I am currently creating a simple report in Crystal Reports with two tables:
{Table1.group_name_id} --> {Table2.technical_group_id}
Table 1 holds all of the groups; ID's, Names etc
Table 2 holds only the technical groups ID
With these two tables linked it means the only records that will return are those where technical groups are involved, perfect! But now I want to add a dynamic parameter to return the Technical Group Names for the End User to select.
Because {Table2} only holds one field (the ID) which links to {Table1}'s ID, I have to perform the Parameter selection on {Table1}'s name field.
But this is pulling back all of {Table1}'s names and is discounting the Join on {Table2} even with an enforced join present.
Is there a way to force it to only pull back {Table1}'s names as long as it matches the JOIN between {Table1} and {Table2}?
Thanks in advance!
Edit (additional information)
As I thought - the problem was Crystal Reports was not recognising the JOIN when displaying the parameter values.
After some reading, I found out that the JOINS are only recognised when the query is passed to the database (logically). So when selecting a Parameter, it doesn't recognise the JOINS.
I got around this by creating a custom SQL command, forcing it to only pull back the groups in the second table.
First, please confirm your join INNER JOIN.
For Addition,
You can pass the User Input as a parameter in to the crystal report and use this {#Parameter} to filter the result set using SelectionFormula in Crystal Report.
Or you can even set the selectionformula itself from the application.
Related
I have a report that returns the description of a product sheet from the product reference.
The product sheet contains: the description of the product, dates, the history of the product, ...
The data comes from a stored procedure called with a SINGLE reference.
The report criterion is currently a single reference.
So everything is ok.
I would like to pass a list of references separated by, for example, a comma and run the PS as many times as there are references to query and make as many product sheets as references.
I hope i was clear.
A big thank you for your answers.
It sounds like you already have a report that produces a result for a single reference. If that is true then the easiest way is probably to use your existing report as a subreport.
In brief...
You will need to create a new report, add a dataset that contains a unique list of references that you want to produce reports for (this could be parameterized too if required).
This might be as simple as SELECT DISTINCT RefID FROM myTable
Next add a list control to your report and set its dataset property to the dataset you created above.
In the list's 'cell' right-click and insert a subreport. Now right-click the subreport placeholder and set subreport to be the name of you original report. Set the parameter to be the fields from your dataset above (in this exmaple [RefID]).
The list will produce one subreport per entry in the dataset. You can set page breaks from the list control if required.
If this does not help, let me know and I'll update the answer with more details.
I would like to select all records with value X from the table (This is first table in self join (blend)). I would like to select all email IDs who has used value X sometime but not used other times. In GOogle Data studio with self join, I get required results.
Now I want to generalized the solution by passing value X through input Box. When I apply this using data blend using self join, it selects only values X records as both tables applies filter to input box value.
I have created duplicate table and tried as second table in data blend but the same results.
Solution to this proble is highly appreciated.
Sanjay
I could find out the solution.
If you are not using parameter, you can use self join to get the required details.
If you are using parameter, while using self join filter for the parameter will get automatically updated. But we need all records of email ID in the table and hence results are not correct.
The best solution is to create another table with the fields and change the name of a field you want to use it for parameter and apply join of these two tables rather than using self join. You will get required result.
When producing a list of available parameter properties, rather than manually typing each persons name in one by one, is there any way of just populating the data from the table/view which holds all the possible names?
I assume its in the circled box however all that does it let me point to a dataset and then field which I have tried selecting StaffName (being the field that is the one I'm using) if I then run the report it falls over.
Add a new dataset to the report, maybe called StaffMembersDS. The SQL for it might look like:
SELECT Id, Name
FROM StaffMember;
Then assign Name to Label and Id to Value.
BTW if this is related to your last question you're going to run into the trouble that when a user picks a staff member name from the drop down list they are picking only one value. So for your case you might want the Value field to be tied to Name as well as the label. That would allow you to use the query in your last question - SSRS Parameters - which collects related Id values.
SSRS's concept of a query is largely tied to a data set that you define in Report Data.
When you choose 'Use a query', you should be choosing a pre-defined query from Report Data. Of course, the good news is that you can define these yourself.
