I am working on a Contract / Invoicing project, I made the contract table and I need to add the contracts in PDF or Word form.
I wonder what is the best way to integrate attachments in sharepoint, do I have to use a library or is it better to work with an attachment column in the contract list
Several benefits to each.
Use a library when:
The focus is the document. The metadata/columns is secondary.
Each document is unique, not part of a set.
The content of the document needs to be indexed for search, and uniquely found. (The link in the search results points to the document.)
Use a list with attachments when:
The focus is the metadata/columns and there may be zero or many related documents.
You need a list item even if there is no document, or no document yet.
It's OK when you search for a keyword found in one of the documents and you get the list item returned, not the document. (You would then need to open each attachment to find the search for term.) I.e. the link in the search results points to the list item, not the document.)
Use a Document Set when:
You need a focus on a set of documents, kind of like a folder with metadata that contains zero to many files.
You need to automatically create a collection of documents each time you create a new Document Set. (New hire form, parking permit, photo id appointment, training schedule, etc.)
You like having a "home page" / information panel for each set of documents.
Related
I have a website that allows users to search for items in various categories. Each category is a separate area (page) of my website. For example, some categories might be cars, bikes, books etc. At the moment a user has to search for an item by going to the page (for example, cars) and searching for the car they want. I would like to allow the user to search for anything on my site, from my main home page.
At the moment, each page (category) has its own set of tables, and I don't really want to turn Full Text Search on for each table (20+ of them) and search each table individually when a search is done. This is going to be slow and tedious.
What I'm thinking of doing is creating a single table that will hold all searchable information for each category of item (when an item is saved in its respective table, I would copy all searchable information over to my 'Search' table). I would then turn Full Text Search on for that table, and search that table.
Does this sound reasonable? Is there a better way? I've never used Full Text Search before, so this is new to me.
One comment. The schema I've described here is vastly 'dumbed down' to make the concept of the question easier to understand.
I'd read this article here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142571.aspx it appears that you are taking a long way to do something you have to do to set up full text search anyway: ie full text seach only occurs (effectively) against tables and columns that have explicitly been indexed. simply "turning on" full text search does not do this. Oh and http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142497.aspx
I have a strange requirement in Solr.
The business model is like for each store in state (say victoria), we have different sales catalog (like Richmond, Brunswick etc) which in turn act as fulfillment centers on their own.
so my url of storeId- vic and catalogId-Richmond will retrieve me catalogues with richmond's store.
Now the requirement is I need to filter out the products based on the inventory for each of these sales catalogues.
I constructed a TI table which has the following structure
catentry_id -------- QUANTITY_RICFUL-------------QUANTITY_BrunFUL
1234-------------------0------------------------------------20
I had incorporate the changes in solr query to add these columns in the final result too.
But I do not know how to filter out the products in the front end during catalogue navigation or during search.
Any help would be much appreciated!!!
So basically you want to tie the returned catalog entries in a list with inventory? For instance, when they click on a category you do not want to display products with no inventory?
This would be a customization you can either do at the Solr Level or at the JSP level. You should probably track inventory in commerce (import it) into a field Solr can key off of and then only return items with the flag set to greater than zero. I am not sure if you need actual inventory or just a boolean. Are you using a single fulfillment center or multiple ones? Multiple gets a bit trickier and it would require them to log in most likely but then fulfillment would be addressed by the ship to address.
If the store is set up with ATP inventory then you should just get this for free, as products not in stock will simply not be displayed. Check out this page in the infocenter - http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wchelp/v6r0m0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.commerce.user.doc%2Fconcepts%2Fcosatpatpandnonatp.htm
I am not sure what you are trying to ask here but it seems you are trying to display a Quantity dropdown or display an Quantity field under each product on a search page which to me makes no sense from a UI perspective. Also keep in mind if you have integrated with a 3rd party inventory model that runs every few mins/hours etc. How often do you plan to run indexing etc?
