I have table in RDS which consists two columns id and user activity at some time exactly values active/away.I get user activity every day so I need to add user activity column every day to that table.Any ideas how to do it?Now I have table with first two columns in RDS,but I am in stuck with how to add columns to that table
+-------------+------------+------------+
| id | 2020-08-13 | 2020-08-14 |
-----------------------------------------
| 12345 | active | away |
You could use an alter table ... add column, but this is not the right way to solve the problem.
In a relational database, you add additional rows for repeated data, not additional columns. So your table should look like this:
+-------------+-------------+------------+
| id | status_date | status |
------------------------------------------
| 12345 | 2020-08-13 | active |
| 12345 | 2020-08-14 | away |
Then you add a new row using an insert.
Related
I have 2 tables in powerbi, one contains all transactions to and from people (each client identified with an id, where "I" can be either the receiver or sender of $) and the other is the detail for each client.
Table 1 would look something like
| $ | sender id | receiver id |
|---|-----------| ------------|
| 10| 1 | 2 |
| 15| 1 | 3 |
| 20| 1 | 2 |
| 15| 3 | 1 |
| 10| 3 | 1 |
| 25| 2 | 1 |
| 10| 1 | 2 |
The second table contains sender id and name:
| id | name |
|----|-------|
| 1 | "me" |
| 2 | John |
| 3 | Susan |
The expected result is something like (not necesarily in a table, just to show)
| $ sent | $ received | Balance|
|--------|------------|--------|
| 55 | 45 | +10 |
And in a filter have "John" and "Susan" so when i Select one of them i could see $ sent, $received and balance for each of them.
The problem of course is that i end up with one active and one inactive relationship so if i apply such a filter i end up with 0 in sender/receiver and the whole value in the other (depending which is made active and inactive) and if i make another table that's "id sender"+"name sender" then i cant filter all at once.
Is it possible to do this?
I hope this is kinda understandable
You will need to add 2 columns to your user table
received = CALCULATE(SUM(T1[$]), Filter(T1, UserTable[id] = T1[reveicer id]))
The same you can do for send. Now in your visual, use the new columns.
Enjoy!
after going around a bit I found a way to solve this, probably not the most orthodox way to do it, but it works.
What I did is to add 2 columns to my sales table, one was labeled "movement" and in sql it is just a 'case' where when the receiver is 'me' its "Charged" and when the receiver is 'not-me' its "Payment", then i added a column with a case so it would always bring me the 'not-me' id, and i used that for may relationship with my users table.
Then I just added filters in my cards making one a "Payment" card and the other a "Charged" card.
This is all following the previous example, it was actually just a bit more tricky as I could actually have a payment from me to myself, but thats just another "case" for when it was 'me-me'
Hope this is understandable, english is not my first language and the information i actually used is partially confidential so i had to make the above example.
thanks all and have a nice day.
I have the following tables:
Table A:
___________________
| ID | NUMBER |
|__________|________|
| 10000378 | 1 |
| | |
Table B:
_________________________________________________
| ... | ID | Column 1 | Column 2 |
|____________|__________|____________|____________|
| ... | 10000378 | 7 | 2 |
| | | | |
Table A and Table B share the same ID value.
Not that it matters too much, the ID in Table A is it's key, and can be found in Table B.
Table A's NUMBER column tells me which Table B column to read.
For example:
IF
[Table A].[NUMBER] = 1
THEN
put the value of [Table B].[Column 1] into [Table B].[My Column]
... and so on
As a visual example (my desired result):
_______________________________________________________________
| ... | ID | Column 1 | Column 2 | My Column |
|____________|__________|____________|____________|_____________|
| ... | 10000378 | 7 | 2 | 7 |
| | | | | |
With My Column being the result I am after (which comes from Column 1 - as specified by Table A's NUMBER value for the ID of 10000378).
What I have tried so far
I have set up a 1-to-1 relationship between Table A and Table B (on the ID column`).
I then went into the Power Query Editor tried adding a Conditional Column:
But that doesn't allow me to reference Table A in any way.
So I decided to try the Append Queries as New option:
Selecting the Two tables radio button, setting Primary Table to Table B and Table to append to the primary table to Table B.
With the idea of creating the following structure from which I can get my desired result (but adding the NUMBER column, which I don't really want but can live with):
_____________________________________________________________________________
| ... | ID | Column 1 | Column 2 | NUMBER | My Column |
|____________|__________|____________|____________|_____________|_____________|
| ... | 10000378 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| | | | | | |
Doing the append copied all of the contents of Table B and inserted the NUMBER column which is fine, but all the values in that NUMBER column are now null.