So let's take your example. You want your possible parameter options to be StaffNames.
Create a new dataset in Report Data. It should return all possible staff names for your report.
Something like:-
SELECT DISTINCT
StaffName,
StaffID
FROM
MyReportViewOrTable
Once you have defined this dataset, you should be able to use it as a source of parameter values.
If i want to add a record to TABLE A, is there an efficient way to add
a record in the JOIN TABLE for many (or all) records in TABLE B?
I try to build a simple task management (in CakePHP). An user adds a task and there
will be added a connection to each other user in the same group as the
current user.
At the moment, I use the find('list')-method to retrieve the IDs and
store them in a variable. But I think if the groups grow, the PHP
cache won't handle this amount of data in a single variable.
You should look into the Cake Has-And-Belongs-To-Many (HABTM) relationships. Check the cake book. It will allow you to create a relationship between two tables, using a join table, and will automatically retrieve and save values as requested in your application.
Please note, however, that from one model you cannot (by default) filter by criteria on the related model (in this case, the model related by the join table). To do this, you will need to use the Containable behavior, which will allow you to set filter criteria on the related tables.
The one other caveat is that I don't know of a way (out of the box) to add some information about the relationship in the join table. For example, if you wanted to record (in the join table) whether the user has completed the task, you would have to write your own stuff there. I usually get around this by creating a model for the join table, which I then invoke whenever I want to retrieve data specific to the joined relationship. By doing it this way, you can also easily pull up the data from the joined tables. Anybody else have a better solution?
So my goal here is to have a single search field in an application that will be able to search multiple tables and return results.
For example, two of these tables are "performers" and "venues" and there are the following performers: "John Andrews","Andrew Smith","John Doe" and the following venues: "St. Andrew's Church","City Hall". Is there a way to somehow return the first two performers and the first venue for a search of "Andrew"?
My first thought was to somehow get all the tables aggregated into a single table with three columns; "SearchableText","ResultType","ResultID". The first column would contain whatever I want searched (e.g. Performer name), the second would say what is being shown (e.g. Performer) and the third would say the item's ID (note: all my tables have auto-incrementing primary keys for ease). The question for this idea is it possible to somehow do this dynamically or do I have to add code to have a table that automatically fills whenever a new row is updated/added/deleted from the performers and venues table (perhaps via trigger?).
My application is written in MSAccess (I know, I know, but I have no choice) on top of a SQL Server backend. I'd prefer this happen through MSAccess so I don't have to have a "searchme" table sitting on my SQL Server but any good result is acceptable :)
I think you are looking for the "union" sql keyword
I'd use full text indexing in SQL server, have a single table with your searchable text, and forign keys in your main tables that link to the search table. This way you can order your results by relevance.
I think you have a schema problem. Querying a UNION is almost always evidence of that (though not in all cases).
The question to me is:
What are you returning as your result?
If you find a person, are you displaying a list of people?
Or if you find a venue, a list of venues?
Or a mix of both?
I would say that if you want to return a list of both, then you'd want something like this:
SELECT tblPerson.PersonID, tblPerson.LastName & ", " & tblPerson.FirstName, "Person"
FROM tblPerson
WHERE tblPerson.LastName LIKE "Andrew*"
OR tblPerson.FirstName LIKE "Andrew*"
UNION
SELECT tblVenue.Venue, tblVenue.Venue, "Venue"
FROM tblVenue
WHERE tblVenue.Venue LIKE "Andrew*"
ORDER BY Venue
This will give a list of the matches indicating which is a person and which a venue, and allow you to then select one of those and open a detail view (by checking the value in the third field).
What you definitely don't want to do is this:
SELECT tblPerson.PersonID, tblPerson.LastName & ", " & tblPerson.FirstName, "Person"
FROM tblPerson
UNION
SELECT tblVenue.Venue, tblVenue.Venue, "Venue"
FROM tblVenue
then saving that and trying to query it on the 2nd column. That will be extremely inefficient. You want your WHERE clause to be on fields that can be searched via the index, and that means each subquery of your UNION needs to have an appropriate WHERE clause.