I am performing this raw sql query
SELECT postId, users.id as userId,users.firstName,users.lastName,users.avatar,COUNT(postId) as
numOfLikes,body
FROM posts
INNER JOIN likes ON likes.postId = posts.id
INNER JOIN users ON users.id = posts.userId
GROUP BY postId
ORDER BY postId DESC
through nodeJs sequelize ORM
Posts.findAll({
attributes: ['id','body','createdAt', [db.fn('count', db.col('likes.postId')), 'numOfLikes']],
include: [{ attributes: [], model: Likes,required:true, },{model:Users,required:true}],
group: ['id'],
order: [['id', 'DESC']]
})
I receive everything as it should be but cannot access numOfLikes object property (undefined)
{
"id": 18,
"body": "This show was organized.",
"createdAt": "2021-03-06T23:55:44.000Z",
"numOfLikes": 5,
"user": {
"id": 73,
"firstName": "Paolo",
"lastName": "Jovovic",
"email": "dzonnna#gmail.com",
"email_verified": "1",
"password": "$2b$10$6fLwPfuLP8Jfp7em0iqBm.YhznDut8AWOmUPynqecfd9YMvZBMaXq",
"google_id": null,
"avatar": "1_aZF6_EToO4T3ZeHXfgF-Vg.png",
"role": "0",
"createdAt": "2021-02-28T22:30:42.000Z",
"updatedAt": "2021-03-01T23:59:21.000Z"
}
}
I had this same issue - I was selecting certain attributes and the query was working correctly.
const books = await Book.findAll({
where: {status_id: [status[0].id, status[1].id]},
attributes: ["id", "cover", "title", "status_id", "created_at"],
order: [["_id", "DESC"]],
})
the object showed the value but when i tried to access it, it was always undefined.
dataValues: {
id: '9beb341c-a0fa-489d-8a32-c9ec28f0ab16',
cover: 'cover_500.jpg',
title: 'birth',
status_id: '8a5b8c46-b5ac-477a-b1c5-ca2210399e6c',
created_at: 2022-10-16T02:10:32.000Z
},
I should point out here that i've changed the name of createAt in the model
createdAt: {
field: "created_at",
type: Sequelize.DATE,
},
when trying to access the value with book.create_at or book.createAt both come back as undefined even though they are clearly on the object. this is a very strange behavior. since they are in the datavalues they should be accessible.
when I remove the attributes selection column and just return everything for the row, it magically works.
so the issue is either,
I changed the name in the model and there is some kind of issue / error in sequalize
There is just some kind of issue / error with sequalize access the datavalue
either way, you can grab the whole row and only return / build your object out of the columns you desire.
I switched the attributes to
attributes: ["id", "cover", "title", "status_id", "createdAt"],
and it is now letting me access the field with createdAt but still not created_at so the issue appears to be the renaming of the field along with the selection of attributes.
hope this helps someone until they can fix this.
Posts.findAll({
attributes: ['id', 'body', 'createdAt', [db.fn('count', db.col('likes.postId')), 'numOfLikes']],
include: [{ attributes: [], model: Likes, required: true, }, { model: Users, required: true }],
group: ['id'],
order: [['id', 'DESC']]
}).then(postList => {
postList = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(postList)) // This is important
postList.forEach(post => {
// access post
console.log(post, post.users)
});
})
Related
I am trying to count number of Followers and Followings of a user.
as followingCount and followerCount
User Model
User.init(
{
id: {
allowNull: false,
primaryKey: true,
type: DataTypes.UUID,
defaultValue: DataTypes.UUIDV4,
},
email: {
type: DataTypes.STRING,
},
password: {
type: DataTypes.STRING,
},
}
);
static associate(models) {
// Follow relationship
this.belongsToMany(models.User, {
through: 'UserFollow',
foreignKey: 'followerId',
as: 'following',
});
// Follow relationship
this.belongsToMany(models.User, {
through: 'UserFollow',
foreignKey: 'followeeId',
as: 'follower',
});
}
Where UserFollow is a Joint Table with columns followeeId and followerId.
