Effort using Outer join parent-child relationship

Similar Questions

• Add an object 3d without parent/child relationship.

  Hello

  I have a scene of 3d picture control, I have two objects in there, but when I created the scene I had to use the add object invoke node objects in the scene, so there is a parent/child relationship between the objects, which means that if I move the parent, I also move the child object. Is there a way to create a scene with several objects without the parent/child relationship.

  Thank you.

  -Luis

  Hello, I solved it by first moving the objects and then adding them to the scene. -Luis

• parent/child relationship hirarchy

  Hi everyone, consider the sample data

  SELECT LFROM '1TR1Y6', NULL LTO, MID '11ZFDD', '21XHK7' double UNION ALL TID-

  SELECT '1TR1YF' LFROM, LTO NULL, '11ZFDD' MI '21XHK5' TID FROM dual UNION ALL-

  SELECT '1TR1X1' LFROM, LTO NULL, '11ZFDD' MI '21XHK8' TID FROM dual UNION ALL-

  SELECT '1LSZX1' LFROM, LTO NULL, '11ZFDD' MI '1TR1YD' TID FROM dual UNION ALL-

  SELECT LFROM "1LSZWQ", "21XHK7" LTO, MID '11ZFDD', '1TR1Y6' TID FROM dual UNION ALL-

  SELECT LFROM "1LSZX2", "21XHK5" LTO, MID '11ZFDD', '1TR1YF' TID FROM dual UNION ALL-

  SELECT LFROM "1LSZVG", "21XHK8" LTO, MID '11ZFDD', '1TR1X1' TID FROM dual UNION ALL-

  SELECT LFROM "4LSSVG", "21XHK9" LTO "11AAA' MI '1TR1X1' TID double UNION ALL

  SELECT "AAAAA" LFROM, LTO NULL, '11ABB' e, 'CCCCCC' double UNION ALL TID

  SELECT "BATH" LFROM, 'CCCCCC' LTO, MID '11ABB', 'AAAAA' double UNION ALL TID

  some of them have a parent/child releationship. for example, let take rank with LFROM = 1TR1Y6

  1TR1Y6 (lfrom) corresponds to the fifth line with TID 1TR1Y6.  TID 1TR1Y6 LTO COLUMN value corresponds to the first line TID (21XHK7)

  It before these two LINES are IN a parent/child relationship.

  lets take another example.  LINE two WITH LFROM = 1TR1YF matches sixth RANK WITH TID 1TR1YF.  the sixth LINE LTO COLUMN (21XHK5) corresponds to the SECOND TID of LINE.

  Once again the parent child relationship. There are two lines that do not have the relationship of parent/child (ex.  line 8)

  Im trying to write a query that can partition the data in the middle column and find the parent/child relationship. the output of the above data should be

  LTO LFROM MIDDLE TID FLAG

  1TR1Y6 NULL 11ZFDD 21XHK7 1

  1LSZWQ 21XHK7 11ZFDD 1TR1Y6 1

  1TR1YF NULL 11ZFDD 21XHK5 1

  1LSZX2 21XHK5 11ZFDD 1TR1YF 1

  1TR1X1 NULL 11ZFDD 21XHK8 1

  1LSZVG 21XHK8 11ZFDD 1TR1X1 1

  1LSZX1 NULL 11ZFDD 1TR1YD 0

  4LSSVG 21XHK9 11AAA 1TR1X1 0

  ABDELKÉBIR 11ABB CCCCCC NULL 1

  CCCCCC 11ABB AAAAA BATH 1

  For simplicity, I posted the release with parent/child, side by side in the sequence.  the order does not matter as long as the flag column (pull the column) is set to an appropriate value (1 if parent/child, 0 no parent/child)

  the flag column value is derived from column to indicate the parent/child relationship was found.

  I try using lead, the lag function but I have problem of sorting data from parent and child line could come at random order (they are not side by side).

