Split row in two rows (Table with too many columns)

Hello,
I have a small problem. I have a table with several columns. As all the columns do not fit with the correct width, the format is very ugly. Since leaving all data in a row is very small, I like to cut a line into two, namely:
- For example if I have a table with 10 columns, I would leave in the first row 7 columns (for that look good data) and the next row only the remaining 3 columns. Thus each row of the original table, occupy two rows on the form.
Thank you very much beforehand

hello
thanks for the reply, will be very helpful.
Regarding links to examples, I do not relate to this problem, these are not correct, you must have confused the link.
thanks!

Similar Messages

ALV: Problem in exporting to excel with too many columns

Hi,
While exporting from ALV report to excel following issue was faced:
ALV report contains 81 columns out of which 67 columns are displayed properly but from 68th column onwards data is dispalyed on next row
I want all columns displayed on single row..
Any help will greatly appreciated..
Thanks,
Deepak

Hi Deepak,
I was browsing through these threads to find anwer for the same issue.
So thought of putting my analysis which helped me resolve my problem.
Analysis/Solution:
When we export ALV data to excel worksheet, as sap notes say the maximum lenght allowed is 1023 charaters and the max no of columns supported is 90.
(I never faced any issue related to no of columns as it worked fine for columns >90 too)
Issue occured when row size of exported data gets more than 1023 character.
Therefore the row data must not exceed 1023 character, otherwise column splits and moves to next row.
One additional aspect generally missed is that:
When data in any particular column changes it's length, alv header also changes its lengh (short text, medium text, long text; depending on the length of of the longest cell in the column)
therefore even if you have total length of row less than 1023 character, there might be cases when your ALV header size exceeds this length.
Hopefully it will be helpful for you too.
Regards,
Parveen

Table has too many columns for one pg in InDesign document. How do I force a break?

I have imported an Excel table into my InDesign document. The table is 598 columns wide. Obviously this isn't fitting on one page. I want it to just keep flowing from page to page, keeping one same column at the beginning of each page (like "freeze panes" does in Excel) but it's not doing that. Is this possible in my InDesign document or will I have to manually copy and paste 10 columns at a time, which is about how many are fitting on one page? Any searches I do on this subject just talk about flowing rows but nothing about columns.

As far as I know there's probably no way ID is going to do what you want.
You can place a table across a multiple page spread, but the odds of being able to do that and still keep the file printable are marginal, at best. You can't for example, leave blank space at the gutters unless you are able to add a blank column that spans the gutter, and the limt for multipage spreads is 10 pages wide, whcih doesn't sound like it's probably enough to hold almost 600 columns.
Perhaps placing the table using named ranges of appropriate widths would work...

Tabular form: too many columns

What can I do with too many columns in a tabular form? I tried modifying the report template behind and put </tr><tr> inside column template, but I'm unable to find current's loop column number. This would work if after every 3rd column in a report I could do the </tr><tr> thing.
Substitution string #COLNUM# doesn't work in this particular template field.

Hi "prpi",
What do you want to achieve? Have less columns?
Or see them on the next row?
You can use javascript to show/hide columns. Have a look here: http://htmldb.oracle.com/pls/otn/f?p=11933:46:7060485099466175
Hope that helps,
Dimitri
-- http://dgielis.blogspot.com

Too many columns to be shown in the Enterprise Manager 11g?

