'd feel comfortable in trying to engineer into our solution.
I had considered putting a new entity in that only has RoomId, CourseId and Enrolment Count in to it, but that smacks of being incredibly hacky too; After all, an index would resolve the need to duplicate this data and have some kind of trigger that updates the data after every student operation.
Lastly, whilst I know we're stuck on CRM4 at the moment, is this the kind of thing that we could expect to have resolved in CRM2011 ? It would certainly add more weight to the upgrading this 5 year old product argument.
Since views are "dynamic" (conceptually, their contents are generated on-the-fly from the base tables every time they are used), they typically can't be indexed. However, SQL Server does support something called an "indexed view". You need to create a unique clustered index on the view, and the query analyzer should be able to use it to speed up your join.
Someone asked a similar question here and I see no conclusive answer. The cited concerns from Microsoft are Referential Integrity (a non-issue here) and Upgrade complications. You mention the unsupported option of adding the view and managing it over upgrades and entity changes. That is an option, as unsupported and hackish as it is, it should work.
FetchXml does have aggregation but the query execution plans still uses the views: here is the SQL generated from a simple select count from incident:
'select
top 5000 COUNT(*) as "rowcount"
, MAX("__AggLimitExceededFlag__") as "__AggregateLimitExceeded__" from (select top 50001 case when ROW_NUMBER() over(order by (SELECT 1)) > 50000 then 1 else 0 end as "__AggLimitExceededFlag__" from Incident as "incident0" ...
I dont see a supported solution for your problem.
If you are building an outside admin app and you are hosting CRM 4 on-premise you could go directly to the database for your query bypassing the CRM API. Not supported but would allow you to solve the problem.
I'm going to add this as a potential answer although I don't believe its a sustainable or indeed valid long-term solution.
After analysing the indexes that CRM had defined automatically, I realised that selecting more information in my query would be enough to fulfil the column requirements of an Index and now the query runs in less then a second.