Alternating table design

Hi all !
I have a problem. How can I set the table design to alternating ? In properties I set it up, but ineffectually.

Thanks, but I can't give you points, I will pay you a coffee or tee if you want.

Similar Messages

Table Design "alternating" only in readonly tables? (NW 7.10 SP7)

Hello,
I just found out, that style "alternating" is only applied to a table, when the table is set to read only. Should it be this way?? I see no reason for that behaviour.
Bug or feature in Netweaver 7.10 SP7? Same behaviour is shown already in Developer Studio, Design of table changes only if table is read only.
Frank

Hi
Please refer the below forum:
Problem with table design in 2004s
Re: Reg: Table's Design Property Alternating
Thanks
Susmita

Reg Table Design

Hi,
Iam working on the Customization of table in WebDynpro.I have an application which has 2 views - TableView and CustomView.In the CustomView i have a dropdownbyindex ui element which has the values as "Standard", "Transparent", "Alternating".When the user selects any of these values and clicks on the Apply button, the table design should be changed in the TableView.
Can anyone guide me as how to proceed with this?
I hope i made my requirement very clear.
Regards,
Padmalatha.K
Points will be rewarded.

Hi,
Create an attribute of type "TableDesign" [com.sap.ide.webdynpro.uielementdefinitions.TableDesign]
bind this attribute to the Type property of the table.
In the init set the values as follows. or else change according your need.
wdContext.currentContextElement().setTableDesign(WDTableDesign.STANDARD);
And in the action handler of your drop down by index you can use the following code
In the below code my attribute name is TableDesign
Based on the condition you can use the following code to change the Type.
//Assuming the key returns you the selected value as int 0..1..2
switch (key) {
     case 1:
          wdContext.currentContextElement().setTableDesign(WDTableDesign.ALTERNATING);
          break;
     case 2:
          wdContext.currentContextElement().setTableDesign(WDTableDesign.TRANSPARENT);
          break
     default:
          wdContext.currentContextElement().setTableDesign(WDTableDesign.STANDARD);
          break;
Regards
Ayyapparaj

"Simple" table design?

I have a very simple table design I need to set up, yet every setting I've tried is vexing me.
Table requirements:
1. Header with bold white text and black fill
2. Alternating rows, every 2, after header of a different fill color
3. All table text, excluding header, of a specific style
4. Row strokes to be after every 2nd row, to separate the different fill colors
I set up the following:
A table style with the alternating 2 row fill colors, and row strokes as: Every other row, first 1 row weight 2 pt white, next 1 row weight 0 pt, white, SKIP FIRST 1 ROWS
A paragraph style for the table text to set the font attributes
This setup gives me exactly what I need, except it puts a black row stroke after my first row after the header. I just want the first row stroke to be after the 2nd row (or 3rd row, if you count the header). But it's like it keeps including the header.
ALSO:
I would like to be able to set the header, row heights, left indent, etc., for my tables, but there is nowhere to do that in the table style. Very frustrating, because you can do it manually in the toolbar or menu bars (table options that are not available in the style), and then it overrides your styles.
I have a feeling this may be based on not understanding how table style, paragraph style, cell style and character styles, along with their "based on" settings coincide, but there are far too many combinations of those for me to grasp at this time.
Thanks for any help.
Mike

Figured it out, but I'd still like to know how to adjust ROW HEIGHT and COLUMN WIDTH in my table styles. It appears that if you highlight a row or table, and then change those settings in the upper toolbar, that it does not affect the style. But that's an arduous manual way to have to do it. I would think these settings could be automated somehow. Thanks.