  It is therefore difficult to use lead because you don't know how many lines to carry forward.

  can someone help me write a query that displays the output above

  SELECT T1. LFROM,

  T1. LTO,

  T1. ENVIRONMENT,

  T1. TID,

  (

  SELECT COUNT (*)

  OF TBL T2

  WHERE)

  T2. TID = T1. LFROM

  OR

  T2. LFROM = T1. TID

  )

  AND T2. MI = T1. MID

  ) FLAG

  OF TBL T1

  /

  LTO LFROM MIDDLE TID FLAG
  ------ ------ ------ ------ ----------
  1LSZWQ 21XHK7 11ZFDD 1TR1Y6 1
  1LSZX2 21XHK5 11ZFDD 1TR1YF 1
  1LSZVG 21XHK8 11ZFDD 1TR1X1 1
  CCCCCC 11ABB AAAAA BATH 1
  1TR1X1 11ZFDD 21XHK8 1
  1TR1X1 11ZFDD 21XHK8 1
  1LSZX1 11ZFDD 1TR1YD 0
  1TR1Y6 11ZFDD 21XHK7 1
  ABDELKÉBIR 11ABB CCCCCC 1
  1TR1YF 11ZFDD 21XHK5 1
  4LSSVG 21XHK9 11AAA 1TR1X1 0

  11 selected lines.

  SQL >

  SY.

• using outer joins if the two column is null? Use only (+)

  Hi all

  create the table xxc_tr_num (tl_number number, tr_no number tl_no_id);

  insert into xxc_tr_num values (123,100,222);

  insert into xxc_tr_num values (124,100,333);

  create the table xxc_od_tab (tl_number number, tl_id number);

  insert into xxc_od_tab values (123,001);

  insert into xxc_od_tab values (null, null);

  create table xxc_oth_tab (name varchar2 (10), number of tl_id);

  insert into xxc_oth_tab values('abc',,001);

  insert into xxc_oth_tab values (null, null);

  Wait it out put

  tr_no tl_no_id name

  100 222 abc

  100 333

  using outer joins if the two column is null? use only please of outer joins

  And I tried to use outer joins on both tl_id column but not get values and I use have County (tr_no ) > 1

  Rajesh123 wrote:

  Thank you Kiss it is not possible to use having clause?

  You need to understand the functioning of the group. If you will not be asked this question.

  Check this box

  SQL> select tr_no,
    2         tl_no_id,
    3         count(*)
    4    from xxc_tr_num a,
    5         xxc_od_tab b,
    6         xxc_oth_tab c
    7   where a.tl_number = b.tl_number(+)
    8     and b.tl_id = c.tl_id(+)
    9   group
   10      by tr_no
   11       , tl_no_id;
  
       TR_NO   TL_NO_ID   COUNT(*)
  ---------- ---------- ----------
         100        333          1
         100        222          1
  

  See what returns the count? You have grouped according to TR_NO and TL_NO_ID. You must take into consideration the TL_NO_ID just put COUNT (TR_NO) does not increase the NUMBER of the whole group. To get the NUMBER on the whole group, I used the analytical function and did. Like this, see the number of the analytical function here

  SQL> select tr_no,
    2         tl_no_id,
    3         count(*),
    4         count(*) over(partition by tr_no)
    5    from xxc_tr_num a,
    6         xxc_od_tab b,
    7         xxc_oth_tab c
    8   where a.tl_number = b.tl_number(+)
    9     and b.tl_id = c.tl_id(+)
   10   group
   11      by tr_no
   12       , tl_no_id;
  
       TR_NO   TL_NO_ID   COUNT(*) COUNT(*)OVER(PARTITIONBYTR_NO)
  ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------------------------
         100        222          1                              2
         100        333          1                              2
  

  So to answer your question, yes you can't do in the HAVING clause...

