I'm having trouble getting the correct query with sequelize.
I have an array representing ids of entries lets say its like this -
userVacationsIds = [1,2,3]
i made the first query like this
Vacation.findAll({
where: {
id: {
[Op.or]: userVacationsIds
}
}
})
.then(vacationSpec => {
Vacation.findAll({
where:{
//Here i need to get all entries that DONT have the ids from the array
}
}
})
I can't get the correct query as specified in my code "comment"
I've tried referring to sequelize documentation but i can't understand how to chain these queries specifically
Also tried an online converter but that failed too.
Specified the code i have above
So i just need some help getting this query correct please.
I eventually expect to get 2 arrays - one containing all entries with the ids from the array, the other containing everything else (as in id is NOT in the array)
I figured it out.
I feel silly.
This is the query that worked
Vacation.findAll({
where: {
id: {
[Op.or]: userVacationsIds
}
}
}).then(vacationSpec => {
Vacation.findAll({
where: {
id: {
[Op.notIn]: userVacationsIds
}
}
})
Related
I'm just learning FaunaDB and FQL and having some trouble (mainly because I come from MySQL). I can successfully query a table (eg: users) and fetch a specific user. This user has a property users.expiry_date which is a faunadb Time() type.
What I would like to do is know if this date has expired by using the function LT(Now(), users.expiry_date), but I don't know how to create this query. Do I have to create an Index first?
So in short, just fetching one of the users documents gets me this:
{
id: 1,
username: 'test',
expiry_date: Time("2022-01-10T16:01:47.394Z")
}
But I would like to get this:
{
id: 1,
username: 'test',
expiry_date: Time("2022-01-10T16:01:47.394Z"),
has_expired: true,
}
I have this FQL query now (ignore oauthInfo):
Query(
Let(
{
oauthInfo: Select(['data'], Get(Ref(Collection('user_oauth_info'), refId))),
user: Select(['data'], Get(Select(['user_id'], Var('oauthInfo'))))
},
Merge({ oauthInfo: Var('oauthInfo') }, { user: Var('user') })
)
)
How would I do the equivalent of the mySQL query SELECT users.*, IF(users.expiry_date < NOW(), 1, 0) as is_expired FROM users in FQL?
Your use of Let and Merge show that you are thinking about FQL in a good way. These are functions that can go a long way to making your queries more organized and readable!
I will start with some notes, but they will be relevant to the final answer, so please stick with me.
The Query function
https://docs.fauna.com/fauna/current/api/fql/functions/query
First, you should not need to wrap anything in the Query function, here. Query is necessary for defining functions in FQL that will be run later, for example, in the User-Defined Function body. You will always see it as Query(Lambda(...)).
Fauna IDs
https://docs.fauna.com/fauna/current/learn/understanding/documents
Remember that Fauna assigns unique IDs for every Document for you. When I see fields named id, that is a bit of a red flag, so I want to highlight that. There are plenty of reasons that you might store some business-ID in a Document, but be sure that you need it.
Getting an ID
A Document in Fauna is shaped like:
{
ref: Ref(Collection("users"), "101"), // <-- "id" is 101
ts: 1641508095450000,
data: { /* ... */ }
}
In the JS driver you can use this id by using documentResult.ref.id (other drivers can do this in similar ways)
You can access the ID directly in FQL as well. You use the Select function.
Let(
{
user: Get(Select(['user_id'], Var('oauthInfo')))
id: Select(["ref", "id"], Var("user"))
},
Var("id")
)
More about the Select function.
https://docs.fauna.com/fauna/current/api/fql/functions/select
You are already using Select and that's the function you are looking for. It's what you use to grab any piece of an object or array.
Here's a contrived example that gets the zip code for the 3rd user in the Collection:
Let(
{
page: Paginate(Documents(Collection("user")),
},
Select(["data", 2, "data", "address", "zip"], Var("user"))
)
Bring it together
That said, your Let function is a great start. Let's break things down into smaller steps.
Let(
{
oauthInfo_ref: Ref(Collection('user_oauth_info'), refId)
oauthInfo_doc: Get(Var("oathInfoRef")),
// make sure that user_oath_info.user_id is a full Ref, not just a number
user_ref: Select(["data", "user_id"], Var("oauthInfo_doc"))
user_doc: Get(Var("user_ref")),
user_id: Select("id", Var("user_ref")),
// calculate expired
expiry_date: Select(["data", "expiry_date"], Var("user_doc")),
has_expired: LT(Now(), Var("expiry_date"))
},
// if the data does not overlap, Merge is not required.