Alternative table in BW3.5 WAS 6.40

Hi,
I have BW3.5 basis 640 and BW3.5 WAS 6.40 installed , when i tranfer custom report on BW3.5 WAS 6.30 system & when run it gives error saying "syntax error" data type not found , this is b'cause i have custom report which uses this table AIBW_HELP in BW3.5 basis 640 but not available in BW 3.5 WAS 6.40 system can you tell is there any alternative table available in the BW3.5 WAS 6.40 system for table AIBW_HELP.
from this AIBW_HELP table i am interested in company code and Business Area fields.
Thanks in advance.
thanks,
John

I don't understand your question. AIBW_HELP is a structure that comes from BI content and is used in some function modules. What do you mean with basis 640 and WAS 640? The WAS and the basis should be the same. Maybe you should check if you have installed any BI_CONT package in your target system. If not install it and the structure should be there.
Best regards
Dirk

Table Designer third rule thick is not working for me. Any suggestions?

I am trying to turn the third rule in a four row table thick. I go into Table Designer and select Every 3rd Thick. The others are all none. The table is not responding to the command to make the third rule thick as I need it to be. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thank you.

To remove table format overrides, you need to go to Table > Format > Custom Ruling and Shading, and set as follows:
For more info, see page 171 of my book.
-Matt
Matt R. Sullivan
co-author Publishing Fundamentals: Unstructured FrameMaker 11

FND tables design

Hi,
I was going through FND Design Data section on eTRM website .
I need to understand a few things about table design here.
I was surprised to see one composite primary key and one composite unique key instead of primary keys in single columns(concurrent_queue_id,concurrent_program_id and concurrent_processor_id) in the following tables
FND_CONCURRENT_QUEUES -- Primary Key: FND_CONCURRENT_PROCESSORS_PK(columns:application_id,concurrent_queue_id)
               Primary Key: FND_CONCURRENT_PROCESSORS_UK1(columns:application_id,concurrent_queue_name)
FND_CONCURRENT_PROGRAMS -- Primary Key: FND_CONCURRENT_PROGRAMS_PK(columns:application_id,concurrent_program_id)
               Primary Key: FND_CONCURRENT_PROGRAMS_UK1(columns:application_id,concurrent_program_name)
FND_CONCURRENT_PROCESSORS -- Primary Key: FND_CONCURRENT_QUEUES_PK(columns:application_id,concurrent_processor_id)
               Primary Key: FND_CONCURRENT_QUEUES_UK(columns:application_id,concurrent_processor_name)
Let's consider FND_CONCURRENT_QUEUES table for instance.
As per my understanding, concurrent manager name and id has to be unique throughout the suite.
But, by decalring them as composite primary/unique key with application_id column,Oracle is saying that the uniqueness of concurrent manager's id and name is maintained across one particular module(application like AP,GL etc) only and not across the entire suite.
Is that actually the case?
Also,this concurrent_queue_id column is used as foreign key for many tables.
Now, for a column to be used as a foreign key, it has to be either unique key or primary key itself alone(not a part of a composite key) in its parent table.
In this case the column is a part of a composite primary key and still being referred from many tables as foreign key.
Please clarify.Any additional comments on this are very welcome.
I have exactly the same questions for the PROGRAMS and PROCESSORS(program library) tables as well.
Thanks,
Rushi

http://etrm.oracle.com/pls/etrmlatest/etrm_search.search
requires a metalink userid

Table design help

I have simple table design issue which I would appreciate some feedback on. Lets say I have two tables to start: users and addresses. Both tables have their primary keys of userid and addressid. Assume no two users can share an addresss.
Is it better to have the userid in the address table, so as to associate the addresses to users OR is it better to have a third table only for associating userid's and addressid's? The latter requires an extra table but appeals to me more because the address table remains purely addresses... seems more appropriate for some reason, but I could be wrong.
Thanks