My current approach for finding number of followings is something like this :
const user = await User.findOne({
where: {
id,
},
attributes: [
'id',
'userName',
'email',
[sequelize.fn('COUNT', sequelize.col('following->UserFollow.followeeId')), 'followingCount'],
],
include: [
{
model: User,
as: 'following',
attributes: ['id', 'userName', 'email'],
through: {
attributes: [],
},
},
],
group: ['User.id', 'following.id'],
});
return user;
And Output getting is like this:
Here I am getting followingCount as 1... but it should be 3.
"data": {
"id": "1af4b9ea-7c58-486f-a37a-e46461487b06",
"userName": "xyz",
"email": "xyz#gmail.com",
"followingCount": "1", <------ I want this to be 3
"following": [
{
"id": "484202b0-a6d9-416d-a8e2-6681deffa3d1",
"userName": "uqwheuo",
"email": "uqwheuo#gmail.com"
},
{
"id": "56c8d9b0-f5c6-4b2e-b32c-be6363294614",
"userName": "aiwhroanc",
"email": "aiwhroanc#gmail.com"
},
{
"id": "9a3e4074-c7a0-414e-8df4-cf448fbaf5fe",
"userName": "iehaocja",
"email": "iehaocja#gmail.com"
}
]
}
I am not able to count in Joint Table..
The reason that you are getting followingCount: 1 is that you group by following.id (followeeId). It only counts unique followeeId which is always 1.
Although, if you take out following.id from group, the SQL doesn't work any more. It will crash with "a column must appear in GROUP BY clause...". This is a common issue in Postgres and this link (https://stackoverflow.com/a/19602031/2956135) explains the topic well in detail.
To solve your question, instead of using group, you can use COUNT OVER (PARTITION BY).
const user = await User.findOne({
where: {
id,
},
attributes: [
'id',
'userName',
'email',
[Sequelize.literal('COUNT("following->UserFollow"."followeeId") OVER (PARTITION BY "User"."id")'), 'followingCount']
],
include: [
{
model: User,
as: 'following',
attributes: ['id', 'userName', 'email'],
through: {
attributes: [],
}
},
],
});
======================================================
Update:
The original query only fetch "following" relationship. In order to fetch followers of this user, you first need to add "follower" association.
Then, since 2 associations is added, we need to add 1 more partition by column to count exactly the followers or followees.
const followeeIdCol = '"following->UserFollow"."followeeId"';
const followerIdCol = '"follower->UserFollow"."followerId"';
const user = await User.findOne({
where: {
id,
},
attributes: [
'id',
'userName',
'email',
// Note that the COUNT column and partition by column is reversed.
[Sequelize.literal(`COUNT(${followeeIdCol}) OVER (PARTITION BY "Users"."id", ${followerIdCol})`), 'followingCount'],
[Sequelize.literal(`COUNT(${followerIdCol}) OVER (PARTITION BY "Users"."id", ${followeeIdCol})`), 'followerCount'],
],
include: [
{
model: User,
as: 'following',
attributes: ['id', 'userName', 'email'],
through: {
attributes: [],
}
},
{
model: User,
as: 'follower', // Add follower association
attributes: ['id', 'userName', 'email'],
through: {
attributes: [],
}
},
],
});
Is it possible to create an index of a value from a #relation type in FaunaDB? Here is the schema but I just cannot figure out how to create an index for what would be the data.testing.status value.
type TestType {
testing: Testing!
}
type Testing {
status: PaymentStatus!
testType: [TestType!] #relation
}
enum PaymentStatus {
PAID
UNPAID
}
I don't know if the enum is causing an issue? I can't find any documentation on this.
Here is the query:
Map(
Paginate(Match(Index("certificate_remittance_by_remittance"), "UNPAID")),
Lambda("ref", Get(Var("ref")))
)
and the relevant document data:
"ref": Ref(Collection("Certificate"), "302119834927235593"),
"ts": 1624382777140000,
"data": {
"remittance": Ref(Collection("Remittance"), "302119834830766601"),
}
and remittance document:
{
"ref": Ref(Collection("Remittance"), "302119834830766601"),
"ts": 1624382777140000,
"data": {
"status": "UNPAID",
"chequeNumber": "",
"remittanceOwed": 245,
"remittanceAmount": 245
}
}
Certainly.
The enum portion of your schema isn't causing an issue. If it were, you would not have been able to import the schema successfully.
