I am trying to import invoices from Sage 50 UK using MS access. The problem I am facing is that sometimes, the invoices on sage might have had a product on it before but, has since been removed. Unfortunately, using a select * query on [INVOICE_ITEM] will include all items on the invoice, including deleted records.
Judging by the database schema on here, sage seems to use a RECORD_DELETED field in order to keep track of items (products) that are no longer supposed to be on the invoice. Obviously, the next step is to use a WHERE in the query to exclude the deleted records. Well, unfortunately, my RECORD_DELETED field is always showing the default "0" value - even for actual deleted items on the invoice!
Example, highlighted record is actually supposed to be deleted.
Would appreciate any help here!
Late answer but, as it turns out, the RECORD_DELETED field doesn't actually work - or at least is not available via the ODBC connection.
The solution for this issue is to change the SQL query. Instead of getting data directly from the INVOICE_ITEM table, we have to use a join from the INVOICE table to the INVOICE_ITEM table. This solves the issue and only produces items that are actually on the invoice.
I do not know why this works, would love if anyone can shed some light.
Query:
SELECT INVOICE.INVOICE_NUMBER, INVOICE_ITEM.STOCK_CODE, INVOICE_ITEM.DESCRIPTION, INVOICE_ITEM.QUANTITY
FROM INVOICE
JOIN INVOICE_ITEM ON INVOICE.INVOICE_NUMBER = INVOICE_ITEM.INVOICE_NUMBER
You can add the optional where clause:
WHERE INVOICE.INVOICE_OR_CREDIT <> 'Credit Note'
To exclude credit notes. You can also do where invoice_number = 'number' (don't forget the the apostrophe) to get a particular invoice.
Related
We have two teams working on system related issues and my Access database has one table for each teams open issues. I have created a query that matches issues from each list based on the system name. The query is returning potential matches correctly.
From there, I need to be able to review each "match" and select yes or no on a dropdown to confirm if both teams are working the same issue in order to quickly and easily reduce redundancies. I would prefer to review each result in a form format and have figured out how to add a dropdown box with the yes/no options; however, once I've validated each item, I'd like to filter the results down to only show the items that have been designated as "yes".
That's where I'm stuck. The form is not currently saving the results, including the dropdown info, to a table from what I can see.
How can I get the form to load to a table (or query) in order to filter out the "no" responses?
Try converting your query to an append query or an update query. Create a new table that this query adds data to, and in that table create a new field called "YesNo" or something like that. Put that new field from your table as a control source for your dropdown and should add a value in the "YesNo" field in your new table based on what you select. I'm not sure what value will be added to the table, I did something similar with a check box, when it's clicked it adds a "-1" and when it's unclicked, it adds a 0. Then I run a report that selects records based on the value in that field. I'm assuming the dropdown would work in a similar way but not a 100% sure. Hope I understood your issue, I'm no expert at access but I ran into the opposite issue recently where I didn't want the form to save the results.
I need to join an ActiveRecord model in my Ruby on Rails app to another table in a different schema that has no model. I've searched for the answer, and found parts of it, but not a whole solution in one place, hence this question.
I have Vehicle model, with many millions of rows.
I have a table (reload_cars) in another schema (temp_cars) in the same database, with a few million records. This is an ad hoc table, to be used for one ad hoc data update, and will never be used again. There is no model associated with that table.
I initially was lazy and selected all the reload_cars records into an array (reload_vins) in one query, and then in a second query did something like:
`Vehicle.where(vin_status: :invalid).where('vin in (?)', reload_vins)`.
That's simplified a bit from the actual query, but demonstrates the join I need. In other queries, I need full sets of inner and outer joins between these tables. I also need to put various selection criteria on the model table and/or the non-model table in various steps.
That blunt approach worked fine in development, but did not scale up to the production database. I thought it would take a few minutes, which is plenty fast enough for a one-time operation. But, it timed out, particularly when looping through sets of records. Small tweaks did not help.
So, I need to do a legit join.
In retrospect, the answer seems pretty obvious. This query ran pretty much instantly, and gave the exact expected result, with various criteria on each table.
Here is one such query:
Vehicle.where(vin_status: :invalid)
.joins("
join temp_cars.reload_cars tcar
on tcar.vin = vehicles.vin
where tcar.registration_id is not null
")
I've got a User model and a Card model. User has many Cards, so card has a attribute user_id.