I would rather leave such complexity to a Prodcut Detail page. If you do require to show an Quantity field on the search page I would rather prefer displaying a QuickView popup/modal that displays the color/size attributes with the quantity dropdown etc and enable a user to add an item to his/her shopping cart.
I want to create a multi-select Contact Lookup.
What i want :
When user clicks on a lookup then he should be able to select multiple contacts from that.
What i have done:
I have created an object and a field inside that object using both
"Lookup" and
"MasterDetail Relationship" and
"Junction Object"
When i try to use this Field for any input text/Field then it always provides an option to select only one value from lookup but i want to have an option to select multiple.
Even in the Junction object i have created 2 master-detail relationships still lookup allows only one value to be selected.Moreover it makes the field mandatory which i don't want.
Links that i followed:
http://success.salesforce.com/questionDetail?qId=a1X30000000Hl5dEAC
https://ap1.salesforce.com/help/doc/user_ed.jsp?loc=help§ion=help&hash=topic-title&target=relationships_manytomany.htm
Can anybody suggest me how to do this.
Its same as we use Email CC/BCC under Send Email option for any Lead.
Even you use a junction object a lookup is just that, it references (looks up to) one other record: when you create a record on the junction object you still have to set each lookup individually and you're still creating only one record.
Master Detail relationships are essentially lookups on steroids, one object becomes the child of the other and will be deleted if the parent object is deleted, they're not going to provide an interface to lookup to many records at once.
If you're not a developer then your best bet is to either just create on junction object record at a time, or look into using dataloader. You could prepare your data in Excel or similar and then upload all the records into Salesforce in one go.
If you are a developer, or have developers at your disposal, then what we've done in the past is create a Visualforce page to do the job. So if, for example, you wanted to link a bunch of contacts up to an Account, we'd have a single account lookup field on the page, then some search fields relating to fields on the contact. Using a SOQL query you can then find all contacts matching the search parameters and display them in a list, where you may want to provide checkboxes to allow the user to select the contacts they want. Then it's just a case of looping through the selected contacts, setting their Account field to be the chosen account.
There are areas in Salesforce (such as the send Email functionality you mentioned) where it's clear to see that bespoke work has been done to fulfil a specific task — another instance of what you want is in the area where you can manage campaign members. This is the model I've copied in the past when implementing a Visualforce page as described.
Good luck!
For adding multiple junction objects at one time, the only solution we have found is a custom Visualforce page, as described by LaceySnr.
For a slightly different problem, where we need to assign many of object B to object A, We have trained our users to do this with a view on object B. We are assigning Billing Accounts (B) to Payment Offices (A). The view on Billing Account has check boxes on the left side. The user checks the Billing Accounts to be assigned, then double-clicks on the Payment Office field on any of the checked rows. A pop-up asks if you want to update only the single row or all checked rows. By selecting 'all checked rows', the update is done to all of them.
The view is created by the user, who enters the selection criteria (name, address, state, etc.). All user-created views are visible only to them.
I am just starting up with Lucene, and I'm trying to index a database so I can perform searches on the content. There are 3 tables that I am interested in indexing:
1. Image table - this is a table where each entry represents an image. Each image has an unique ID and some other info (title, description, etc).
2. People table - this is a table where each entry represent a person. Each person has a unique ID and other info like (name, address, company, etc)
3. Credited table - this table has 3 fields (image, person, and credit type). It's purpose is to associate some people to a image as the credits for that image. Each image can have multiple credited people (there's the director, photographer, props artist, etc). Also, a person is credited in multiple images.
I'm trying to index these tables so I can perform some searching using Lucene but as I've read, I need to flatten the structure.
The first solution the came to me would be to create Lucene documents for each combination of Image/Credited Person. I'm afraid this will create a lot of duplicate content in the index (all the details of an image/person would have to be duplicated in each Document for each person that worked on the image).
Is there anybody experienced with Lucene that can help me with this? I know there is no generic solution to denormalization, that is why I provided a more specific example.
Thank you, and I will gladly provide more info on the database is anybody needs
PS: Unfortunately, there is no way for me to change the structure of the database (it belongs to the client). I have to work with what I have.