• in the query and parent/child relationship

  WITH the data AS

  (

  SELECT '213NY1' lfrom, NULL, '215ZVD' mi lto, "215ZV9 ' id, 1 January 2014' sdate, January 2, 2014' edate, 3 January, 2014 'mdate' January 5, 2014 medate double UNION ALL.

  Lfrom SELECT NULL, '215ZVD' mi, id "213NY1", "215ZV9" lto 4 January 2014 'sdate', 6 January 2014 edate, January 7, 2014 'mdate', 8 January 2014 medate double UNION ALL

  SELECT '216TVZ' lfrom, NULL, "213JW7" e "217LVQ" id lto, 21 January, 2014 'sdate' January 9, 2014 edate, 10 January 2014 'mdate', 11 January 2014 medate double UNION ALL

  SELECT lfrom "215Y71", "217LVQ" lto, mi, "216TVZ" id "213JW7", 22 January, 2014 'sdate' January 23, 2014 edate, 24 January, 2014 'mdate' January 25, 2014 medate double UNION ALL

  SELECT '234IJF' lfrom, NULL, "234YU" e "3IUED" id lto, 26 January 2014 'sdate', 27 January 2014 edate, 28 January 2014 'mdate', 29 January 2014 medate OF double

  )

  some lines have parent/child relationship and some does not. for example, the first two query (data) are link together. online, the value of lto (215ZV9) corresponds to the id value

  in line 1.  the value of lfrom in row1 (213NY1) corresponds to the value of online id.

  the same scenario occurs in rows 3 and 4.  5th doesn't have any line which is a child. tier 5 is a single parent

  I want to WRITE a query that gives the following result.

  Mid id initial_date final_date

  =======================================

  215ZVD 215ZV9 1 January 2014 "January 5, 2014"

  "215ZVD 213NY1 7 January 2014" January 6, 2014 "

  "213JW7 217LVQ 21 January 2014 ' 11 January 2014"

  "213JW7 216TVZ 24 January 2014 ' 23 January 2014"

  "234YU 3IUED 26 January 2014 ' 27 January 2014"

  ONLY WHEN there is a parent/child relationship, initial DATE AND follow the final data WHAT such as

  FIRST date of deadline DATE

  < Mdate > < EDate > - for child

  < SDate > < MEDate > - for parent

  WHEN there is no relationship of parent/child (e.g. ONLY a parent ROW) THEN

  FIRST date of deadline DATE

  < SDate > < EDate-> parent

  can someone help me write a query for the above output

  with tt AS

  (SELECT a.*,

  ROW_NUMBER () ON LV (MIDDLE ORDER BY SDATE PARTITION),

  CASE

  WHEN ID = NVL (ADVANCE (lto, 1) OVER (PARTITION BY Middle ORDER BY sdate), LAG (lfrom) OVER (ORDER BY sdate Middle PARTITION))

  THEN 1

  END flg

  DATA one

  )

  SELECT THE MIDDLE,

  ID,

  CASE

  WHEN flg IS NOT NULL

  THEN

  CASE

  WHAT LV = 1

  THEN SDATE

  WHAT LV = 2

  THEN mDATE

  END

  Of ANOTHER sdate

  END INITIALDATE

  CASE

  WHEN flg IS NOT NULL

  THEN

  CASE

  WHAT LV = 1

  THEN mEDATE

  WHAT LV = 2

  THEN EDATE

  END

  Of ANOTHER edate

  END FINALDATE

  TT;

  Output:

  -------------

  MID ID INITIALDATE FINALDATE

  213JW7 217LVQ 21 January 2014 January 11, 2014

  213JW7 216TVZ 24 January 2014 23 January 2014

  215ZVD 215ZV9 January 1, 2014 5 January 2014

  215ZVD 213NY1 January 7, 2014 6 January 2014

  234YU 3IUED 26 January 2014 January 27, 2014

• Implementation of Parent / child relationships

  How to define a group of elements (symbols placed on the stage) as children of another element.  When I drag/select the Group of elements that are the children and drop them on top of the element that must be the parent, the relationship is not to be trained and the 'drop' is not currently permitted.

