Table to Table Attribute check problem...

[SteveSalas]

Perhaps I am exceeding what this check can do.  Here is my scenario:

• I have a polygon feature class showing where chemicals have been sprayed.  One of the attributes is the type of chemical - for this example, I am looking for fertilizers.
• There is a separate table for reporting the type of fertilizer.  There is an integer key to establish a relate between the two tables - but there is NOT a geodatabase relationship class...

What I want to find with Data Reviewer are polygons where the chemical type is fertilizer, but there is not a related record in the fertilizer table, or if the record in the fertilizer table has Null in the fertilizer type field.

Is this possible?  I seem to be able to use Table to Table to find records in the polygon feature class that have a matching record in the fertilizer table where they type isn't Null, but am unable to get Data Reviewer to find chemical polygons representing fertilizer spraying that do not have corresponding records in the fertilizer table.  And yes, I know about the "Not - find rows that do not match" option!    Does anyone have similar example that they have implemented?

ArcGIS 10.2.0, ArcSDE 10.1 on Oracle 11.2

Thanks!

[MichelleJohnson]

You are describing a very common scenario for the Table to Table Attribute check.  When you configured the Compare Attributes section, did you use "integer key" = "integer key" and use the Not option?

[SteveSalas]

Talked to ESRI Support and my problem was that I was checking versioned SDE data with the CHANGED_FEATURES option...  in that case I need to check "Always Run on Full Database" under "Feature or Object Class 2" (my fertilizer table) otherwise if all the user did was make a change to the polygon shape, it would not find a fertilizer table record because that fertilizer record was was not also updated.  Here is my current check and it has tested out fine:

[MichelleJohnson]

Yes, that makes sense to use the Always Run on Full Database option on Object Class 2 when running on changed features only.  So now it's working for you, right?  I'm glad you shared your findings.