I am trying to create a sign-up sheet using Google Forms for parents to fill out. Parents have the ability to sign up multiple children in one form. For it to be easier to read I have organized the entries using:
=sort(unique({A2:B999;C2:D999}))
Now I want to pull the emergency contact information from the submission but for some reason my VLOOKUP can only pull it up for the first child.
Here is the simplified response sheet: [goo.gl/soE1PG]
Pass the lookup off to a second VLOOKUP function with IFERROR function if the first fails.
In I5 as,
=IFERROR(VLOOKUP(G5, A:E, 5, FALSE), VLOOKUP(G5, C:E, 3, FALSE))
Fill down as necessary.
Related
I have a model Item:
Item:
batch_no
batch_no can be anything from 1 to 20. And there are 1000s of items in the database.
Now. I need to get first 4 elements of each batch_no.
I know to do it by querying and appending using forloop.
batches = Item.objects.values('batch_no').exclude(batch_no__isnull=True).distinct()
blist=[]
for batch in batches:
bitems= Item.objects.filter(batch_no=batch['batch_no'])[:4]
blist.append(bitems)
return blist
Is there a better way than this? To do in a single Query?
I'm new to Django.
Here is a similar question. The short answer is:
Item.objects.annotate(rank=Window(
expression=Rank(),
order_by=F('batch_no').desc(),
partition_by=[F('batch_no')])
).filter(rank__lte=4)
Check out Rank window function in Django 2.0. It will allow you to grab Top N elements within a group as in an example here
I am developing a mobile application that should allow a student to search for job vacancies. I have used the wizard to create a form with a list view. The list view will only show job titles which are not past their closing date (available jobs)
When a job title is clicked it redirects to the form where the student can view further job details. These values are passed automatically by the wizard.
Now while this whole thing is great I need information from 3 different tables and the wizard won't help me with that.
I have created a list view based on an sql query and also a form based on an sql query. I have tried to create automatic fetch processes to pass the values from my list view to the form view but nothing I have tried has worked. I carefully analysed the forms created by the wizard to see how it could be done but nothing worked for me and I would really love to do it in this way.
For reference this is the sql code I used for the list view (and it's the same for the form view except for the where clause )
T1.JOB_TITLE,
T1.SALARY,
T1.JOB_DESCRIPTION,
T1.START_DATE,
T1.CLOSING_DATE,
T1.METHOD_ID,
T3.METHOD_NAME,
T1.SITE_ID,
T2.CITY,
T2.ADDRESS_FIRST_LINE,
T2.EMAIL,
T2.COMPANY_NAME
FROM JOB T1
JOIN SITE T2 ON (T2.SITE_ID = T1.SITE_ID)
JOIN APPLICATION_METHOD T3 ON (T3.METHOD_ID = T1.METHOD_ID)
Where (T1.Closing_Date >(Select Current_Date from dual))
There are really two ways you could solve this:
1) If you can simply pass the values you need to the form page, edit the values of your Form region, and open up the "Link Target" attribute (this is assuming you're using APEX 5 Page Designer). There, you will be able to pass in multiple values to items on your Form page.
2) If, instead, you need to derive these values on your Form page, add an After Header process on your form page and do the lookups from your other tables in this process, using PL/SQL. You can use the bind variable syntax to reference your items and update session state. For example:
begin
for c1 in (select val1, val2 from my_other_table where id = :P3_ID) loop
:P3_ITEM1 := c1.val1;
:P3_ITEM2 := c1.val2;
exit;
end loop;
end;
I managed to add the additional columns by adding more items and selecting an Sql-query that returns a single row from the item attributes (Source).
So in order to get method_name rather than an ID which would be irrelevant for the end user I used this code:
SELECT METHOD_NAME FROM APPLICATION_METHOD
WHERE (METHOD_ID = :P3_METHOD_ID)
I am fairly certain that it might not be a great solution if you have a lot of columns that need to go through but it was easy to understand and implement for a few additional columns.
I am starting a project using Cloudant.
It's a simple system for logging, so I can track the usage of my apps.
My documents looks like this:
{
app:'name of the app',
type:'page view | login | etc..',
owner:'email_of_the_user',
device: 'iphone | android | etc..', date:
'yyyy-mm-dd'
}
I've tried to do some map reducing and faceted searches, but couldn't find so far the result for what I want.
I want to count the number of distinct documents grouped by same owner, date (yyyy-mm-dd), and app.
[For example, if a the same guy logs in the app twice or 20 times in the same date, it will be counted only once.
I want to count how many single users used an app each day, no matter what's the type of the log, or the device he used.]
If it was SQL, assuming that each key of the document is a column, I would query something like this:
SELECT app, date, count(*) FROM LOGS group by date, owner, app
ant the result would be something like:
'App1', '2015-06-01', 200
'App1', '2015-06-02', 232
'App2', '2015-06-01', 142
'App2', '2015-06-02', 120
How can I get the same result using Cloudant/CouchDB?
You can do this using design documents, as Cesar mentioned. A concrete example would be to create a view where your map function emits the field on where you want to group on, such as:
function(doc) {
emit(doc.email, 1);
}
Then, you select your desired reduce function (such as _count). When viewing this on Cloudant dashboard, make sure you select Reduce as part of the query options. When accessing the view via URL you need to pass the appropriate parameters (reduce=true&group=true).
The documentation on Views here is pretty thorough: https://docs.cloudant.com/creating_views.html
For what you need there is a feature on couldant/couchdb called design document. You can check their documentation for this feature for details or this guide:
http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/design.html
Cloudant documentation:
https://docs.cloudant.com/design_documents.html
Design documents are similar views on the SQL world.