I don't understand why this is the case.
How can I achieve my desired result?
Appending queries is used when you have additional rows of data that you’d like to add to an existing query (i.e. union/union all in SQL). Joining tables in Power BI is called "merging":
You can find more details in Combine queries section of Tutorial: Shape and combine data in Power BI Desktop article.
Note that if you have a proper relationship defined between your tables in the model (also described in the article above).
To do this, first merge Table B with Table A and expand the columns you'd like to add to the table (Column 1 and Column 2).
Once you have that, then write your custom column, My Column:
if [NUMBER] = 1 then [Column 1]
else if [NUMBER] = 2 then [Column 2]
else <whatever you want to return if not 1 or 2>
I have one workflow which contain five sessions. I am looking for a query by using informatica repository tables/views which give me output like below. I am not able to get a query which give me desired result.
workflow-names session-names source-count target-count session-start time session-end time.
If you have access to Repository metadata tables, then you can use below query
Metadata Tables used in query:
OPB_SESS_TASK_LOG
OPB_TASK_INST_RUN
OPB_WFLOW_RUN
Here the Repository user is INFA_REP, and workflow name is wf_emp_load.
SELECT w.WORKFLOW_NAME,
t.INSTANCE_NAME,
s.SRC_SUCCESS_ROWS,
s.TARG_SUCCESS_ROWS,
t.START_TIME,
t.END_TIME
FROM INFA_REP.OPB_SESS_TASK_LOG s
INNER JOIN INFA_REP.OPB_TASK_INST_RUN t
ON s.INSTANCE_ID=t.INSTANCE_ID
AND s.WORKFLOW_RUN_ID=t.WORKFLOW_RUN_ID
INNER JOIN INFA_REP.OPB_WFLOW_RUN w
ON w.WORKFLOW_RUN_ID=t.WORKFLOW_RUN_ID
WHERE w.WORKFLOW_RUN_ID =
(SELECT MAX(WORKFLOW_RUN_ID)
FROM INFA_REP.OPB_WFLOW_RUN
WHERE WORKFLOW_NAME='wf_emp_load')
ORDER BY t.START_TIME
Output
+---------------+---------------+------------------+-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| WORKFLOW_NAME | INSTANCE_NAME | SRC_SUCCESS_ROWS | TARG_SUCCESS_ROWS | START_TIME | END_TIME |
+---------------+---------------+------------------+-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| wf_emp_load | s_emp_load | 14 | 14 | 10-JUN-18 18:31:24 | 10-JUN-18 18:31:26 |
| wf_emp_load | s_emp_revert | 14 | 14 | 10-JUN-18 18:31:27 | 10-JUN-18 18:31:28 |
+---------------+---------------+------------------+-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT INFORMATION:
I have MS ACCESS 2007 database that I edit using ADO and C++.
PROBLEM:
My problem is that primary key also represents an ordinal number of the record, and after deletion, it should be properly updated. Primary key is of autonumber type.
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
| #PK | Other data ... |
| 1 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 3 | ... |
| 4 | ... |
| 5 | ... |
Now if I delete the 3rd record I get the following problem:
| #PK | Other data ... |
| 1 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 4 | ... |
| 5 | ... |
but I should get the following result:
| #PK | Other data ... |
| 1 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 3 | ... | // edited to reflect the change ( previous value was 4 )
| 4 | ... | // edited to reflect the change ( previous value was 5 )
If I delete last record and then insert new one I get this result:
| #PK | Other data ... |
| 1 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 3 | ... |
| 4 | ... |
| 6 | ... | // this should be 5
QUESTIONS:
Is there a way for me to programmatically update the autonumber field after I perform the DELETE query ?
EDIT:
Since I am aware this is a bad practice, I would prefer adding new field that should be ordinal number so my table can look like this:
| #PK | Ordinal | Other data ... |
| 1 | 1 | ... |
| 2 | 2 | ... |
| 4 | 3 | ... |
| 5 | 4 | ... |
but I would prefer it to update itself automatically. If this is not possible, I would prefer to update the field with SQL query after I perform the deletion.
Thank you.
Best regards.
It is possible, but not the right way. Primary keys are used for relationships, so if you change the values, you need to update all related tables. Even if you currently don't have any related tables, you still should consider adding a separate field for the order, otherwise you may face the same problem in the future when you want to add related tables.
EDIT To answer your question:
Is there a way to add another field that would represent ordinal number and will automatically increment after inserting new record?