Hello,
we are having some problems with the Enterprise Manager 11g. When we want to VIEW DATA of a specific table, we get this exception. We think that our table has too many columns to be displayed. If we delete some of the columns, the data is shown in the enterprise manager. But this cannot be a solution for us. Can you help us with this point?
2009-08-03 10:07:04,210 [EMUI_10_07_04_/console/database/schema/displayContents] ERROR svlt.PageHandler handleRequest.639 - java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: -128
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: -128
     at oracle.sysman.emo.adm.DBObjectsMCWInfo.getSqlTimestampIndexes(DBObjectsMCWInfo.java:194)
     at oracle.sysman.emo.adm.schema.TableViewDataBrowsingDataSource.executeQuery(TableViewDataBrowsingDataSource.java:167)
     at oracle.sysman.emo.adm.DatabaseObjectsDataSource.populate(DatabaseObjectsDataSource.java:201)
     at oracle.sysman.emo.adm.DatabaseObjectsDataSource.populate(DatabaseObjectsDataSource.java:151)
     at oracle.sysman.emo.adm.schema.DisplayContentsObject.populate(DisplayContentsObject.java:369)
     at oracle.sysman.db.adm.schm.DisplayContentsController.onDisplayAllRows(DisplayContentsController.java:303)
     at oracle.sysman.db.adm.schm.DisplayContentsController.onDisplayContents(DisplayContentsController.java:290)
     at oracle.sysman.db.adm.schm.DisplayContentsController.onEvent(DisplayContentsController.java:136)
     at oracle.sysman.db.adm.DBController.handleEvent(DBController.java:3431)
     at oracle.sysman.emSDK.svlt.PageHandler.handleRequest(PageHandler.java:577)
     at oracle.sysman.db.adm.RootController.handleRequest(RootController.java:205)
     at oracle.sysman.db.adm.DBControllerResolver.handleRequest(DBControllerResolver.java:121)
     at oracle.sysman.emSDK.svlt.EMServlet.myDoGet(EMServlet.java:781)
     at oracle.sysman.emSDK.svlt.EMServlet.doGet(EMServlet.java:337)
     at oracle.sysman.eml.app.Console.doGet(Console.java:318)
     at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:743)
     at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:856)
     at com.evermind.server.http.ResourceFilterChain.doFilter(ResourceFilterChain.java:64)
     at oracle.sysman.eml.app.EMRepLoginFilter.doFilter(EMRepLoginFilter.java:109)
     at com.evermind.server.http.EvermindFilterChain.doFilter(EvermindFilterChain.java:15)
     at oracle.sysman.db.adm.inst.HandleRepDownFilter.doFilter(HandleRepDownFilter.java:153)
     at com.evermind.server.http.EvermindFilterChain.doFilter(EvermindFilterChain.java:17)
     at oracle.sysman.eml.app.BrowserVersionFilter.doFilter(BrowserVersionFilter.java:122)
     at com.evermind.server.http.EvermindFilterChain.doFilter(EvermindFilterChain.java:17)
     at oracle.sysman.emSDK.svlt.EMRedirectFilter.doFilter(EMRedirectFilter.java:102)
     at com.evermind.server.http.EvermindFilterChain.doFilter(EvermindFilterChain.java:17)
     at oracle.sysman.eml.app.ContextInitFilter.doFilter(ContextInitFilter.java:336)
     at com.evermind.server.http.ServletRequestDispatcher.invoke(ServletRequestDispatcher.java:627)
     at com.evermind.server.http.ServletRequestDispatcher.forwardInternal(ServletRequestDispatcher.java:376)
     at com.evermind.server.http.HttpRequestHandler.doProcessRequest(HttpRequestHandler.java:870)
     at com.evermind.server.http.HttpRequestHandler.processRequest(HttpRequestHandler.java:451)
     at com.evermind.server.http.HttpRequestHandler.serveOneRequest(HttpRequestHandler.java:218)
     at com.evermind.server.http.HttpRequestHandler.run(HttpRequestHandler.java:119)
     at com.evermind.server.http.HttpRequestHandler.run(HttpRequestHandler.java:112)
     at oracle.oc4j.network.ServerSocketReadHandler$SafeRunnable.run(ServerSocketReadHandler.java:260)
     at com.evermind.util.ReleasableResourcePooledExecutor$MyWorker.run(ReleasableResourcePooledExecutor.java:303)
     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:595)When we select the table via SQL, everything works fine.

