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.
I have a user that is trying to consolidate the data from two tables. Both tables have identical columns. She attempted this through a JOIN but based on her requirements, this will not suffice. Table A has current data and Table B has historical data. What she wants is a report which lists all data from A and all data from B that matches her criteria in a combined view. In SQL I believe you can load a temporary table with the results from 2 separate queries and then execute a query on the temp. How can this be accomplished in WebFOCUS?
Michael, Use the MORE subcommand of TABLE. The fields of both of your SQL tables must have the same names. If they don't use DEFINE to give table B the same names as table A.
TABLE FILE A
PRINT FIELD1 ... FIELDN
BY SORTFIELD1 ..
WHERE ....
MORE
FILE B
WHERE ...
END
Daniel In Focus since 1982 wf 8.202M/Win10/IIS/SSA - WrapApp Front End for WF
Posts: 1980 | Location: Tel Aviv, Israel | Registered: March 23, 2006
DEFINE FILE TABLE1 DUMMY1/A1 = '1'; END DEFINE FILE TABLE2 DUMMY2/A2 = '2'; END MATCH FILE TABLE1 PRINT DUMMY1 -*- put real fields from TABLE1 in these BY's BY FIELD1 BY FIELD2 . . RUN FILE TABLE2 PRINT DUMMY2 -*- put real fields from TABLE2 in these BY's BY FIELD1 BY FIELD3 AS FIELD2 . . AFTER MATCH HOLD AS HOLDA OLD-OR-NEW END TABLE FILE HOLDA -*- do your report here END
It's the OLD-OR-NEW that will keep data from both tables. And just like with MORE, the field names between the two tables have to be the same except here, you don't have to use a DEFINE to make them the same - you can do it on the fly (FIELD3 AS FIELD2). I will say that I believe a MORE command will have better performance for you than a MATCH.
The only other suggestion I have for you is if these are RDBMS tables (and from your post, I believe they are), and you're comfortable with writing SQL, you could use SQL Pass-Thru and write your own SQL with a UNION command, hold that off then report from the hold.
Data Migrator 5.3, 7.1, 7.6 WebFOCUS 7.1, 7.6, 7.7 SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 Windows
A good start here on this site is first search on the question you have. Someone else posted the same question 2 or 3 days ago and got the same answers.
My answer would have been to create an union query on the sql server.
IMO the MATCH command is not the proper answer since that combines records from one table based on key fields from the other and gives you an unwanted output.
Select * from tableone union select * from tabletwo ;
(supposed the fields have the same layout Frank
Frank
prod: WF 7.6.10 platform Windows, databases: msSQL2000, msSQL2005, RMS, Oracle, Sybase,IE7 test: WF 7.6.10 on the same platform and databases,IE7
Posts: 2387 | Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands | Registered: December 03, 2006