Data lookup tables incorrectly setup - how best to correct?

[Sam Ogden]

Hi All,

I've recently watched the video on the learning portal for the new licence model that is in place for Madrid release onwards.  With this now having a licence limit on the number of custom tables, I've started the process before we look to upgrade to get a grasp on how our instance is looking.

As part of this I've noticed we have several custom tables that are used for data lookup that have not been created extending the 'dl_matcher' table.  From what I understand data lookup tables will be exempt from the licence implications, but these are detected by being extended from 'dl_matcher'.

I wanted to know the best practice method to get our data lookups setup correctly to make sure we are not taking up licences where they are not needed.

We have a subcategory lookup table with a reference field on our incident table to this table.

All I can think is we will need to create a new subcategory lookup table being correctly extended from 'dl_matcher' table.  Populate this with the same data.  Create a new subcategory field on the incident table.  Run a fix script to copy the correct subcategory to the new field, then I can delete the old field and old lookup table.

Is there an easier/simpler method that won't involve me creating a new field/table?

Thanks

Sam

[Michael Fry1]

We're basically doing the same thing. We use the subcategory field on incident as the master list. One place to change everywhere in system, then we use one set of lookup rules, and multiple lookup definitions. Works great.

[Sam Ogden]

Hi Michael,

So my option of:

All I can think is we will need to create a new subcategory lookup table being correctly extended from 'dl_matcher' table.  Populate this with the same data.  Create a new subcategory field on the incident table.  Run a fix script to copy the correct subcategory to the new field, then I can delete the old field and old lookup table.

This is the best/only option to get around this issue?

Most of the lookup tables that have the issue were created by our implementation partner as part of their packaged product, and from what I can tell potentially pre-date the 'dl_matcher' table being part of the platform.  Obviously this has not caused us any problems to date, but poses a significant issue once we upgrade to Madrid due to this change in Licence structure - unless I've misunderstood how the exempt tables will be determined ?

Thanks

Sam

[Michael Fry1]

Do you need multiple lookup tables? We use one for everything, hence me asking, but do have multiple definitions.

[Sam Ogden]

Hi Michael,

So on your single lookup table what do you have on there? I'm open to condensing the number of lookup tables we have if that is better practice.

We currently have separate lookup tables for standard incident things for:

• Category
• Sub category
• resolution code

We also have a couple more unique to our business such as a squad functional area, a job title lookup, a few for our finance team which are used across other areas of the platform.

My main concern is the best way to move these to the correct setup of the lookup tables without losing any data on our current records.