Hi,
I'm Galit from the QE team of VIN.
All the things that you've described are correct.
It is actually an edge case where the only VM, that the manual App can be managed from its Map view, was removed from the App.
The Manual App management is as designed, and may be changed in the future.
There are 2 ways to overcome this situation:
1.You can, as you stated, create another Manual App with similar name and remain with the "Zombie App".
2. To run a specific command that will remove the Zombie App from the DB.
Please note that option no. 2 involves using an API that we do not publish.
If you would like to use option no. 2 contact me in private and we will see about supplying the relevant commands to run in order to delete the "zombie" application.
Thanks,
Galit Gutman

Access 2010 table has too many fields for web database - how to split into two web-compatible tables?

Hello,
I'm in the process of converting an Access 2010 database into a web database and I'm having some trouble. I have a table which has 236 fields, which is more than the 220 field limit for web-compatible tables. I have tried to split this table into two tables
with a one-to-one relationship, but web tables can only use lookups as relationships. I've tried to connect the tables with a lookup and then synthesize a one-to-one relationship by using data macros but I'm not having much luck.
I realize that 236 fields is a lot, but it must be set up this way because each field represents a tasks and is a yes/no box to verify that the task has been completed - and the records are different employees for whom which the tasks need to be completed.
Could someone please help me figure out a way to make this table web compatible?
Thank you,
Ryan

Hi,
I found that you've cross post the quesion on our Answer forum, are you satisfiled the reply from there?
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/office/forum/office_2010-access/access-2010-table-has-too-many-fields-for-web/06ee81ea-24ab-48b8-9b8f-0ed08a868bac
Regards,
George Zhao
TechNet Community Support

Joining two fact tables with different dimensions into single logical table

Hi Gurus,
I try to accomplish in Oracle Business Intelligence 11.1.1.3.0:
F1 (D1, D2 and D3)
F2 (D1 and D2 and D4)
And we want to build a report F1 F2 D1 D2 D3 D4 to have data for:
F1 that match only for D1-D2-D3
and data for
F2 that match only D1-D2-D4
all that in one row, so D3 and D4 are not common dimensions.
I can only do:
F3 (D1, D2)
F4 (D1, D2 and D4)
And report
F3 F4 D1,D2,D4 (all that in one row, and only D4 is not a common dimension)
Here is the very good example how to accomplish the scenario 1
http://108obiee.blogspot.com/2009/08/joining-two-fact-tables-with-different.html
But looks like it does not work in 11.1.1.3.0
I get
State: HY000. Code: 10058. [NQODBC] [SQL_STATE: HY000] [nQSError: 10058] A general error has occurred. [nQSError: 43113] Message returned from OBIS. [nQSError: 14025] No fact table exists at the requested level of detail: [,,Clients,,Day,ROI,,,,EW_Names,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]. (HY000)
I am sure I set up everything correctly as advised in the blog but it works with only one not a common dimension
Is it a bug in 11.1.1.3.0 or something?
Thanks,
Kate

Thanks for all your replies.
Actually, I've tried the solutions you guys mentioned. Generally speaking, the result should be displayed. However, my scenario is a little bit tricky.
table Y's figures are not the aggregation of table X for D dimension. Instead, table Y's figures include not only D dimension total, but also others (others do not mean A, B, C dimension). For example, table Y stores all food's figure, while table X stores only drink's figure. D dimension is only about drink's detail. In my scenario, other foods' figure is not provided.
So, even if I set D dimension to all/total for table X, table X's result is still not the same as table Y.
Indeed, table Y does not have a column key to join to D dimension's key. So, if I select D dimension and table Y's measures at the same time in BI Answer, result returns no data. Hence, I can't compare table X and table Y's results with selection of D dimension.
Is there any solution to solve this problem?
Edited by: TomChan on Jun 3, 2009 9:36 AM

