Hi all, I have this old Epicor ERP 10 Data Map V3.04 and was wondering if anyone may have a newer version.
Thanks all!
Epicor ERP E10 Data Map V3.04.pdf (3.7 MB)
6 Likes
I’ve never even seen THAT version before, let alone a more recent one! Nice.
Nice!
oh boy, this is the best document ever; I have it under my pillow and have it with me all the time
4 Likes
Y’all make some wild stuff there, huge jobs… how many subassemblies?
you may also like this one, a little bit old but I’m trying to get a newer one as well
Kinetic_2021.1.chm.zip (15.7 MB)
The schemas have good technical info but lack semantics. I have seen multiple posts here with people wondering why PartBinInfo has no records because they see it in the schema and make assumptions for its purpose. Items in the PatchFld table, which I didn’t see listed, often drive people crazy because values are stored but not shown in the schema. A useful document for sure, but it’s not cannon.
4 Likes
Also doesn’t indicate one to many or many to many right?
The ‘TranGLC Relationships’ section in particular is quite nice to have. I can’t rule out that it exists in regular documentation, but if it does it’s not reasonably possible to find (boldly stated hoping that I’ve jinxed it and someone will point out where it super obviously lives!).
Identifying the relationships could be a whole lot worse. sys.foreign_keys is no help, but BAQ default join info (Ice.QueryRelationField) can mostly patch that gap. Field naming is mostly consistent so tracking down the rest isn’t as tedious as it could be. A useful addition could be a reference to sys.default_constraints, sys.columns.is_nullable, and sys.types metadata for key fields, especially to flag where two sides of a key don’t match.
Visually arranging a complex relational map can be a soul devouring experience for normal people. If a hierarchical tabular model makes sense to those referencing it, then the visual model isn’t worth the effort, especially if it doesn’t identify key fields.
It would be nice to plonk the BAQ join map into hierarchical SQL so that much at least could be self maintaining. Easy enough for anyone if it’s just using the published tables. System catalog references wouldn’t be a show stopper for onsite users, definitely not officially supported for SaaS.
1 Like
not worthy of a 21-gun salute? Or not canon?
FAC
(AutocCorrect)
2 Likes