New answers tagged

4

The ordering is being done appropriately. The issue is that you're thinking that the Id and String types are equivalent to one another. If you disregard the last 3 characters of the Id, or change your a and b variables to be the appropriate type (i.e. Id, not String), then you'll see that your test returns the same result as the query that is, Id a < ...


0

The root cause involves two items. (1) The first 4-5 characters were never being cased correctly: This: toUpper.addAll(getBitPattern(String.valueOf(input.substring(15, 15)))); Should be: toUpper.addAll(getBitPattern(String.valueOf(input.substring(15, 16)))); (2) Previously the instance Id of the record id (4th of 5th characters according to the ...


2

After some research I found an answer and could execute the task: SELECT l.SubscriberKey, c.FirstName, c.EmailAddress FROM _ListSubscribers l WITH (NOLOCK) inner join Tb_Contact c on c.SubscriberKey = l.SubscriberKey WHERE l.ListName in ('List1', 'List2','List3') Maybe I will help others with the same question. Thanks.


0

If the field exists, and it is spelled properly, it is likely a permissions problem with the user running the query. Also, if you wish to just get the Id of the related record, you can just do Approver__c instead of Approver__r.Id for simplicity.


1

I have investigated in more details and apparently, if you perform a relationship query and then display the result using System.debug() method, it will not display the related object's values in the log, even if those values are not null.


2

See How Bulk Queries Are Processed for details, but basically, yes, if the result size exceeds 1GB, then they are split in to multiple results, each file being no larger than 1GB each.


7

This occurs because of an optimization during the "query planning" phase of a query. The query optimizer removes null values from filters on required fields. This optimization allows Salesforce to use standard indexes instead of a full table scan on those fields, which can improve performance by many orders of magnitude on large tables. If Salesforce fixed ...


0

Following up on Adrian's answer, if you want to use this in SOQL you need the API Name of the relation. Here is a generalized implementation of his solution: DescribeSObjectResult type = SobjectType.Account; String filter = 'Feed'; for (ChildRelationship relation : type.getChildRelationships()) { if (String.valueOf(relation).contains(filter)) ...


0

SELECT field1,field2 FROM [nameDE] WHERE PersonhasOptoutOfEmail = 0 . Can you try this? Also review, if your target DE is correct and available.


0

Hi Naveen thanks so much for your answer, very clear and helpful. I wonder if you can please clarify which activity should I select in the automation? Kind regards


0

You are on right direction, when you try to create a query you won't find the synchronise DE's in query. But still you can specify the syncronized data extension name (in your case its contact so it will be like 'contact_salesforce') and query the records. You can query it like : SELECT * FROM Contact_Salesforce If you are doing this from a child business ...


0

Not really answer to your question, but I found this pattern works well for past few years. I just dump all the fields into selector class/method. It's easy to do using Illuminated Cloud, just type [SEL*] and it will give you option to select object with all it's columns. Of course over time you need to add new fields there and some system fields can be ...


2

You have a custom class called User somewhere else in your code. This is what's causing that confusing error message. I recommend that you refactor to change the class name from User to something else. Alternatively, use Schema.User to get the correct object: Schema.User u = [SELECT Id, IsActive FROM User WHERE username = 'some username']; List<Schema....


0

I'd suggest to stage this into several queries in one automation. This may seem not "elegant" or whatever, but it will limit the operations to very simple ones. So (especially) if you don't feel proficient, keep it simple. I'll make it very sequential with four separate queries in an automation. once you get it to run you can then try and combine ...


Top 50 recent answers are included