Cartesian of data from two tables with no matching columns

Hello,
I was wondering – what’s the best way to create a Cartesian of data from two tables with no matching columns in such a way, so that there will be only a single SQL query generated?
I am thinking about something like:
for $COUNTRY in ns0: COUNTRY ()
for $PROD in ns1:PROD()
return <Results>
<COUNTRY> {fn:data($COUNTRY/COUNTRY_NAME)} </COUNTRY>
<PROD> {fn:data($PROD/PROD_NAME)} </PROD>
</Results>
And the expected result is combination of all COUNTRY_NAMEs with all PROD_NAMEs.
What I’ve noticed when checking query plan is that DSP will execute two queries to have the results – one for COUNTRY_NAME and another one for PROD_NAME. Which in general results in not the best performance ;-)
What I’ve noticed also is that when I add something like:
where COUNTRY_NAME != PROD_NAME
everything is ok and there is only one query created (it's red in the Query plan, but still it's ok from my pov). Still it looks to me more like a workaround, not a real best approach. I may be wrong though...
So the question is – what’s the suggested approach for such queries?
Thanks,
Leszek
Edited by xnts at 11/19/2007 10:54 AM

Which in general results in not the best performanceI disagree. Only for two tables with very few rows, would a single sql statement give better performance.
Suppose there are 10,000 rows in each table - the cross-product will result in 100 million rows. Sounds like a bad idea. For this reason, DSP will not push a cross-product to a database. It will get the rows from each table in separate sql statements (retrieving only 20,000 rows) and then produce the cross-product itself.
If you want to execute sql with cross-products, you can create a sql-statement based dataservice. I recommend against doing so.

Performance between two partitionned tables with different structure

Hi,
I would like if there is a difference between two partitionned tables with different structure in term of performance (access, query, insertions, updates ).
I explain myself in detail :
I have a table that stores one value every 10 minutes in a day (so we have 144 values (24*6) in the whole day), with the corresponding id.
Here is the structure :
| Table T1 |
+ id PK |
+ date PK |
+ sample1 |
+ sample2 |
+ ... |
+ sample144 |
The table is partionned on the column date, with a partionned every months. The primary key is based on the columns (id, date).
There is an additionnal index on the column (id) (is it useful ?).
I would like to know if it is better to have a table with just (id, date, value) , so for one row in the first table we'll have 144 rows in the future? table. The partition will already be on the columns (id, date) with the index associated.
What are the gains or loss in performance with this new structure ( access, DMLs , storage ) ?
I discuss with the Java developers and they say it is simpler to manage in their code.
Oracle version : Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.3.0 - 64bit Production
Thanks & Regards
From France
Oliver
Edited by: 998239 on 5 avr. 2013 01:59

I mean storage in tablespaces and datafiles on disk.
Can you justify please and give me concrete arguments why the two structures are equivalent ( except inserting data in T(id, date,value))
because i have to make a report.i didnt say any thing like
two structures are equivalent ( except inserting data in T(id, date,value)i said
About structure : TABLE1(id, date, value) is better than TABLE1(id, date, sample1, .... sample144)because
1) oracle has restriction for numbers of column. Ok you can have 144 columns now but for future if you must have more than 1000 columns , what will you do?
2) Restrictions on Table Compression (Table compression is not supported for tables with more than 255 columns.)
3) store same type values on diffrent columns is bad practise
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/schema.htm#i4383
i remember i seen Toms article about this but now i cant find it sorry ((( if i found i will post here

Importing a table with a BLOB column is taking too long

I am importing a user schema from 9i (9.2.0.6) database to 10g (10.2.1.0) database. One of the large tables (millions of records) with a BLOB column is taking too long to import (more that 24 hours). I have tried all the tricks I know to speed up the import. Here are some of the setting:
1 - set buffer to 500 Mb
2 - pre-created the table and turned off logging
3 - set indexes=N
4 - set constraints=N
5 - I have 10 online redo logs with 200 MB each
6 - Even turned off logging at the database level with disablelogging = true
It is still taking too long loading the table with the BLOB column. The BLOB field contains PDF files.
For your info:
Computer: Sun v490 with 16 CPUs, solaris 10
memory: 10 Gigabytes
SGA: 4 Gigabytes

Legatti,
I have feedback=10000. However by monitoring the import, I know that its loading average of 130 records per minute. Which is very slow considering that the table contains close to two millions records.
Thanks for your reply.