With your provided schema, note that the GraphQL API has already created a relationship index for you:
Get(Index("testType_testing_by_testing"))
{
ref: Index("testType_testing_by_testing"),
ts: 1624315929200000,
active: true,
serialized: true,
name: "testType_testing_by_testing",
source: Collection("TestType"),
data: {
gql: {
ts: Time("2021-06-21T22:52:08.969203Z")
}
},
terms: [
{
field: ["data", "testing"]
}
],
unique: false,
partitions: 1
}
To add an index for the TestType collection, on the status field, you'd run:
CreateIndex({
name: "TestType_by_status",
source: Collection("TestType"),
terms: [
{ field: ["data", "status"] },
]
})
I'm having some trouble with FaunaDB Indexes. FQL is quite powerful but the docs seem to be limited (for now) to only a few examples/use cases. (Searching by String)
I have a collection of Orders, with a few fields: status, id, client, material and date.
My goal is to search/filter for orders depending on their Status, OPEN OR CLOSED (Boolean true/false).
Here is the Index I created:
CreateIndex({
name: "orders_all_by_open_asc",
unique: false,
serialized: true,
source: Collection("orders"),
terms: [{ field: ["data", "status"] }],
values: [
{ field: ["data", "unique_id"] },
{ field: ["data", "client"] },
{ field: ["data", "material"] },
{ field: ["data", "date"] }
]
}
So with this Index, I want to specify either TRUE or FALSE and get all corresponding orders, including their data (fields).
I'm having two problems:
When I pass TRUE OR FALSE using the Javascript Driver, nothing is returned :( Is it possible to search by Booleans at all, or only by String/Number?
Here is my Query (in FQL, using the Shell):
Match(Index("orders_all_by_open_asc"), true)
And unfortunately, nothing is returned. I'm probably doing this wrong.
Second (slightly unrelated) question. When I create an Index and specify a bunch of Values, it seems the data returned is in Array format, with only the values, not the Fields. An example:
[
1001,
"client1",
"concrete",
"2021-04-13T00:00:00.000Z",
],
[
1002,
"client2",
"wood",
"2021-04-13T00:00:00.000Z",
]
This format is bad for me, because my front-end expects receiving an Object with the Fields as a key and the Values as properties. Example:
data:
{
unique_id : 1001,
client : "client1",
material : "concrete",
date: "2021-04-13T00:00:00.000Z"
},
{
unique_id : 1002,
client : "client2",
material : "wood",
date: "2021-04-13T00:00:00.000Z"
},
etc..
Is there any way to get the Field as well as the Value when using Index values, or will it always return an Array (and not an object)?
Could I use a Lambda or something for this?
I do have another Query that uses Map and Lambda to good effect, and returns the entire document, including the Ref and Data fields:
Map(
Paginate(
Match(Index("orders_by_date"), date),
),
Lambda('item', Get(Var('item')))
)
This works very nicely but unfortunately, it also performs one Get request per Document returned and that seems very inefficient.
This new Index I'm wanting to build, to filter by Order Status, will be used to return hundreds of Orders, hundreds of times a day. So I'm trying to keep it as efficient as possible, but if it can only return an Array it won't be useful.
Thanks in advance!! Indexes are great but hard to grasp, so any insight will be appreciated.
