Disclaimer: I'm not a programmer, so this question is non-technical and probably very basic. I am just hoping to be pointed in the right direction...
I want to automate the routine process of compiling custom lists of medical questions by matching a question's attribute tags to the attributes of the patient and ailment. I've built an Access DB which generates lists when queried based on these tags. But I also need to set rules to determine the order the questions are returned in. Otherwise the questions are "out of order" and don't make sense.
Is there a better (and ideally browser based) software or service I could use to achieve such search/reporting functionality? Or does I need to find someone who can add this functionality to my access DB?
Thanks in advance!
It kind of depends on how you generate "lists when queried based on these tags".
If you're using sql to select from the database, then it may just be a matter of adding an "order by" to the end of your query:
eg:
Select question_no, question from some_table where patient = 'Freddy'
and tag = 'sick' order by question_no
Generally speaking, however you are retrieving these questions; the easiest way of ordering them is by one or more columns in the table you're storing the questions (or a related table)
Related
We are a housing association with a large CRM system (2016 & SP1). We have a new requirement that requires our users to be able to search for people who are current (ie not previous) occupants or residents or who are not residents (eg contractors)
For this purpose, we need to search the Person entity which has a related Tenancy entity. Person has TenancyType field with possible (option set) values Occupant, Resident, Contractor. Tenancy has TenancyStatus field with possible (text) values Current and Previous.
We tried using the following filter criteria in the quick view on the Person entity:
thinking that it would return all people who are not previous residents. However we noticed that it would filter out contractors because contractors do not have related tenancy records.
We needed to change the criteria to return all contractors OR all residents and occupants with no previous tenancy. So we changed it to the following:
at which point we got stuck because we noticed that it was not possible to AND together the second and the third conditions as the third one is a related entity.
We are wondering what the best way is to achieve the above bearing in mind that we do not want a separate view for each condition, eg one for residents, one for none residents, etc.
Any help or suggestion is greatly appreciated.
It is not possible to do this with a single query.
Instead, you can use two queries. If you do not want to do that, then using reports (as suggested by Alex) or a BI-solution would be other possibilities.
Thanks to everyone here who spent time answering my question. The following describes the correct answer:
https://community.dynamics.com/crm/f/117/p/241352/666651#666651
I'm working on a portal based on Orchard CMS. We're using Orchard to manage the "normal" content of the site, as well as to model what's essentially data for a small application embedded in it.
We figured that doing it that way is "recommended" for working in Orchard, and that it would save us duplicating a bunch of effort in features that Orchard already provides, mainly generating a good enough admin UI. This is also why we're using fields wherever possible.
However, for said application, the client wants to be able to display the data in the regular UI in a garden-variety datagrid that can be filtered, sorted, and paged.
I first tried to implement this by cobbling together a page with a bunch of form elements for the filtering, above a projection with filters bound to query string parameters. However, I ran into the following issues with this approach:
Filters for numeric fields crash when the value is missing - as would be pretty common to indicate that the given field shouldn't be considered when filtering. (This I could achieve by changing the implementation in the Orchard source, which would however make upgrading trickier later. I'd prefer to keep anything I haven't written untouched.)
It seems the sort order can only be defined in the administration UI, it doesn't seem to support tokens to allow for the field to sort by to be changed when querying.
So I decided to dump that approach and switched to trying to do this with just MVC controllers that access data using IContentQuery. However, there I found out that:
I have no clue how, if at all, it's possible to sort the query based on field values.
Or, for that matter, how / if I can filter.
I did take a look at the code of Orchard.Projections, however, how it handles sorting is pretty inscrutable to me, and there doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to change the sort order for just one query either.
So, is there any way to achieve what I need here with the rest of the setup (which isn't little) unchanged, or am I in a trap here, and I'll have to move every single property I wish to use for sorting / filtering into a content part and code the admin UI myself? (Or do something ludicrous, like create one query for every sortable property and direction.)
EDIT: Another thought I had was having my custom content part duplicate the fields that are displayed in the datagrids into Hibernate-backed properties accessible to query code, and whenever the content item is updated, copy values from these fields into the properties before saving. However, again, I'm not sure if this is feasible, and how I would be able to modify a content item just before it's saved on update.
