The Forums on slxdeveloper.com are now retired. The forum archive will remain available for the time being. Thank you for your participation on slxdeveloper.com!
|
| |
|
Re: A one-to-one table attached to the Account table has more than one
Posted: 11 Dec 07 6:07 PM
|
What you are saying sounds impossible to me.
If the table has been set up in SLX as a 1:1, it has as its primary key the same ID as Account table (ie AccountID).
Multiple occurrences of the same AccountID are prohibited by your RDBMS, where AccountID is the PK of your table.
Phil |
|
|
| |
|
Re: A one-to-one table attached to the Account table has more than one
Posted: 14 Dec 07 1:23 PM
|
I discovered the problem with a CrystalReport but this is what I ran to confirm the problem (or similar)
select count(opportunityid),opportunityid
from opportunityCustomAddonTable
group by opportunityid
having count(opportunityid) > 1
I've been manually removing the bad rows because that which makes one row better than another is subjective and needs a human eye. I've also had to copy some data from specific fields from one row to the other before removing the bad on. Luckily there have been only a few of them.
I've confirmed that the table is 1-to-1 and the joins are correct. I even had SLX Support take a look. Nothing stands out. |
|
|
|
Re: A one-to-one table attached to the Account table has more than one
Posted: 16 Dec 07 4:20 PM
|
Marc, if you check the OpportunityCustomAddonTable table in SQL Server, can you confirm that it has OpportunityID as the primary key?
If this is the case and you have multiple rows with the same PK, you have a serious db integrity issue that the SLX integrity checker will not resolve - you need SQL tools to fix this one. I have never come across this in all the time I've spent with SQL Server, though I know that there's a first time for everything (except maybe sushi).
Phil |
|
|
| |
|
Re: A one-to-one table attached to the Account table has more than one
Posted: 17 Dec 07 7:17 AM
|
We have an Account add-on table and Opportunity Add-on table both displaying the same issue. We use Oracle for our database. Unfortunately our DBA recently quit so we are still looking for a new Oracle DBA. Once we get one s/he can help me go over things. I've gone over the tables as closely as I can without digging into the db structure in Oracle and everything looks ok.
|
|
|
| |
|