You didn't show us exactly what you have done, so here's an example that shows that filtering on boolean values does work using the index you created as-is:
> CreateCollection({ name: "orders" })
{
ref: Collection("orders"),
ts: 1618350087320000,
history_days: 30,
name: 'orders'
}
> Create(Collection("orders"), { data: {
unique_id: 1,
client: "me",
material: "stone",
date: Now(),
status: true
}})
{
ref: Ref(Collection("orders"), "295794155241603584"),
ts: 1618350138800000,
data: {
unique_id: 1,
client: 'me',
material: 'stone',
date: Time("2021-04-13T21:42:18.784Z"),
status: true
}
}
> Create(Collection("orders"), { data: {
unique_id: 2,
client: "you",
material: "muslin",
date: Now(),
status: false
}})
{
ref: Ref(Collection("orders"), "295794180038328832"),
ts: 1618350162440000,
data: {
unique_id: 2,
client: 'you',
material: 'muslin',
date: Time("2021-04-13T21:42:42.437Z"),
status: false
}
}
> CreateIndex({
name: "orders_all_by_open_asc",
unique: false,
serialized: true,
source: Collection("orders"),
terms: [{ field: ["data", "status"] }],
values: [
{ field: ["data", "unique_id"] },
{ field: ["data", "client"] },
{ field: ["data", "material"] },
{ field: ["data", "date"] }
]
})
{
ref: Index("orders_all_by_open_asc"),
ts: 1618350185940000,
active: true,
serialized: true,
name: 'orders_all_by_open_asc',
unique: false,
source: Collection("orders"),
terms: [ { field: [ 'data', 'status' ] } ],
values: [
{ field: [ 'data', 'unique_id' ] },
{ field: [ 'data', 'client' ] },
{ field: [ 'data', 'material' ] },
{ field: [ 'data', 'date' ] }
],
partitions: 1
}
> Paginate(Match(Index("orders_all_by_open_asc"), true))
{ data: [ [ 1, 'me', 'stone', Time("2021-04-13T21:42:18.784Z") ] ] }
> Paginate(Match(Index("orders_all_by_open_asc"), false))
{ data: [ [ 2, 'you', 'muslin', Time("2021-04-13T21:42:42.437Z") ] ] }
It's a little more work, but you can compose whatever return format that you like:
> Map(
Paginate(Match(Index("orders_all_by_open_asc"), false)),
Lambda(
["unique_id", "client", "material", "date"],
{
unique_id: Var("unique_id"),
client: Var("client"),
material: Var("material"),
date: Var("date"),
}
)
)
{
data: [
{
unique_id: 2,
client: 'you',
material: 'muslin',
date: Time("2021-04-13T21:42:42.437Z")
}
]
}
It's still an array of results, but each result is now an object with the appropriate field names.
Not too familiar with FQL, but I am somewhat familiar with SQL languages. Essentially, database languages usually treat all of your values as strings until they don't need to anymore. Instead, your query should use the string definition that FQL is expecting. I believe it should be OPEN or CLOSED in your case. You can simply have an if statement in java to determine whether to search for "OPEN" or "CLOSED".
To answer your second question, I don't know for FQL, but if that is what is returned, then your approach with a lamda seems to be fine. Not much else you can do about it from your end other than hope that you get a different way to get entries in API form somewhere in the future. At the end of the day, an O(n) operation in this context is not too bad, and only having to return a hundred or so orders shouldn't be the most painful thing in the world.
If you are truly worried about this, you can break up the request into portions, so you return only the first 100, then when frontend wants the next set, you send the next 100. You can cache the results too to make it very fast from the front-end perspective.
Another suggestion, maybe I am wrong and failed at searching the docs, but I will post anyway just in case it's helpful.
My index was failing to return objects, example data here is the client field:
"data": {
"status": "LIVRAISON",
"open": true,
"unique_id": 1001,
"client": {
"name": "TEST1",
"contact_name": "Bob",
"email": "bob#client.com",
"phone": "555-555-5555"
Here, the client field returned as null even though it was specified in the Index.
From reading the docs, here: https://docs.fauna.com/fauna/current/api/fql/indexes?lang=javascript#value
In the Value Objects section, I was able to understand that for Objects, the Index Field must be defined as an Array, one for each Object key. Example for my data:
{ field: ['data', 'client', 'name'] },
{ field: ['data', 'client', 'contact_name'] },
{ field: ['data', 'client', 'email'] },
{ field: ['data', 'client', 'phone'] },
This was slightly confusing, because my beginner brain expected that defining the 'client' field would simply return the entire object, like so:
{ field: ['data', 'client'] },
The only part about this in the docs was this sentence: The field ["data", "address", "street"] refers to the street field contained in an address object within the document’s data object.
This is enough information, but maybe it would deserve its own section, with a longer example? Of course the simple sentence works, but with a sub-section called 'Adding Objects to Fields' or something, this would make it extra-clear.
Hoping my moments of confusion will help out. Loving FaunaDB so far, keep up the great work :)
I have been using dataTables+yacdf+select2 combination successfully for quite a while. Now I am working on converting my select2 to be an ordered indented drop-down list with optgroup selectable as well (https://select2.org/options, "Hierarchical options", Selectable optgroups in Select2).