Regards,
We were able to do this in our project using the Cloudant Java API...
https://github.com/cloudant/java-cloudant
You should be able to get this sort of result by creating a view that has a map function like this...
function(doc) {
emit([doc.app, doc.date, doc.owner], 1);
}
The reduce function should look like this:
function(keys, values, rereduce){
if (rereduce){
return sum(values);
} else {
return sum(values);
}
}
Then we used the following query to get the data we wanted.
Database db = ....
db.view(viewName).startKey(startKeys).endKey(endKeys)
.group(true).includeDocs(false).query(castClass)
We supplied the view name and some start and end keys (since we emitted a compound key and we needed to supply a filter) and then used the group method to get the data back as you need it.
Revised..
With this new emit key in the map function you should get results like this:
{[
{[app1, 2015,06,28, john#somewhere.net], 12}, <- john visited 12 times on that day...
{[app1, 2015,06,29, john#somewhere.net], 10},
{[app1, 2015,06,28, ann#somewhere.net], 1}
]}
If you use good start and end keys, the amount of records you're querying will stay small and the number of records you get back is the unique visitors you are seeking. Note that in this scenario you are getting back a bit more than you want, but it does work.
I have a spider where the scraped items are 3: brand, model and price from the same page.
Brands and models are using the same sel.xpath, later extracted and differentiated by .re in loop. However, price item is using different xpath. How can I use or combine two XPathSelectors in the spider?
Examples:
for brand and model:
titles = sel.xpath('//table[#border="0"]//td[#class="compact"]')
for prices:
prices = sel.xpath('//table[#border="0"]//td[#class="cl-price-cont"]//span[4]')
Tested and exported individually by xpath. My problem is the combining these 2 to construct the proper loop.
Any suggestions?
Thanks!
Provided you can differentiate all 3 kind of items (brand, model, price) later, you can try using XPath union (|) to bundle both XPath queries into one selector :
//table[#border="0"]//td[#class="compact"]
|
//table[#border="0"]//td[#class="cl-price-cont"]//span[4]
UPDATE :
Responding your comment, above meant to be single XPath string. I'm not using python, but I think it should be about like this :
sel.xpath('//table[#border="0"]//td[#class="compact"] | //table[#border="0"]//td[#class="cl-price-cont"]//span[4]')
I believe you are having trouble associating the price with the make/model because both xpaths give you a list of all numbers, correct? Instead, what you want to do is build an xpath that will get you each row of the table. Then, in your loop, you can do further xpath queries to pull out the make/model/price.
rows = sel.xpath('//table[#border="0"]/tr') # Get all the rows
for row in rows:
make_model = row.xpath('//td[#class="compact"]/text()').extract()
# set make and model here using your regex. something like:
(make,model) = re("^(.+?)\s(.+?)$", make_model).groups()
price = row.xpath('//td[#class="cl-price-cont"]//span[4]/text()').extract()
# do something with the make/model/price.
This way, you know that in each iteration of the loop, the make/model/price you're getting all go together.
I have documents in couchdb. The schema looks like below:
userId
email
personal_blog_url
telephone
I assume two users are actually the same person as long as they have
email or
personal_blog_url or
telephone
be identical.
I have 3 views created, which basically maps email/blog_url/telephone to userIds and then combines the userIds into the group under the same key, e.g.,
_view/by_email:
----------------------------------
key values
a_email#gmail.com [123, 345]
b_email#gmail.com [23, 45, 333]
_view/by_blog_url:
----------------------------------
key values
http://myblog.com [23, 45]
http://mysite.com/ss [2, 123, 345]
_view/by_telephone:
----------------------------------
key values
232-932-9088 [2, 123]
000-111-9999 [45, 1234]
999-999-0000 [1]
My questions:
How can I merge the results from the 3 different views into a final user table/view which contains no duplicates?
Or whether it is a good practice to do such deduplication in couchdb?
Or what would be a good way to do a deduplication in couch then?
ps. in the finial view, suppose for all dupes, we only keep the smallest userId.
Thanks.
Good question. Perhaps you could listen to _changes and search for the fields you want to be unique for the real user in the views you suggested (by_*).
Merge the views into one (emit different fields in one map):
function (doc) {
if (!doc.email || !doc.personal_blog_url || !doc.telephone) return;
emit([1, doc.email], [doc._id]);
emit([2, doc.personal_blog_url], [doc._id]);
emit([3, doc.telephone], [doc._id]);
}
Merge the lists of id's in reduce
When new doc in changes feed arrives, you can query the view with keys=[[1, email], [2, personal_blog_url], ...] and merge the three lists. If its minimal id is smaller then the changed doc, update the field realId, otherwise update the documents in the list with the changed id.
I suggest using different document to store { userId, realId } relation.
You can't create new documents by just using a view. You'd need a task of some sort to do the actual merging.
Here's one idea.
Instead of creating 3 views, you could create one view (that indexes the data if it exists):
Key Values
--- ------
[userId, 'phone'] 777-555-1212
[userId, 'email'] username#example.com
[userId, 'url'] favorite.url.example.com
I wouldn't store anything else except the raw value, as you'd end up with lots of unnecessary duplication of data (if you stored the full object for example).
Then, to query, you could do something like:
...startkey=[userId]&endkey=[userId,{}]
That would give you all of the duplicate information as a series of docs for that user Id. You'd still need to parse it apart to see if there were duplicates. But, this way, the results would be nicely merged into a single CouchDB call.
Here's a nice example of using arrays as keys on StackOverflow.
You'd still probably load the original "user" document if it had other data that wasn't part of the de-duplication process.
Once discovered, you could consider cleaning up the data on the fly and prevent new duplicates from occurring as new data is entered into your application.