If you set it to autonumber, it will automatically increment, but you will not be able to modify it. You can set it to number and when you insert, you use SELECT MAX(oredinal) + 1 FROM mytable to increment it.
For MS Access use
ALter Table Customer alter column CustomerID Counter(1,1)
For Sql Server
DBCC CHECKIDENT (orders, RESEED, 0)
This will set the value of the next ID to be 1, you can use above command.
Ref URL# http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/database/reset-identity-column-value-in-sql-server/
I have decided to add a new field in my table that will hold the ordinal number of the record.
If we assume the field is named OrdinalNumber then the following solution worked for me:
// when inserting record, I just had to add COUNT( PK ) + 1
INSERT INTO MyTable ( OrdinalNumber , ... ) SELECT COUNT( PK ) + 1 , ...
from MyTable ;
// when deleting, I had to perform following two queries :
DELETE from MyTable where PK = ? ;
// decrement all the successors ordinal number by one
UPDATE MyTable set OrdinalNumber = ( OrdinalNumber - 1 ) where ( PK > ? );
Everything seem to work well. I wish there was an easier way though...
Thanks everyone for helping. I have upvoted all the answers.
I am parsing the USDA's food database and storing it in SQLite for query purposes. Each food has associated with it the quantities of the same 162 nutrients. It appears that the list of nutrients (name and units) has not changed in quite a while, and since this is a hobby project I don't expect to follow any sudden changes anyway. But each food does have a unique quantity associated with each nutrient.
So, how does one go about storing this kind of information sanely. My priorities are multi-programming language friendly (Python and C++ having preference), sanity for me as coder, and ease of retrieving nutrient sets to sum or plot over time.
The two things that I had thought of so far were 162 columns (which I'm not particularly fond of, but it does make the queries simpler), or a food table that has a link to a nutrient_list table that then links to a static table with the nutrient name and units. The second seems more flexible i ncase my expectations are wrong, but I wouldn't even know where to begin on writing the queries for sums and time series.
Thanks
You should read up a bit on database normalization. Most of the normalization stuff is quite intuitive, but really going through the definition of the steps and seeing an example helps understanding the concepts and will help you greatly if you want to design a database in the future.
As for this problem, I would suggest you use 3 tables: one for the foods (let's call it foods), one for the nutrients (nutrients), and one for the specific nutrients of each food (foods_nutrients).
The foods table should have a unique index for referencing and the food's name. If the food has other data associated to it (maybe a link to a picture or a description), this data should also go here. Each separate food will get a row in this table.
The nutrients table should also have a unique index for referencing and the nutrient's name. Each of your 162 nutrients will get a row in this table.
Then you have the crossover table containing the nutrient values for each food. This table has three columns: food_id, nutrient_id and value. Each food gets 162 rows inside this table, oe for each nutrient.
This way, you can add or delete nutrients and foods as you like and query everything independent of programming language (well, using SQL, but you'll have to use that anyway :) ).
Let's try an example. We have 2 foods in the foods table and 3 nutrients in the nutrients table:
+------------------+
| foods |
+---------+--------+
| food_id | name |
+---------+--------+
| 1 | Banana |
| 2 | Apple |
+---------+--------+
+-------------------------+
| nutrients |
+-------------+-----------+
| nutrient_id | name |
+-------------+-----------+
| 1 | Potassium |
| 2 | Vitamin C |
| 3 | Sugar |
+-------------+-----------+
+-------------------------------+
| foods_nutrients |
+---------+-------------+-------+
| food_id | nutrient_id | value |
+---------+-------------+-------+
| 1 | 1 | 1000 |
| 1 | 2 | 12 |
| 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 2 | 7 |
| 2 | 3 | 98 |
+---------+-------------+-------+
Now, to get the potassium content of a banana, your'd query:
SELECT food_nutrients.value
FROM food_nutrients, foods, nutrients
WHERE foods_nutrients.food_id = foods.food_id
AND foods_nutrients.nutrient_id = nutrients.nutrient_id
AND foods.name = 'Banana'
AND nutrients.name = 'Potassium';
Use the second (more normalized) approach.
You could even get away with fewer tables than you mentioned:
tblNutrients
-- NutrientID
-- NutrientName
-- NutrientUOM (unit of measure)
-- Otherstuff
tblFood
-- FoodId
-- FoodName
-- Otherstuff
tblFoodNutrients
-- FoodID (FK)
-- NutrientID (FK)
-- UOMCount
It will be a nightmare to maintain a 160+ field database.
If there is a time element involved too (can measurements change?) then you could add a date field to the nutrient and/or the foodnutrient table depending on what could change.