However with yacdf I can not seem to pass data to select2 in the hierarchical format like the one below:
var data = [
{
"text": "Group 1",
"children" : [
{
"id": 1,
"text": "Option 1.1"
},
{
"id": 2,
"text": "Option 1.2"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Group 2",
"children" : [
{
"id": 3,
"text": "Option 2.1"
},
{
"id": 4,
"text": "Option 2.2"
}
]
}];
Previously the working code was:
.yadcf([{column_number: 1, filter_type: "multi_select", select_type: 'select2', filter_container_id: "someFilter2", filter_default_label: "Select xxx", filter_reset_button_text: false, style_class: "form-control",
select_type_options: {
multiple: 'multiple',
width: '100%',
placeholder: 'something',
},
data: [<comma separated list of values>]
yacdf source code states that:
Required: false
Type: Array (of string or objects)
Description: When the need of predefined data for filter is needed just use an array of strings ["value1","value2"....] (supported in select / multi_select / auto_complete filters) or array of objects [{value: 'Some Data 1', label: 'One'}, {value: 'Some Data 3', label: 'Three'}] (supported in select / multi_select filters)
Note: that when filter_type is custom_func / multi_select_custom_func this array will populate the custom filter select element
"
Is it really not possible?
If not anybody managed to get nested dropped down filters work with dataTables any other way?
You should use the data_as_is: true , read docs for more info
data_as_is
Required: false
Type: boolean
Default value: false
Description: When set to true, the value of the data attribute will be fed into the filter as is (without any modification/decoration).
Perfect to use when you want to define your own for the filter
Note: Currently supported by the select / multi_select filters
I am using dynamic grid using this plugin.
I want to make paging in it,
I tried like,
Ext.define('....', {
extend: 'Ext.data.Store',
pageSize: 10,
proxy: {
type: 'rest',
url: me.url,
reader: {
type: 'dynamicReader',
totalProperty: 'totalCount'
}
}
});
me.bbar = Ext.create('Ext.PagingToolbar', {
store: me.store,
displayInfo: true,
displayMsg: 'Displaying topics {0} - {1} of {2}',
emptyMsg: "No topics to display"
});
In DynamicGrid.js totalProperty is not working. Am I setting the property properly there?
Then I am also trying to make grouping in the same plugin.
I have a combobox with some fields and want to select grouping field from it dynamically. When I select a field in combo box, it sends that data to grid's groupField property.
I have that combo box value selected in controller like,
var groupData = Ext.ComponentQuery.query('#groupid')[0].getValue();
I am sending it to grid like,
Ext.define('Group', {
singleton: true,
param: groupData
});
I am getting that for grid property (in DynamicGrid.js) like,
groupField: [Group.param]
But this automatically selects first field for groupField property before even selecting anything in combo box and makes grouping, selecting other fields in combo box also doesn't work, it always has first field for grouping.
What is going wrong? Please help.
I did grouping successfully by adding the following code in listener,
me.store.group(Group.param);
Still having issues with totalProperty, can someone help me to make it work?
I think I am making a mistake, now actual JSON response is,
[{
"userId": 123,
"name": "Ed Spencer",
"email": "ed#sencha.com"
}]
So the code for getting data and manipulating works fine like,
readRecords: function(data) {
if (data.length > 0) {
var item = data[0];
var fields = new Array();
var columns = new Array();
var p;
for (p in item) {
if (p && p != undefined) {
fields.push({name: p, type: 'floatOrString'});
columns.push({text: p, dataIndex: p});
}
}
data.metaData = { fields: fields, columns: columns };
}
return this.callParent([data]);
}
But for sending other metaData properties, from the docs I should probably have the following JSON response,
{
"count": 1,
"ok": true,
"msg": "Users found",
"users": [{
"userId": 123,
"name": "Ed Spencer",
"email": "ed#sencha.com"
}],
"metaData": {
"root": "users",
"idProperty": 'userId',
"totalProperty": 'count',
"successProperty": 'ok',
"messageProperty": 'msg'
}
}
So how do I point root in the readReords function so that it knows data is in root?
Thereby I will have other metaData properties also passed.
Please help!