The biggest problem we have with ODBC is security in the multi-company
setup. If they have access to one company's numbers, they have access to
them all. Though I can limit a report to one company, it means having 5
iterations of the report all on the menu, with separate security groups
for each company, in order to keep them out of each other's data. (Is
there a better way to do this?) For us, the biggest gain is in security
and multi-company function. If I keep our queries from bringing up the
entire database every time through filtering, BAQ's are reasonably fast,
and I can use Vantage's security to control access to data. (Don't have
to try and control from the database- that's a lot of work...)
If there's a better way, please share.
Thanks!
- leAnn
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of brucewbrannan
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:01 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: BAQ vs ODBC reports
That is correct. The more key fields you link between tables the faster
queries should execute.
For my two cents, I use ODBC very often. I have lots of Crystal Reports
based on BAQs but there are times when I need to build more complex
queries than I can figure out how to handle in Crystal. I use Microsoft
Access with ODBC and love it. From my experience it is MUCH faster than
BAQs and Crystal Reports.
Most recently I've been using MS Access and it's Pivot Chart Wizard for
job metrics and trending. I linked Project, JobHead and JobOper and made
a query pulling all the fields I needed (with a prompt like "Project
Starts With: " or you will get all projects and jobs). I created a Pivot
Chart using the wizard. You get a blank chart and your field list. Drag
your OpCode to the X and drop EstHours and ActualHours in the middle of
the chart. Suddenly you have a comparison of estimated and actual hours
grouped by OpCode for an entire project. You can drop the JobNum right
next to the OpCode field and further break it down by Job. If you have
too many jobs then you can click any field you've added and
select/deselect items such as jobs. If you want to filter by open/closed
jobs you can drop the JobClosed field at the very top of the page and
then select True of False. Or you can turn on/off certain OpCodes. You
can even select a single job and drop the OperSeq ! field next to
JobNum. Play around with it and you'll see how powerful it is.
I've often read, "Stay away from ODBC!" but I don't know who started
that rumor. ODBC for us is a very viable and powerful tool.
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"bw2868bond" <bwalker@...> wrote:
index of the 'description' type on that field speeds lookups. I have
also seen/heard you should always use the company field in table
links....
(UD01.Character10 = PartLot.LotNum) no-lock .
Behalf Of
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
pzggdL3MOzb9O!qqzaPoCz0rV0j1AIkJyVMAI1jSF4rfTg==> to report this email
as spam.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
setup. If they have access to one company's numbers, they have access to
them all. Though I can limit a report to one company, it means having 5
iterations of the report all on the menu, with separate security groups
for each company, in order to keep them out of each other's data. (Is
there a better way to do this?) For us, the biggest gain is in security
and multi-company function. If I keep our queries from bringing up the
entire database every time through filtering, BAQ's are reasonably fast,
and I can use Vantage's security to control access to data. (Don't have
to try and control from the database- that's a lot of work...)
If there's a better way, please share.
Thanks!
- leAnn
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of brucewbrannan
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:01 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: BAQ vs ODBC reports
That is correct. The more key fields you link between tables the faster
queries should execute.
For my two cents, I use ODBC very often. I have lots of Crystal Reports
based on BAQs but there are times when I need to build more complex
queries than I can figure out how to handle in Crystal. I use Microsoft
Access with ODBC and love it. From my experience it is MUCH faster than
BAQs and Crystal Reports.
Most recently I've been using MS Access and it's Pivot Chart Wizard for
job metrics and trending. I linked Project, JobHead and JobOper and made
a query pulling all the fields I needed (with a prompt like "Project
Starts With: " or you will get all projects and jobs). I created a Pivot
Chart using the wizard. You get a blank chart and your field list. Drag
your OpCode to the X and drop EstHours and ActualHours in the middle of
the chart. Suddenly you have a comparison of estimated and actual hours
grouped by OpCode for an entire project. You can drop the JobNum right
next to the OpCode field and further break it down by Job. If you have
too many jobs then you can click any field you've added and
select/deselect items such as jobs. If you want to filter by open/closed
jobs you can drop the JobClosed field at the very top of the page and
then select True of False. Or you can turn on/off certain OpCodes. You
can even select a single job and drop the OperSeq ! field next to
JobNum. Play around with it and you'll see how powerful it is.
I've often read, "Stay away from ODBC!" but I don't know who started
that rumor. ODBC for us is a very viable and powerful tool.
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"bw2868bond" <bwalker@...> wrote:
>that when making queries against the 'character' fields, that creating a
> Just some quick observations....
> We use UD table for Manufacturer Part Number info in V8 and I found
index of the 'description' type on that field speeds lookups. I have
also seen/heard you should always use the company field in table
links....
>"mmcwilliams22" <mmcwilliams22@> wrote:
> bw
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >= FALSE AND UD01.Date02 = UD01.Date20) no-lock , each PartLot where
> > Here is an example, when I test the query it just hangs:
> >
> > for each UD01 where ( UD01.Character01 <> 'SHIP' AND UD01.CheckBox10
(UD01.Character10 = PartLot.LotNum) no-lock .
> >"Charlie Wilson" <foamdesigncsw@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > >100000000000000000000
> > > You may not have your query wrong and it's returning
> > > rows which would make it run slow. BAQ dumps out to an XML file sotry to
> > > skinny the data down as much as possible in the BAQ. Get as muchfiltering
> > > in the BAQ as you can.[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~Charlie
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Behalf Of
> > > mmcwilliams22using BAQ
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:56 AM
> > > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [Vantage] BAQ vs ODBC reports
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I always see everyone on here posting about not using ODBC and
> > > reports instead. I find the BAQs to be 100 times slower than ODBC.Am I
> > > setting up something wrong maybe. I have a crystal report I amtrying to
> > > convert to BAQ report. When running via ODBC it returns data inunder 5
> > > seconds, but I am sitting here and it is well over 2 minutes toreturn the
> > > BAQ data.Click here
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
pzggdL3MOzb9O!qqzaPoCz0rV0j1AIkJyVMAI1jSF4rfTg==> to report this email
as spam.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]