Get the Common from Two Internal Tables with same structure

Hi ,
I need to get the Common data from Two Internal Tables with same structure with using the looping method.
For e.g.
I have two internal table say ITAB1 and ITAB2.
ITAB1 has values A,B,C,D,E,F
ITAB2 has values A,H,B,Y,O
Output at runtime should be : A,B

Hi mohit,
1. If u want to compare all fields,
   for matching purpose,
   then we can do like this.
2.
report abc.
data : a like t001 occurs 0 with header line.
data : b like t001 occurs 0 with header line.
loop at a.
LOOP AT B.
    IF A = B.
      WRITE :/ 'SAME'.
    ENDIF.
endloop.
ENDLOOP.
regards,
amit m.

Tablespace with too many extents are evil for performance

I think the tablespace with too many extents are not bad for performance after introduction of LMT tablespace?? May be true with DMT tablespace(earlier versions). This is just observation after reading the LMT vs DMT tablespaces.
Experts - Please comment on your thoughts.

Indeed, I work in an environment where there is over 50 databases to be administered and so we have lots of DBAs interacting with each other.
I'm stunned by this myth of "reorganization". Most of the DBAs move tables + rebuild indexes regularly generating huge redo on a monthly basis. Also provoking indexes to do all the splits again generating even more redo. They claim "it helps performance a lot" however not one is able to quantify and quite justify it other than "less extents less I/O, good". Even when I bring up the existence of shrink they say "do not like it, prefer the classic move". People really have a way of holding on to their good ol' practices of Oracle 8i.
For full table scans (which should never be done on a OLTP scenario) this extent issue would be relevant IF data on the table is the victim of large deles and Oracle hasn't re-used that space yet. If your multiblock reads is a multiple of your extent size, than there won't be any overhead of I/O call, no matter the number of your extents. For OLTP this is not relevant because Oracle will access the table via ROWID.
I rarely have ever seen an index benefit from a rebuild significantly. In my experience what people often understand as "index fragmentation" is often just an unoptimized execution plan due to cardinality issues where oracle ends up fetching a large percentage of the table via single reads on that index.

Difference between an XMLType table and a table with an XMLType column?

Hi all,
Still trying to get my mind around all this XML stuff.
Can someone concisely explain the difference between:
create table this_is_xmltype_tab of xmltype;and
create table this_is_tab_w_xmltpe_col(id number, document xmltype);What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach? How do they really differ?
Thanks,
-Mark

There is another pointer Mark, that I realized when I was thinking about the differences...
If you would look up in the manual regarding "xdb:annotations" you would learn about a method using an XML Schema to generate out of the box your whole design in terms of physical layout and/or design principles. In my mind this should be the preferred solution if you are dealing with very complex XML Schema environments. Taking your XML Schema as your single point design layout, that during the actual implementation automatically generates and builds all your needed database objects and its physical requirements, has great advantages in points of design version management etc., but...
...it will create automatically an XMLType table (based on OR, Binary XML of "hybrid" storage principles, aka the ones that are XML Schema driven) and not AFAIK a XMLtype column structure: so as in "our" case a table with a id column and a xmltype column.
In principle you could relationally relate to this as:
+"I have created an EER diagram and a Physical diagram, I mix the content/info of those two into one diagram." "Then I _+execute+_ it in the database and the end result will be an database user/schema that has all the xxxx amount of physical objects I need, the way I want it to be...".+
...but it will be in the form of an XMLType table structure...
xdb:annotations can be used to create things like:
- enforce database/company naming conventions
- DOM validation enabled or not
- automatic IOT or BTree index creation (for instance in OR XMLType storage)
- sort search order enforced or not
- default tablenames and owners
- extra column or table property settings like for partitioning XML data
- database encoding/mapping used for SQL and binary storage
- avoid automatic creation of Oracle objects (tables/types/etc), for instance, via xdb:defaultTable="" annotations
- etc...
See here for more info: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e10492/xdb05sto.htm#ADXDB4519
and / or for more detailed info:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e10492/xdb05sto.htm#i1030452
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e10492/xdb05sto.htm#i1030995
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e10492/xdb05sto.htm#CHDCEBAG
...