I want to fetch the newest single Card for each user. I've been able to do this:
Card.all.order(:user_id, :created_at)
# => gives me all the Cards, sorted by user_id then by created_at
This gets me half way there, and I could certainly iterate through these rows and grab the first one per user. But this smells really bad to me as I'd be doing a lot of this using Arrays in Ruby.
I can also do this:
Card.select('user_id, max(created_at)').group('user_id')
# => gives me user_id and created_at
...but I only get back user_ids and created_at timestamps. I can't select any other columns (including id) so what I'm getting back is worthless. I also don't understand why PG won't let me select more columns than above without putting them in the group_by or an aggregate function.
I'd prefer to find a way to get what I want using only ActiveRecord. I'm also willing to write this query in raw SQL but that's if I can't get it done with AR. BTW, I'm using a Postgres DB, which limits some of my options.
Thanks guys.
We join the cards table on itself, ON
a) first.id != second.id
b) first.user_id = second.user_id
c) first.created_at < second.created_at
Card.joins("LEFT JOIN cards AS c ON cards.id != c.id AND c.user_id = cards.user_id AND cards.created_at < c.created_at").where('c.id IS NULL')
This is a bit late, but I am working on the same matter, and i found this one works for me :
Card.all.group_by(&:user_id).map{|s| s.last.last}
What do you think ?
I've found one solution that is suboptimal performance-wise but will work for very small datasets, when time is short or it's a hobby project:
Card.all.order(:user_id, :created_at).to_a.uniq(&:user_id)
This takes the AR:Relation results, casts them into a Ruby Array, then performs a Array#uniq on the results with a Proc. After some brief testing it appears #uniq will preserve order, so as long as everything is in order before using uniq you should be good.
The feature is time sensitive so I'm going to use this for now, but I will be looking at something in raw SQL following #Gene's response and link.
I have a Join table in Rails which is just a 2 column table with ids.
In order to mass insert into this table, I use
ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute("INSERT INTO myjointable (first_id,second_id) VALUES #{values})
Unfortunately this gives me errors when there are duplicates. I don't need to update any values, simply move on to the next insert if a duplicate exists.
How would I do this?
As an fyi I have searched stackoverflow and most the answers are a bit advanced for me to understand. I've also checked the postgresql documents and played around in the rails console but still to no avail. I can't figure this one out so i'm hoping someone else can help tell me what I'm doing wrong.
The closest statement I've tried is:
INSERT INTO myjointable (first_id,second_id) SELECT 1,2
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT first_id FROM myjointable
WHERE first_id = 1 AND second_id IN (...))
Part of the problem with this statement is that I am only inserting 1 value at a time whereas I want a statement that mass inserts. Also the second_id IN (...) section of the statement can include up to 100 different values so I'm not sure how slow that will be.
Note that for the most part there should not be many duplicates so I am not sure if mass inserting to a temporary table and finding distinct values is a good idea.
Edit to add context:
The reason I need a mass insert is because I have a many to many relationship between 2 models where 1 of the models is never populated by a form. I have stocks, and stock price histories. The stock price histories are never created in a form, but rather mass inserted themselves by pulling the data from YahooFinance with their yahoo finance API. I use the activerecord-import gem to mass insert for stock price histories (i.e. Model.import columns,values) but I can't type jointable.import columns,values because I get the jointable is an undefined local variable
I ended up using the WITH clause to select my values and give it a name. Then I inserted those values and used WHERE NOT EXISTS to effectively skip any items that are already in my database.
So far it looks like it is working...
WITH withqueryname(first_id,second_id) AS (VALUES(1,2),(3,4),(5,6)...etc)
INSERT INTO jointablename (first_id,second_id)
SELECT * FROM withqueryname
WHERE NOT EXISTS(
SELECT first_id FROM jointablename WHERE
first_id = 1 AND
second_id IN (1,2,3,4,5,6..etc))
You can interchange the Values with a variable. Mine was VALUES#{values}
You can also interchange the second_id IN with a variable. Mine was second_id IN #{variable}.
Here's how I'd tackle it: Create a temp table and populate it with your new values. Then lock the old join values table to prevent concurrent modification (important) and insert all value pairs that appear in the new table but not the old one.
One way to do this is by doing a left outer join of the old values onto the new ones and filtering for rows where the old join table values are null. Another approach is to use an EXISTS subquery. The two are highly likely to result in the same query plan once the query optimiser is done with them anyway.