  I guess I must be watching older videos because the tutorials I have seen has indicated that dragging a layer on top of the other in the assets Panel would lead the moved element becomes the child of the element on which it was abandoned, but this doesn't seem to work.

  Thank you.

  Andy.

  Hi, Andy.

  Yes, it should work, but there are some types of items that may not be parents, like Text and Image divs.  You can try to draw a rectangle, then by dragging on it.  If this does not work, let us know so that we can begin to study more deeply.

  Thank you

  -Elaine

• Parent - child relationship constraint Unique 5.0 apex oracle

  Oky so I will try to avoid duplicate values get inserted in the parent-child node.

  So basically when there's a node parent (Mobile) I can't create same node with the same name.

  Even for the child node, if there is a child node name there may be another named A.

  Structure:

  Mobile (parent) /Android (Child) /KitKat (subchild) (allowed)

  Mobile/apple/ios(Now allowed Same Parent name)

  Win7/Windows/win7(not allowed same child)

  So a big child and the parent must be unique at any time.

  

  create an index of single "TEST_UK" on tablename (parent_id, upper (child_name));

  see this too for a case-insensitive unique constraint

  Case-insensitive unique constraint

• How to create parent/child relationships between objects? whereas if I change one, I change all

  I have multiple instances of an object, and I would like to make the changes that I put on one of these objects in order to perpetuate and change on the other instances of the object

  turn your object into a symbol and place several instances of it on the artboard when you edit the symbol of all instances will be updated.

• Simulate the 1 - N N - N relationship using the Parent-child structure

  Hello
  
  I have a 1-N relation between SKILL tables and the USER, which means 1 skill can be applied to multiple users. A jurisdiction may have a parent jurisdiction, which means that a ParentSkill inherits all the privileges of his child.
  
  I would like to simulate a N - N relation between the users and the skills by building a vision that goes through the parent-child relationship. This is possible for the construction?
  
  
  Current structure:

  |USERID | USERNAME | SKILLID  |
  +-------+----------+----------+
  |   1   |  Jack    |      1   |
  |   2   |  Simon   |      1   |
  |   3   |  Fred    |      3   |
  +-------+----------+----------+
  
  
  |SKILLID | DESCRIPTION   | PARENTSKILL  |
  +--------+---------------+--------------+
  |   1    |  Mechanic     |      2       |
  |   2    |  Inspector    |      3       |
  |   3    |  Supervisor   |      null    |
  +--------+---------------+--------------+

  Favorite exit (the skillid order is not important):

  |USERID | USERNAME | SKILLID  |
  +-------+----------+----------+
  |   1   |  Jack    |      1   |
  |   2   |  Simon   |      1   |
  |   3   |  Fred    |      3   |
  |   3   |  Fred    |      2   |
  |   3   |  Fred    |      1   |
  +-------+----------+----------+

  I hope that answers your needs:

  WITH
  users as
  (
      SELECT 1 as USERID, 'Jack' as USERNAME, 1 as SKILLID FROM DUAL UNION ALL
      SELECT 2 as USERID, 'Simon' as USERNAME, 1 as SKILLID FROM DUAL UNION ALL
      SELECT 3 as USERID, 'Fred' as USERNAME, 3 as SKILLID FROM DUAL
  ),
  skills as
  (
      SELECT SKILLID,CONNECT_BY_ROOT SKILLID AS ANCESTORS
      FROM
          (
              SELECT 1 as SKILLID, 'Mechanic' as DESCRIPTION, 2 as PARENTSKILL FROM DUAL UNION ALL
              SELECT 2, 'Inspector', 3 FROM DUAL UNION ALL
              SELECT 3, 'Supervisor', NULL FROM DUAL
          )
      CONNECT BY PRIOR PARENTSKILL = SKILLID
  )
  SELECT USERID,USERNAME,ANCESTORS
  FROM skills, users
  WHERE users.skillid = skills.skillid
  /
  

      USERID USERN  ANCESTORS
  ---------- ----- ----------
           1 Jack           1
           2 Simon          1
           3 Fred           3
           3 Fred           2
           3 Fred           1
  

  I hope this helps!