I have been blocked from my own ITunes songs because my apple ID associated with too many devices

I cannot access songs from my own iTunes Apple ID because it says my iPhone has been associated with too many devices. I have to wait 90 days to access my own songs on my iPhone. Here is what happend:
1-Our family moved. So, with the address change, the credit cards on all of the apple ID's would no longer work because the other users had our old address. (I have 4 users in the family).
2-My family started calling me while I was out of town complaining that purchases were rejected. This was because our address had changed and it no longer matched.
3-I tried to walk them thru the process of changing the home address on the credit card, but they couldn't do it. They assured me that they were doing it correctly and were still rejected.
4-So, being the techie of the family, I simply logged into each of their iTunes accounts from my iPhone while I was out of town and made the address change. While I was in their accounts, I noticed they didn't have automatic downloads and iTunes match and stuff. So, I changed it so it would work for them when they logged back in.
5-I go back to log into my own account on my iphone and I cannot access my own songs on the iTunes cloud for 90 days!!!! This is quite disappointing.
How can I get this corrected? I tried to reset user settings (not a erase and reset). I figure it's not my phone, but my iTunes account thinks I'm doing something sharing-wise.
So, in summary, when I am on my iPhone and I go to my iTunes library and click on a song (that I have paid for) with the cloud and down arrow beside it, it's rejected. It says that I have too many apple id's associated with this device and I must wait 90 days. It counts down each day.
I just want access to the music I paid FOR!!

Thank you-I will contact support.
No, I cannot wait 90 days.
Let me restate what I have to endure, even though I own the music and have paid for iTunes Match:
I cannot access my purchases-zero-at all
I have to listen to never ending McDonald's latte commercials and progressive insurance. I have now banned both of those annoying businesses and will not make purchases there.
In summary, I have given apple my minded, and have zero to show for it.
Ps-you get to hear the McDonald's "love hate commercial" every 2 songs on iTunes Radio. I have substituted the words where I hate McDonald's and love when the commercial is over.

What index is suitable for a table with no unique columns and no primary key

alpha
beta
gamma
col1
col2
col3
100
1
-1
a
b
c
100
1
-2
d
e
f
101
1
-2
t
t
y
102
2
1
j
k
l
Sample data above and below is the dataype for each one of them
alpha datatype- string
beta datatype-integer
gamma datatype-integer
col1,col2,col3 are all string datatypes.
Note:columns are not unique and we would be using alpha,beta,gamma to uniquely identify a record .Now as you see my sample data this is in a table which doesnt have index .I would like to have a index created covering these columns (alpha,beta,gamma) .I
beleive that creating clustered index having covering columns will be better.
What would you recommend the index type should be here in this case.Say data volume is 1 milion records and we always use the alpha,beta,gamma columns when we filiter or query records
what index is suitable for a table with no unique columns and primary key?
col1
col2
col3
Mudassar

Many thanks for your explanation .
When I tried querying using the below query on my heap table the sql server suggested to create NON CLUSTERED INDEX INCLUDING columns ,[beta],[gamma] ,[col1]
,[col2] ,[col3]
SELECT [alpha]
,[beta]
,[gamma]
,[col1]
,[col2]
,[col3]
FROM [TEST].[dbo].[Test]
where [alpha]='10100'
My question is why it didn't suggest Clustered INDEX and chose NON clustered index ?
Mudassar

Split row in two rows (Table with too many columns)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for