You could create a Document for each person with all the associated images' descriptions concatenated (either appended to the person info or in a separate Field).
Or, you could create a minimal Document for each person, create a Document for each image, puts the creators' names and credit info in a separate field of the image Document and link them by putting the person ID (or person Document id) a third, non-indexed field. (Lucene is geared toward flat document indexing, not relational data, but relations can be defined manually.)
This is really a matter of what you want to search for, images or persons, and whether each contains enough keywords for search to function. Try several options, see if they work well enough and don't exceed the available space.
The credit table will probably not be a good candidate for Document construction, though.
I am working on a system, which will run on GAE, which will have several related entities and I am not sure of the best way to store the data. This post is a request for advice from others who may have similar experience....
The system will have users, with profile data and an image. Those users will be able to create "events" and add journal entries to it. For the purpose of the system, the "events" will likely have 1 or 2 journal entries in them, and anything over 10 would likely never happen. Other users will be able to add comments to users' entries as well, where popular ones may have hundreds or even thousands of comments. When a random visitor uses the system, they should be able to see the latest events (latest, being defined by those with latest journal entries in them), search by tag, and a very perform basic text search. Then upon selecting an event to view, it should be displayed with all journal entries, and all user comments, with user images alongside comments. A user should also have a kind of self-admin page, to view/modify/delete their events and to view/modify/delete comments they have made on other events. So, doing all this on a normal RDBMS would just queries with some big joins across several tables. On GAE it would obviously need to work differently. Here are my initial thoughts on the design of the entities:
Event entity - id, name, timstamp, list
property of tags, view count,
creator's username, creator's profile
image id, number of journal entries
it contains, number of total comments
it contains, timestamp of last update to contained journal entries, list property of index words for search (built/updated from text from contained journal entries)
JournalEntry entity - timestamp,
journal text, name of event,
creator's username, creator's profile
image id, list property of comments
(containing commenter username and
image id)
User entity - username, password hash, email, list property of subscribed events, timestamp of create date, image id, number of comments posted, number of events created, number of journal entries created, timestamp of last journal activity
UserComment entity - username, id of event commented on, title of event commented on
TagData entity - tag name, count of events with tag on them
So, I'd like to hear what people here think about the design and what changes should be made to help it scale well. Thanks!
Rather than store Event.id as a property, use the id automatically embedded in each entity's key, or set unique key names on entities as you create them.
You have lots of options for modeling the relationship between Event and JournalEntry: you could use a ReferenceProperty, you could parent JournalEntries to Events and retrieve them with ancestor queries, or you could store a list of JournalEntry key ids or names on Event and retrieve them in batch with a key query. Try some things out with realistically-distributed dummy data, and use appstats to see what works best.
UserComment references an Event, while JournalEntry references a list of UserComments, which is a little confusing. Is there a relationship between UserComment and JournalEntry? or just between UserComment and Event?
Persisting so many counts is expensive. When I post a comment, you're going to write a new UserComment entity and also update my User entity and a JournalEntry entity and an Event entity. The number of UserComments you expect per Event makes it unwise to include everything in the same entity group, which means you can't do these writes transactionally, so you'll do them serially, and the entities might be stored across different network nodes, making the whole operation slow; and you'll also be open to consistency problems. Can you do without some of these counts and consider storing others in memcache?
When you fetch an Event from the datastore, you don't actually care about its list of search index words, and retrieving and deserializing them from protocol buffers has a cost. You can get around this by splitting each Event's search index words into a separate child EventIndex entity. Then you can query EventIndex on your search term, fetch just the EventIndex keys for EventIndexes that match your search, derive the corresponding Events' keys with key.parent(), and fetch the Events by key, never paying for the retrieval or deserialization of your search index word lists. Brett Slatkin explains this strategy here at 14:35.
Updating Event.viewCount will fail if you have a lot of views for any Event in rapid succession, so you should try out counter sharding.
Good luck, and tell us what you learn by trying stuff out.