Focal Point Banner


As of December 1, 2020, Focal Point is retired and repurposed as a reference repository. We value the wealth of knowledge that's been shared here over the years. You'll continue to have access to this treasure trove of knowledge, for search purposes only.

Join the TIBCO Community
TIBCO Community is a collaborative space for users to share knowledge and support one another in making the best use of TIBCO products and services. There are several TIBCO WebFOCUS resources in the community.

  • From the Home page, select Predict: WebFOCUS to view articles, questions, and trending articles.
  • Select Products from the top navigation bar, scroll, and then select the TIBCO WebFOCUS product page to view product overview, articles, and discussions.
  • Request access to the private WebFOCUS User Group (login required) to network with fellow members.

Former myibi community members should have received an email on 8/3/22 to activate their user accounts to join the community. Check your Spam folder for the email. Please get in touch with us at community@tibco.com for further assistance. Reference the community FAQ to learn more about the community.


Focal Point    Focal Point Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  WebFOCUS/FOCUS Forum on Focal Point     [CLOSED] Maintain: Duplicate records validation

Read-Only Read-Only Topic
Go
Search
Notify
Tools
[CLOSED] Maintain: Duplicate records validation
 Login/Join
 
Nasar
Member
posted
Hi,

I have an application, where we need to validate for duplicate records.
Example, there are 5 columns in a table A,B,C,D,E having values 1,2,3,4,5 for the columns then this same combination of 1,2,3,4,5 can NOT be entered again. That is the combination values for these columns should be unique.
Is there a ways to do this in maintain.

Any sample code/logic would be highly beneficial.

Thanks,
Nasar

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Kathryn Henning>,


8.06
Windows
 
Posts: 19 | Location: India | Registered: April 24, 2014Report This Post
Alan B
Virtuoso
posted Hide Post
From your question,I assume that it is not valid to have these columns as key fields, which would be normal.

So basically there are 3 options:

1. If the data is already in a stack, use STACK COPY with WHERE clause to check if the values already exist.
2. Use a FOR ALL NEXT with WHERE clause against the data table and check the returned stack.
3. Create and EX a focexec that contains a DB_LOOKUP with the column values passed to it and check the returned stack.

The choice of which to use depends on the data volumes, source type and indices. TO help with which one is best for you, mfd, volumes and data type are required.


Alan.
WF 7.705/8.007
 
Posts: 1451 | Location: Portugal | Registered: February 07, 2007Report This Post
Nasar
Member
posted Hide Post
Thanks Alan for prompt reply.
Yes we can not keep the columns as keys.
The data volumes is high (more than 1 million rows and around 20+ columns to be validated).
I tried the first approach that you suggested, but that had very slow performance.
Please suggest which one to opt.
I am not sure about the 2nd and 3rd approach that you suggested. Please elaborate.
A short code/logic would be highly helpful.

The datatype is a mix of INT and VARCHAR
Thanks,
nasar


8.06
Windows
 
Posts: 19 | Location: India | Registered: April 24, 2014Report This Post
Maintain Wizard
Master
posted Hide Post
I think in this case I would use next with where. Since the fields are NOT key fields it will be a little slower, but it should be ok. Assume a Master with:

Key0
Field1
Field2
Field3
Field4
Field5

After retrieving the values in a stack (STK1) I would do:

Reposition Key0
Stack clear STK2
Next Key0 into STK2
where Field1 = STK1.Field1
and Field2 = STK1.Field2
and Field3 = STK1.Field3
and Field4 = STK1.Field4
and Field5 = STK1.Field5

If STK2.FOCCOUNT = 1 then REJECT

You don't need a FOR ALL NEXT since if you hit even one record you want to reject. See if this is good for you.

Mark
 
Posts: 663 | Location: New York | Registered: May 08, 2003Report This Post
Alan B
Virtuoso
posted Hide Post
So I was wondering if there would be any performance benefit when using different approaches, and the answer is no.

I set up a MySQL table with 21 columns and 10 million rows and no indices.

Used 3 methods, TABLE, Maintain NEXT and DB_LOOKUP. Performance was equal for all approaches, which in real terms was bad, all running at about 66 seconds to find a single record with 20 screening conditions.

However, adding 2 medium cardinality indices brought the time down to below 1 second for each of the 3 methods used.

So for simplicity I would use the NEXT keyfield, as Mark suggested, but ensure that the DB has indices to help performance.


Alan.
WF 7.705/8.007
 
Posts: 1451 | Location: Portugal | Registered: February 07, 2007Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Read-Only Read-Only Topic

Focal Point    Focal Point Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  WebFOCUS/FOCUS Forum on Focal Point     [CLOSED] Maintain: Duplicate records validation

Copyright © 1996-2020 Information Builders