Frank Kulash wrote:
Hi,
When deciding which is the best option, weigh the costs and benefits of each option. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
The two-table model is certainly simpler. Joins will be more efficient, and slighltly less storage will be required.
What is the advantage of the three-table model? Why does it appeal to you? In the imaginary world where no two users can share an address, it makes sense to think of resident as an attribute of address. Each address can be related to (at most) one user, just like each address can be related to (at most) one postal code.
But, as others have said, that is an imaginary world. Even if you're designing an application where you know there is some kind of business rule that prevents two users from being at the same address, can you be sure that business rule won't change next month?
So I see the relevant costs ot the two-table design as: (the probablility of proving inadequate in the future) * (cost of re-writing all the queires based on the two-table design)
I see the costs of the three-table design as: extra time needed to write and execute joins + marginal costs of an additional table.
In practice, few applications really treat address as an entity. It's more common for address to be considered an attribute of the person, or, if a person can have multiple addresses, to have a separate table that links each address to a single person, with no attempt to minimize duplicates.You make two key points here that I'd like to highlight, just for re-emphasis to the OP.
The first is that business rules can change. When analyzing data relationships, one should always ask if the relationship definition is immutable or simply a reflection of the current business rule. For instance, gender is considered to be immutable. If gender is a property of the entity being tracked, you can pretty much figure that there will never be but two possible values, and only one value current at any given time. But if the business rule says an entity can only have one address ... that rule is definitely subject to change. So the design should be such as to already allow for a different rule. I spent 21 years at an auto manufacturing plant. When the plant was first built, the business rule was there would only be one line of vehicles, and only one shift a day. The IT people tried to build systems to allow more flexibility, but the business side said NO. They paid for that for the next 20 years. In the case of the OP's example, it is most definetly possible for a person (or business) to have more than one address, and it is just as possible for more than one person (or business) to share a single address. The system should be designed for that regardless of the business rule.
The other big point is that data designers need to pay close attention to what constitutes an "entity" vs. an "attribute". Making that distinction is key to getting a good 3NF design.

Fact table design horizontal vs vertical

Hi Guys,
I am putting together a list of advantages and disadvatages of horizontal vs vertical fact table orientation.
Vertical:
ID, DimensionKey1, DimensionKey2, Factno (or KPIDimensionKey), Fact
Advantages:
-Easily extendible when new facts are integration
-A lot more rows
-Density
Disadvantages:
-Applications that can only deal with the horizontal format require a few to
transpose the rows into columns (additional computing time)
Horizontal:
ID, DimensionKey1, DimensionKey2, Fact1, Fact2, Fact3, Fact4, Fact5,...
Advantages:
-The most common fact table design
-Possibly faster access
Disadvantages:
-Sparsity
-Not easy to extend

Do you agree or can add something?

TABLE DESIGN

Hi I have this business rule which makes my table design very complex(at least for me)
My application keeps track of all the patients who are admitted to the hospital with some diagnosis(disease) like TB,asthma,Heart attack etc.Also my application is suppose to keep track of any procedure (operations) like Heart transplant,heart surgery etc performed on the patients.Later,depending upon the diagnosis and procedure ,the patients are clubbed under one group (help is needed to create the table for this group).
To satisfy my requirements I create a the following tables
DIAGNOSIS
Diagnosis_code pk
Diagnosis_Desc
PROCEDURE
Procedure_Code pk
Procedure_Desc
Now I am confused on how to create the table for patient group.I mean if any patient is suffering from a diagnosis like heart attack and has undergone a procedure like Heart transplant then this kind of patient should be clubbed under the group say XYZ.Similarly if any patient is suffering from TB and has undergone a procedure like Kidney transplant then he should be clubbed under the group say ABC.In short for every patient in the hospital this table is read to club the patient under certain group.Example
PatientGroup1 SomeDiagnosisCode1 SomeDiagnosisCode2 SomeProcedureCode1
PatientGroup2 SomeDiagnosisCode1 SomeProcedureCode6
PatientGroup3 SomeDiagnosisCode8 SomeProcedureCode9 Some DiagnosisCode6
etc etc
Please help with the design of the Patient group table.
thanks
MS