Right so I have actually done a similar thing here to you. I ended up going down both approaches, creating some custom filters for projections so I could manage filters on the frontend. It turned out pretty cool but in the end projections lacked the raw querying power I needed (I needed to filter and sort based on joins to aggregated tables which I think I decided I didn't know how I could do that in projections, or if its nature of query building would allow it). I then decided to move all my data into a record so I could query and filter it. This felt like the right way to go about it, since if I was building a UI to filter records it made sense those records should be defined in code. However, I was sorting on users where each site had different registration data associated to users and (I think the following is a terrible affliction many Orchard devs suffer from) I wanted to build a reusable, modular system so I wouldn't have to change anything, ever!
Didn't really work out quite like I hoped, but to eventually answer the question in your title: yes, you can query fields. Orchard projections builds an index that it uses for querying fields. You can access these in HQL, get the ids of the content items, then call getmany to get them all. I did this several years ago, and I cant remember much but I do remember having a distinctly unenjoyable time with it haha. So after you have an nhibernate session you can write your hql
select distinct civr.Id
from Orchard.ContentManagement.Records.ContentItemVersionRecord civr
join civ.ContentItemRecord cir
join ci.FieldIndexPartRecord fipr
join fipr.StringFieldIndexRecord sfir
This just shows you how to join to the field indexes. There are a few, for each different data type. This is the string one I'm joining here. They are all basically the same, with a PropertyName and value field. Hql allows you to add conditions to your join so we can use that to join with the relevant field index records. If you have a part called Group attached directly to your content type then it would be like this:
join fipr.StringFieldIndexRecord sfir
with sfir.PropertyName = 'MyContentType.Group.'
where sfir.Value = 'HR'
If your field is attached to a part, replace MyContentType with the name of your part. Hql is pretty awesome, can learn more here: https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/3.3/reference/en/html/queryhql.html But I dunno, it gave me a headache haha. At least HQL has documentation though, unlike Orchard's query layer. Also can always fall back to pure SQL when HQL wont do what you want, there is an option to write SQL queries from the NHibernate session.
Your other option is to index your content types with lucene (easy if you are using fields) then filter and search by that. I quite liked using that, although sometimes indexes are corrupted, or need to be rebuilt etc. So I've found it dangerous to rely on it for something that populates pages regularly.
And pretty much whatever you do, one query to filter and sort, then another query to getmany on the contentmanager to get the content items is what you should accept is the way to go. Good luck!
You can use indexing and the Orchard Search API for this. Sebastien demoed something similar to what you're trying to achieve at Orchard Harvest recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v5qSR4g7E0
Hopefully an easy one. Which Servicenow table enumerates business rules ?
I seem to have found the scripts (sys_script_include) but I cant find the rules that call them.
-Rich
Business Rules are stored on the sys_script table.
sys_script_include is for Script Includes.
This is how I prefer looking at a table in the list view:
On a browser window https://<address of yourSN instance>/table_name_list.do
Paginates quicker and handy when the table's really big.
sys_script is the table where business rules are stored.
Pro tip: sys_script.list will open the list.
sys_script.LIST will open it in a new tab/window.
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.
Scenario:
There is this online questionaire that will be filled in by various departments in a company. The questions are data driven and are different for each department.
But for some of the questions, the way the input is taken is also different; for some departments the same question is asked to be replied to, by selecting values from a drop down, for the others its free text entry; again, for some departments you change the caption against the area for entry. This caption is not part of the question. its also not coming from the database as of now and Id rather not put it all in the database and increase the joins for each select. Out of the twenty odd questions which have such captions, there are just 3 such captions which change.
for eg.
Department A.)
Q.) How would you like to get here?
{caption:"Enter your prefered transport method"} [Free Text Box]
Department B.)
Q.) How would you like to get here?
{caption:"Select option"} [Drop Down]
What would be the best way to design and code such web based questionairre of the ways below?
Implement it using if-else conditions for each department and show and hide input controls as per department
Abstract all common inputs into a parent class and have multiple child classes for each department which contain their own specific behavior for data input
Any other better way?
Thanks for your time. :)
I would recommend using if/else statements to show and hide the various questions.
The reason why I say if/else instead of sub-classing is that you'll come across a case where a question which used to be "common" to all Departments becomes specific to a few, and you'll have to refactor that question to the sub-classes and delete it where it's not applicable. The if/else code may get tedious, but not more tedious than the refactor I mention above.
In addition, I would also urge you to strongly consider normalizing the questions of your survey. In other words, in the example you provided above, I would make the free text and option two different questions. This doesn't change how the answers are input, it just changes how you consider the different questions.
The reason why I'm saying this is that any analysis you will be doing on the answers is dependent on comparing apples to apples -- when you restrict or free the list of available choices, you're comparing apples to oranges.