Example, untested (since you didn't provide an SQLFiddle or sample data) but should work:
BEGIN;
CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE newjoinvalues(
first_id integer,
second_id integer,
primary key(first_id,second_id)
);
-- Now populate `newjoinvalues` with multi-valued inserts or COPY
COPY newjoinvalues(first_id, second_id) FROM stdin;
LOCK TABLE myjoinvalues IN EXCLUSIVE MODE;
INSERT INTO myjoinvalues
SELECT n.first_id, n.second_id
FROM newjoinvalues n
LEFT OUTER JOIN myjoinvalues m ON (n.first_id = m.first_id AND n.second_id = m.second_id)
WHERE m.first_id IS NULL AND m.second_id IS NULL;
COMMIT;
This won't update existing values, but you can do that fairly easily too by using with a second query that does an UPDATE ... FROM while still holding the write table lock.
Note that the lock mode specified above will not block SELECTs, only writes like INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE, so queries can continue to be made to the table while the process is ongoing, you just can't update it.
If you can't accept that an alternative is to run the update in SERIALIZABLE isolation (only works properly for this purpose in Pg 9.1 and above). This will result in the query failing whenever a concurrent write occurs so you have to be prepared to retry it over and over and over again. For that reason it's likely to be better to just live with locking the table for a while.
How do people generate auto_incrementing integers for a particular user in a typical saas application?
For example, the invoice numbers for all the invoices for a particular user should be auto_incrementing and start from 1. The rails id field can't be used in this case, as it's shared amongst all the users.
Off the top of my head, I could count all the invoices a user has, and then add 1, but does anyone know of any better solution?
Typical solution for any relation database could be a table like
user_invoice_numbers (user_id int primary key clustered, last_id int)
and a stored procedure or a SQL query like
update user_invoice_numbers set last_id = last_id + 1 where user_id = #user_id
select last_id from user_invoice_numbers where user_id = #user_id
It will work for users (if each user has a few simultaneously running transactions) but will not work for companies (for example when you need companies_invoice_numbers) because transactions from different users inside the same company may block each other and there will be a performance bottleneck in this table.
The most important functional requirement you should check is whether your system is allowed to have gaps in invoice numbering or not. When you use standard auto_increment, you allow gaps, because in most database I know, when you rollback transaction, the incremented number will not be rolled back. Having this in mind, you can improve performance using one of the following guidelines
1) Exclude the procedure that you use for getting new numbers from the long running transactions. Let's suppose that insert into invoice procedure is a long running transaction with complex server-side logic. In this case you first acquire a new id , and then, in separate transaction insert new invoice. If last transaction will be rolled back, auto-number will not decrease. But user_invoice_numbers will not be locked for long time, so a lot of simultaneous users could insert invoices at the same time
2) Do not use a traditional transactional database to store the data with last id for each user. When you need to maintain simple list of keys and values there are lot of small but fast database engines that can do that work for you. List of Key/Value databases. Probably memcached is the most popular. In the past, I saw the projects where simple key/value storages where implemented using Windows Registry or even a file system. There was a directory where each file name was the key and inside each file was the last id. And this rough solution was still better then using SQL table, because locks were issued and released very quickly and were not involved into transaction scope.
Well, if my proposal for the optimization seems to be overcomplicated for your project, forget about this now, until you will actually run into performance issues. In most projects simple method with an additional table will work pretty fast.
You could introduce another table associated with your "users" table that tracks the most recent invoice number for a user. However, reading this value will result in a database query, so you might as well just get a count of the user's invoices and add one, as you suggested. Either way, it's a database hit.
If the invoice numbers are independent for each user/customer then it seems like having "lastInvoice" field in some persistent store (eg. DB record) associated with the user is pretty unavoidable. However this could lead to some contention for the "latest" number.
Does it really matter if we send a user invoices 1, 2, 3 and 5, and never send them invoice
4? If you can relax the requirement a bit.
If the requirement is actually "every invoice number must be unique" then we can look at all the normal id generating tricks, and these can be quite efficient.
Ensuring that the numbers are sequenctial adds to the complexity, does it add to the business benefit?
I've just uploaded a gem that should resolve your need (a few years late is better than never!) :)
https://github.com/alisyed/sequenceid/
Not sure if this is the best solution, but you could store the last Invoice ID on the User and then use that to determine the next ID when creating a new Invoice for that User. But this simple solution may have problems with integrity, will need to be careful.
Do you really want to generate the invoice IDs in an incremental format? Would this not open security holes (where in, if a user can guess the invoice number generation, they can change it in the request and may lead to information disclosure).
I would ideally generate the numbers randomly (and keep track of used numbers). This prevents collisions as well (Chances of collision are reduced as the numbers are allocated randomly over a range).