• show on a monthly basis, using the outer join

  Hello
  
  I use an example of emp table to describe my problem here
  
  I made a request that is group by hiredate months and showing the sum of wages.
  
  as follows,
  
  Select
  TO_DATE (to_char(HireDate,'MON-RRRR'), MON-RRRR), sum (sal)
  Of
  EMP
  Group by
  TO_DATE (to_char(HireDate,'MON-RRRR'), MON-RRRR)
  SQL > /.
  
  TO_DATE (T SUM (SAL)
  --------- ----------
  FEBRUARY 1ST, 10 21000
  MARCH 1, 10 30000
  MAY 1, 10 43000
  1ST JUNE 10 70000
  
  what I want is to show also the months too where any recruitment made
  as
  month sum (sal)
  January 1 10 0
  FEBRUARY 1ST, 10 21000
  MARCH 1, 10 30000
  April 1, 10 0
  MAY 1, 10 43000
  1st June 10 0
  1ST JUNE 10 70000
  August 1 10 0
  0 01-sept.-10
  1 October 10 0
  1 November 10 0
  1 December 10 0
  
  I've tried doing another table with month AND use outer join, but failed to get the result
  
  any ideas will be appreciated

  Change the following query accordingly as directed by your data

  Select
  ADD_MONTHS (to_date (January 1, 2001 "," dd-MON-RRRR'), level - 1) MonthName
  Of
  Double
  connect by level<=>

  It gives data for 2001
  If your emp table is to have 2010 data while it was being replaced by add_months (to_date (January 1, 2010 "," dd-MON-RRRR'), level - 1) MonthName

  Alexander gelin
  http://nimishgarg.blogspot.com

  Edited by: Caroline Geffroy 10 June 2010 18:11

• Right outer join

  There are four tables:
  
  Family
  Parent
  Child
  Grandchild
  
  Ideally, they have all documents, such as
  
  F1 - P1 - C1 - G1
  F2 - P2 - C2 - G2
  F3 - P3 - C3 - G3
  
  But sometimes,.
  
  F1 - P1 - C1 - null
  F2 - P2 - null - null
  F3 - P3 - null - null
  
  For the case of the latter, maybe I need to right outer join. If it's between two tables, the right outer join is easier. But among the four tables, inner family join parent, child of the outer join, then the big kid outer join. Maybe even this has been done? If an outer join in this case is not relevant, what other options are available?
  
  
  Thank you
  
  (ORACLE 11.2)

  Hello

  As Salomon, said

  FROM  p  LEFT  OUTER JOIN c
  

  means exactly the same thing that

  FROM  c  RIGHT OUTER JOIN p
  

  Everything you do with LEFT OUTER JOIN you could also do with RIGHT OUTER JOIN, and vice versa. If either one did not exist, you may do whatever you want with the other. In practice, it's just what's happening: most of the people always use LEFT OUTER JOIN and never use a RIGHT OUTER JOIN.

  You can have a series of outer joins cascading. If I understand your problem, a particular family may or may not have parents that belongs to him. If there are relatives, then you want to show the family with his parents to realteaed, but if there are no parents, so you want to show the family anyway. Similarly, you want to show parents whether or not they have children, and the children or not all my grandchildren are related to them. In general, which is written like this:

  ...
  FROM           family          f
  LEFT OUTER JOIN      parent          p    ON  p.family_id  = f.family_id
  LEFT OUTER JOIN      child          c    ON  c.parent_id  = p.parent_id
  LEFT OUTER JOIN      grandchild  g       ON  g.child_id   = c.child_id
  

  You can have a situation where (for example) a child is related to a family, but the child has no parent? In this case, you can still use LEFT OUTER JOIN, but join conditions would be different.