Depends on a few factors ...
The most flexible (that I can think of right now) design would be as follows:
DIAGNOSIS
diag_id
diag_desc
PROSEDURE
proc_id
proc_desc
PATIENT
patient_id
patient_name
PATIENT_DIAG -- associates zero, one, or more diagnosis with a patient
patient_diag_id
patient_id
diag_id
PATIENT_PROC -- associates zero, one, or more procedures with a patient
patient_proc_id
patient_id
proc_id
DIAG_PROC_CAT -- identifies a Group
diag_proc_cat_id
diag_proc_cat_desc
DIAG_PROC_CAT_DIAG -- associates zero, one, or more diagnosis with a Group
diag_proc_cat_diag_id
diag_proc_cat_id
diag_id
DIAG_PROC_CAT_PROC -- associates zero, one, or more procedures with a Group
diag_proc_cat_proc_id
diag_proc_cat_id
proc_id
PATIENT_DIAG_PROC_CAT -- associates zero, one, or more Groups with a patient
patient_diag_proc_cat_id
patient_id
pdpc_precedence_nmbr -- (1=highest ... don't need it if you're only gonna allow one association)
diag_proc_cat_id
Put the business rule code in TRIGGERs for PATIENT_DIAG and PATIENT_PROC to INSERT appropriate values into PATIENT_DIAG_PROC_CAT ... INSERT proper rows into DIAG_PROC_CAT, DIAG_PROC_CAT_DIAG, and DIAG_PROC_CAT_PROC tables to support business rule (if patient has same diagnosis and procedures as a Group/Category, then assign that Group/Category to the patient ... if more than one applies, you may or may not allow it ... if you do, indicate which is primary if doubling on reports/ui is a bad thing) ... Users may modify DIAG_PROC_CAT, DIAG_PROC_CAT_DIAG, and DIAG_PROC_CAT_PROC tables as needed to manage their own Groups/Categories.
Good luck.

Table design question

Hello,
I have a quick question on a table design. I currently have a table that will store approval information on a report. The individual report will need to go through 3 levels of approval before it's considered final. I have considered a few different scenarios on how to design the table but I'm not sure on what is the best choice. Currently I'm using 3 columns that will store each approval. For example,
Table 1:
file_id,
subject,
summary,
division_approve,
program_approve,
group_approve
I thought about using one column and simply stepping through a higher numeric value for each approval but found that doesn't work if I want to view items that were approved only at the division_approve level. Does anyone else have any suggestions? Hopefully I provided enough information.....
Thanks in advance!
Randy

yes, better going for higher level of normalisation and desiging more tables:
tab_aproval ( id,File_id,Approval_authority,rank )
id      File_id Approval_level rank
1     1 first_level 1
2     1 second_level 2
3     1 third_level 3
4     2 first_level 1
5     2 second_level 2
tab_file_approval
file_id, subject, summary, id
1 'doc 1' 'first level done' 1
1 'doc 1' 'second level done' 2
1 'doc 1' 'third level done' 3

Alternative table name on client side

Hi,
i'm using java api for my publication and i have to use an alternative table name on client side. For example the table name on database back-end is 'EMP', but, the statement for the snapshot is "SELECT * FROM EMP" but i would like using another name on client side, not 'EMP'. The API doc does'not help me.
Thanks

I do not believe this is possible. When publishing you get an error if the publication item name is not found in the schema database.
More complicated, but would work, would be to create a view in your main schema create view v_emp as select * from emp
you can then use v_emp as the name, and this is what will be created on the client. Depending on the view complexity, you may need to create instead of ionsert/update/delete triggers for it, and in the publication item define the base tabe and PK values

Advise on Table design

Dear all,
I have a pool of data which are based organized has CATEGORY and SUB-CATEGORY. When I am configuring the database I should be able to define all categories at once, then being able to define which one is the Parent category of the others.
For exemple if I have a set of Dishes for a restaurant, then I can classify those dishes in different menu category which are then the Parents category for dishes.
Please note that a SUB-CATEGORY can have other sub categories attached.
To have a better idea of what I am trying to do is similar things when you create folders and sub folders on a file system. From the configuration side of the database I should be able to define my category and subcategories and then organize them by a link
ID or other stuff, in the same way I will organize folder.
What will be the best Database table design for that scenario ?
I am not a DBA, but have some basis so try to speak the same language as me :-)
Thanks for help
regards

