I have a block based on a table. If I enter "12345" in enter query mode, it creates a query with
WHERE my_field = '12345'
If I enter "12345A", it goes
WHERE (upper(my_field) = '12345A' AND my_field like '12%')
which is bad, because my_field is indexed normally (not on upper(my_field)). I have tried toggling "Case restriction" attribute between mixed and upper, and "Case insensitive query" between yes and no, nothing seems to help. I also have a block level PRE-QUERY trigger (trigger starts with a RETURN; statement) set on override, so nothing should mess with the formation of the query, yet it still messes up.
Any ideas on what else I could try?
EDIT:
There was an obscure function call within WHEN_NEW_FORM_INSTANCE trigger to some attached library that reset all trigger block's items to CASE_SENSITIVE_QUERY = TRUE. Never would have guessed.
Not sure how the query is getting changed to that form;
WHERE (upper(my_field) = '12345A' AND my_field like '12%'
First check that there are no enter query or prequery triggers in the form. Somebody might have attached a trigger at a higher level. Oracle is not that smart to rewrite the query.Check that you are tying to a table not a view or stored procedure,...
If all else fails, enable the query triggers in the data black and rewrite the where clause yourself. It is pretty straightforward.
Give version of oracle forms before you post.
The
my_field like '12%'
Uses the index. The subset is then filtered with
upper(my_field) = '12345A'
So it might not be as bad as you think....
The most naive question, Can you update the column so it's all uppercase? I mean would it cause some inconvenience to your app?
If you can, it could be handled with a database trigger to ensure it's allways uppercase.
If you can't, then I suggest you create another field that you keep updated to uppercase with a database trigger.
You can also create a function index so it's upper(my_field).
Related
I want to read from a table, change a couple column values for a few lines in a query, then update those lines on the same table.
I'm using SAP BODS, and that's what I tried:
I was about to insert images but just found out I can't insert images until 10 rep.
Anyway, I created a DataFlow where I have the same table as source and target.
A query to filter (using where) and change values (using mapping). And then a Table Comparison (where I expected those lines to be set to update, in this particular case), set table name on first entry, then PK in 'input primary key' and then the two columns I want to change in 'Compare columns'. No other changes from default that I can recall.
Got no warnings on 'validate all', and on execution I receive an ORA-00001 for the PK.
So ... I thought the Table Comparison would try to update, but seems like it's trying to insert instead. I want to know what I'm doing wrong and how could I get the job to do those updates. Thanks in advance.
Ps. I did search SO before asking and didn't find anything relevant.
Ok
So, turns out I just found what's going on a few minutes after posting the question.
Wasn't sure if I should answer my own question and took a look at this Etiquette for answering your own question
and decided to come back here and answer my own question.
For some reason I got stuck thinking that it was something to do with the Table Comparison trying to insert a line with a PK that's already there, instead of doing the update I wanted.
But after going back to the job to take another look at the issue, it occurred to me that maybe the problem could be a duplicate in the incoming data set. Made a few adjustment to filter those, and voilà.
new to this world so looking for help with what I think wold be a simple thing to fix, however me and the guy who is training me on all that is SQL and SSRS cannot figure this out
I have a report within SSRS and SQL which is working perfectly bar one thing
I have a drop down list parameter which has all our customers names, and the report shows volumes of what that customer has obtained so far etc, and for an individual customer, this works perfectly. However, when trying to see the total volumes by choosing 'Any' from the drop down list, it returns no data, rather than returning everything
Can anyone please advise what I could be missing here, or what I need to show you to help resolve this issue
Cheers
Liam
Assuming you Stored Proc parameter is varchar and represents either customer names or an 'Any' value then the following should work.
SELECT myField1, myField2 -- etc
FROM myTable t
WHERE (t.ClientName = #myParameterName OR #myParameterName = 'Any')
Optionally Please Note: Personally I don't use SPs and usually just put the code to grab the data in the dataset. Some companies don't like you doing this but if you are able to do this I think this makes life easier.
If you can put the stored proc code directly in your dataset query then you can make the report more flexible. You can change your parameter to be MultiValue, you don't need and 'Any' value added to your parameter list either and then you can simply do something like
SELECT myField1, myField2 -- etc
FROM myTable t
WHERE t.ClientName IN(#myParameterName)
SSRS will take all the selected parameter values and inject them into the dataset query correctly, so there is nothing else you need to do. SSRS will also add a 'Select All' option to your parameter in case you want to gran data for everything. The report will work for 1, 2, 10 or all client names.
Before I ask my question, I have to say that the database that I'm working on doesn't have foreign keys, so I can't make master-detail blocks, and because of that I'm using workaround with go_block, clear_block, execute_query and triggers.
I have a form with two blocks. If we presume that the both blocks are filled with info, and that I want to execute query on first one, is there a way to clear the other block before entering query mode?
e.g.
Block1: ID, NAME, SURNAME
Block2: INFO1, INFO2, ..., Id_block1 etc.
So, if there is info on both blocks, and I enter the query mode on Block1, whole block clears so I can enter search criteria, but the second block still has the data from the last executed query. Is there a way to clear the data on the second block as well? Once again, I want to clear the data from Block2 when I'm IN ENTER-QUERY MODE on Block1.
Workflow: Enter-query mode Block1, execute-query Block1, NEW-RECORD-INSTANCE trigger activates (where workflow continues), go_block('Block2'), execute_query on Block2 (with where clause Id_block1 = block1.id).
I'm using Oracle Forms 10g. I appreciate any help you can provide.
It is possible to create the MASTER-DETAIL relationship while creating one of the blocks in your form
or
you can just write the following on the KEY-ENTQRY trigger :
go_block('block2');
clear_block;
go_block('block1');
enter_query;
After this, the block1 will be in the enter-query mode and you can search the data and just execute the block.
I have to create a birt report with user input parameters. It is something like when the para
meter is left blank it should fetch all values from a table otherwise when the user inputs the students roll no.,the corresponding data should be fetched. Can this be done through Birt report? If yes, then please suggest a way.
Thanks!
Yes, you can do that. If the parameter is optional you can't use the Dataset Parameter (with a ? in your query), because it will be null. Instead you have to modify your query using JavaScript.
Create a Report Parameter like usual, in this case 'stud_no'. Then add a comment in your SQL that you are reasonably sure is unique, I use something like --$stud_no$, wherever you want your clause inserted.
Then add a script like this to your Data Set, in beforeOpen:
if (params["stud_no"].value){
this.queryText = this.queryText.replace("--$stud_no$", "and stud_no = " + params["stud_no"]);
}
This replaces the comment with the clause when the parameter has a value. You can use regex in the search string, and then you can also insert it multiple places if you want.
Create your paremater using a like statement
where students_roll_no like ?
Create your report paramater using as a text box, with a defualt value of %
Because the percent '%' is the SQL wildcard, it returns all values. If the user enters a Student Roll number, it returns only that record. Additionally the user can enter 0500% and get all the records that begin 0500.
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.