• Sum of a stand-alone parent-child table

  I have two tables - a 'key' table containing a parent-child relationship of multi-layer and a table 'amount' that contains the keys for the nodes in the key as well as table of numeric values (for example the amounts).
  I want a query that returns each line in the table of key as well as the sum of the amount amounts of the table for the set of nodes of this key (so the root node would be the sum of all values of quantity).
  
  Here's what I mean: I have two tables, the KEY and the AMOUNT
  
  KEY has two columns, keys, and parent_key; key and parent_key have a relationship CONNECT BY parent_key = prior key (with null for the root parent_key):

  KEY     PARENT_KEY
  0       null
  1       0
  2       0
  3       0
  1A      1
  2A      2
  2B      2
  3A      3
  3B      3
  3C      3
  1A1     1A
  1A2     1A
  2A1     2A
  2A2     2A
  2B1     2B
  3A1     3A
  3A2     3A
  3C1     3C
  3C2     3C

  AMOUNT a two columns, keys, and amount; key points to KEY.key and amount is a value for that particular key
  (Note that all key values are leaf nodes in the KEY table)

  KEY     AMOUNT
  1A1     1 
  1A2     2 
  2A1     3 
  2A2     4 
  2B1     5 
  3A1     6 
  3A2     7 
  3C1     8 
  3C2     9 

  What I want is a result that looks like this, where the amount of each key is the sum of the amounts of its possible keys sheet

  KEY     AMOUNT
  0       45
  1        3
  2       12
  3       30
  1A       3
  2A       7
  2B       5
  3A      13
  3B       0
  3C      17
  1A1      1
  1A2      2
  2A1      3
  2A2      4
  2B1      5
  3A1      6
  3A2      7
  3C1      8
  3C2      9

  For example, the value of the key 2 a, 7, is the sum of the values of 2 a 1 and a 2, 2; key value of 3 is the sum of 3 a 1, a 3, 2, 3, C 1 and 2 of 3.
  
  Is it possible to do this with a single query?
  The idea I came with is, do a select on the KEY with a "Key CONNECT_BY_PATH" column so that each line contains a string that contains the keys of all his ancestors and then do a join on AMOUNT with IN the CONNECT_BY_PATH amount.key column; However, with a large amount of data, it takes a little time. Is there a way faster / more obvious to achieve?

  OK you have almost everything you need. Outer join just your two tables, and then perform a hierarchical query, noting the key root of each tree. Then group the data set resulting:

  with t1 as (select '0' "KEY", '' parent_key from dual
    union all select '1', '0' from dual
    union all select '2', '0' from dual
    union all select '3', '0' from dual
    union all select '1A', '1' from dual
    union all select '2A', '2' from dual
    union all select '2B', '2' from dual
    union all select '3A', '3' from dual
    union all select '3B', '3' from dual
    union all select '3C', '3' from dual
    union all select '1A1', '1A' from dual
    union all select '1A2', '1A' from dual
    union all select '2A1', '2A' from dual
    union all select '2A2', '2A' from dual
    union all select '2B1', '2B' from dual
    union all select '3A1', '3A' from dual
    union all select '3A2', '3A' from dual
    union all select '3C1', '3C' from dual
    union all select '3C2', '3C' from dual
  ), t2 as (select '1A1' "KEY", 1 amount from dual
    union all select '1A2', 2 from dual
    union all select '2A1', 3 from dual
    union all select '2A2', 4 from dual
    union all select '2B1', 5 from dual
    union all select '3A1', 6 from dual
    union all select '3A2', 7 from dual
    union all select '3C1', 8 from dual
    union all select '3C2', 9 from dual
  ), t3 as (
    select t1.key, parent_key, amount
      from t1 left join t2 on t1.key = t2.key
  ), t4 as (
    select CONNECT_BY_ROOT key root_key
         , level lv
         , t3.*
      from t3
      connect by prior t3.key = parent_key
  )
  select root_key "KEY", sum(amount) amount
    from t4
   group by root_key
   order by length(root_key), root_key;
  

• Default filters that users can delete (in the parent/child Setup)?