I think you have it with your design. There are a few ways to represent a hierarchy in SQL, and having two tables like this:
CategoryID    CategoryName
ParentCategoryID
1001
Dishes          NULL
1002          Desserts
1001
1003          Icecream
1002
SubCategoryID    SubCategoryName
CategoryID
10001
Vanilla
1003
10002
Strawberry
1003
10003                   Butterscotch             1003
Make sense ONLY if you can guarantee a two level hierarchy (or a fixed number of levels, where you might have yet another table SubSubCategory). Having a fixed number of levels can make processing a ton easier because your queries can be written in
a straightforward manner because the levels of nodes in the tree remain the same.
Your requirements here:
"CATEGORY can have other sub categories attached."
Leads to the more flexible solution like you have set up:
CategoryID    CategoryName
ParentCategoryID
1001
Dishes          NULL
1002
Starters
1001
1003
Item1
1002
1004
SubCat1
1003
1005
SubCat2
1003
1006
SubCat3
1003
Because adding a subcategory on SubCat3 is as simple as:
1007          SubSubCat1
1006
Processing the hierarchy becomes an iterative process (using a recursive CTE) if you have needs to do a lot of aggregation on groups. There are techniques available to make things go faster than using this pattern in the implementation, but unless
you are going to need 1000s of nodes, then this pattern works great (known as the adjacency list, where you are basically storing the adjacent node in your tree).
Louis
Without good requirements, my advice is only guesses. Please don't hold it against me if my answer answers my interpretation of your questions.

Alternative table for M_ZPH22 in ECC 5 version

Hi,
The Dictionary structure or table "M_ZPH22" is either not active or does not exist in ECC 5 version but it was present in version 3.1I.
Can any one suggest the alternative table in ECC version
for table M_ZPH22.
Thanks
Sai

Hi,
This is a match code object.
The short text for M_ZPH22 is "<b>Generated view for matchcode ID ZPH2-2</b>"
Tables
T179 - Primary table
T179T - Secondary table
Join conditions
T179-Mandt = T179T-Mandt
T179-PRODH = T179T-PRODH
View fields
MANDT (T179)
PRODH (T179)
STUFE (T179)
VTEXT (T179T)
Thanks
Sai

Select from bkpf too heavy.Need alternative table

Hello, what are alternative tables i can use instead of bkpf?

Hi,
~ In BKPF select is S_BLART initial???
make sure u pass value to the S_BLART.
if not s_blart is initial.
SELECT bukrs belnr gjahr budat
FROM bkpf
INTO TABLE lt_bkpf
WHERE blart IN s_blart
AND budat LE p_date.
endif.
~ DELETE ADJACENT DUPLICATES FROM lt_bkpf COMPARING bukrs belnr gjahr.
This is not required as they are primary key fields and will ALWAYS have unique combination
~ p_date and s_umskz are selection screen fields. either they have value from the screen or empty.
in that case you dont u try this:
if not s_umskz is initial and not p_date is initial.
SELECT bukrs belnr gjahr buzei bschl umskz shkzg dmbtr kunnr zfbdt zterm zbd1t zbd2t zbd3t
FROM bseg
INTO TABLE gt_bseg
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN lt_bkpf
WHERE bukrs EQ lt_bkpf-bukrs
AND belnr EQ lt_bkpf-belnr
AND gjahr EQ lt_bkpf-gjahr
AND augdt GT p_date
AND koart EQ gc_d
AND umskz IN s_umskz
AND kunnr IN s_kunnr.
elseif p_date is initial.
SELECT bukrs belnr gjahr buzei bschl umskz shkzg dmbtr kunnr zfbdt zterm zbd1t zbd2t zbd3t
FROM bseg
INTO TABLE gt_bseg
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN lt_bkpf
WHERE bukrs EQ lt_bkpf-bukrs
AND belnr EQ lt_bkpf-belnr
AND gjahr EQ lt_bkpf-gjahr
AND augdt EQ gc_zero
AND koart EQ gc_d
AND umskz IN s_umskz
AND kunnr IN s_kunnr.
endif.

Alternating table design

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for