  Is it possible in Latitude 2.2.2 to have filters (filters of the range, refinement filters etc.) applied by default (which means that users see these filters when they log-in), but they can also remove (using bread crumbs portlet) if they wanted to? We tried to use the source of data (JSON) filters (using 'baseFunctions' setting) where we have a parent/child Setup, but it seems these filters cannot be removed once applied. Note that filters can be removed if we do not have a parent/child relationship between the data sources, but as soon as we introduce a parent/child relationship between the data sources (which we need), the GET of sticky filters and cannot be deleted. Any reason why the parent/child relationship causes the filters becoming sticky? Any way (alternate) to reach what we want?

  I think that it is a known problem (LSTUDIO-5088) and there could be a fix for this. You can contact technical support to obtain the fix.

  Dave

• You can force BI outer join in w/o logical SQL Anwser in the Advanced tab

  In the repository of BI, we Protocol, region, Site of Protocol, Dimension of the object and a table of facts containing the physical tables Protocol, region, site and subject as a source in MDB.
  
  The relationship is that a protocol can have 0, n regions, region 0, n sites and a site 0, n subject, with the fact table of the region contains Protocol WID and done Site contains the Protocol and Feds region, subject is contains the Protocol, the region and Site Feds.
  
  In reporting on the Protocol and the region, BI users would like to have all the protocols appear in the report, without worrying if a protocol contains regions or not. Even as the Protocol-region-Site reports, etc. I can create these reports with SQL logic in the Advanced tab to force BI joins external Protocol, region or Site, etc.. However, users of BI would be difficult to write these SQLs.
  
  It seems to me that BI server always uses an inner join in the SQLs generated when the user selects the attributes of Protocol, region and Sites, etc. I played with constant implicit approach.
  
  I know that I can use outer join to define the logic Table Source in the layer of MDB. Would this tangle Protocol, region and site, tables etc. in MDB? What is the best practice to the MDB template when you want compatible outer join?
  
  Is there a way to force the BI server to generate outer join in the answers?
  
  Thanks in advance,
  
  Shi-ning

  Joins using external in the layer MDB is not recommended because it brings in the tables in the query and also impact performance. The right way to handle this scenario is the ETL.

  Add a record to the dimension tables with 0 for the ROW_WID and NULL values for the rest of the columns
  All of fact records without valid WID values for the dimension of research must have a value of 0 instead
  Now when we try to do an INTERNAL JOIN between the fact and any dimension, even those made documents that donot have a valid WID value will also be part of the result. It is essentially an OUTER JOIN operation.

• Fusion of data/result defines what are parent/child?

  Hello:
  
  I have seen a few examples to make a data model so that a BI report can have master-detail data. They are a set of Q1 data and a set of T2 data with a variable binding to connect the two in a parent/child relationship.
  
  But what I need, it is actually a UNION. I have the same table on multiple instances of database and I want to show the results grouped in a single report, as if it all happened to a table. Examples of master-detail have a section defining the grouping but they group Q1 (see here)
  
  http://blogs.Oracle.com/BIDeveloper/data_template/
  
  and I need to regroup in a column in Q1 and Q2 to "merge" the two sets of data.
  
  Does anyone do this?
  
  Thank you.

  If you define multiple SQL-queries/data models data sets, you can combine them into a single set of data by selecting the concatenated SQL Data Source.

  Choose concatenate them box, concatenation will result in the union.

  RTF again, you can use the two dataset and display as a single table.