// you can build plain objects in FQL
{
oauthInfo: Var("oauthInfo_doc"), // entire Document
user: Var("user_doc"), // entire Document
has_expired: Var("has_expired") // an extra field
}
)
Instead of returning the auth info and user as separate points if you do want to Merge them and/or add additional fields, then feel free to do that
// ...
Merge(
Select("data", Var("user_doc")), // just the data
{
user_id: Var("user_id"), // added field
has_expired: Var("has_expired") // added field
}
)
)
I am having multiple nested where conditions and want to generate them without too much code duplication with typeORM.
The SQL where condition should be something like this:
WHERE "Table"."id" = $1
AND
"Table"."notAvailable" IS NULL
AND
(
"Table"."date" > $2
OR
(
"Table"."date" = $2
AND
"Table"."myId" > $3
)
)
AND
(
"Table"."created" = $2
OR
"Table"."updated" = $4
)
AND
(
"Table"."text" ilike '%search%'
OR
"Table"."name" ilike '%search%'
)
But with the FindConditions it seems not to be possible to make them nested and so I have to use all possible combinations of AND in an FindConditions array. And it isn't possible to split it to .where() and .andWhere() cause andWhere can't use an Object Literal.
Is there another possibility to achieve this query with typeORM without using Raw SQL?
When using the queryBuilder I would recommend using Brackets
as stated in the Typeorm doc: https://typeorm.io/#/select-query-builder/adding-where-expression
You could do something like:
createQueryBuilder("user")
.where("user.registered = :registered", { registered: true })
.andWhere(new Brackets(qb => {
qb.where("user.firstName = :firstName", { firstName: "Timber" })
.orWhere("user.lastName = :lastName", { lastName: "Saw" })
}))
that will result with:
SELECT ...
FROM users user
WHERE user.registered = true
AND (user.firstName = 'Timber' OR user.lastName = 'Saw')
I think you are mixing 2 ways of retrieving entities from TypeORM, find from the repository and the query builder. The FindConditions are used in the find function. The andWhere function is use by the query builder. When building more complex queries it is generally better/easier to use the query builder.
Query builder
When using the query build you got much more freedom to make sure the query is what you need it to be. With the where you are free to add any SQL as you please:
const desiredEntity = await connection
.getRepository(User)
.createQueryBuilder("user")
.where("user.id = :id", { id: 1 })
.andWhere("user.date > :date OR (user.date = :date AND user.myId = :myId)",
{
date: specificCreatedAtDate,
myId: mysteryId,
})
.getOne();
Note that depending on your used database the actual SQL that you use here needs to be compatible. With that could also come a possible draw back of using this method. You will tie your project to a specific database. Make sure to read up about the aliases for tables you can set if you are using relations this would be handy.
Repository
You already saw that this is much less comfortable. This is because the find function or more specific the findOptions are using objects to build the where clause. This makes is harder to implement a proper interface to implement nested AND and OR clauses side by side. There for (I assume) they have chosen to split AND and OR clauses. This makes the interface much more declarative and means the you have to pull your OR clauses to the top:
const desiredEntity = await repository.find({
where: [{
id: id,
notAvailable: Not(IsNull()),
date: MoreThan(date)
},{
id: id,
notAvailable: Not(IsNull()),
date: date
myId: myId
}]
})
I cannot imagin looking a the size of the desired query that this code would be very performant.
Alternatively you could use the Raw find helper. This would require you to rewrite your clause per field, since you will only get access to the one alias at a time. You could guess the column names or aliases but this would be very poor practice and very unstable since you cannot directly control this easily.
if you want to nest andWhere statements if a condition is meet here is an example:
async getTasks(filterDto: GetTasksFilterDto, user: User): Promise<Task[]> {
const { status, search } = filterDto;
/* create a query using the query builder */
// task is what refer to the Task entity
const query = this.createQueryBuilder('task');
// only get the tasks that belong to the user
query.where('task.userId = :userId', { userId: user.id });
/* if status is defined then add a where clause to the query */
if (status) {
// :<variable-name> is a placeholder for the second object key value pair
query.andWhere('task.status = :status', { status });
}
/* if search is defined then add a where clause to the query */
if (search) {
query.andWhere(
/*
LIKE: find a similar match (doesn't have to be exact)
- https://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_like.asp
Lower is a sql method
- https://www.w3schools.com/sql/func_sqlserver_lower.asp
* bug: search by pass where userId; fix: () whole addWhere statement
because andWhere stiches the where class together, add () to make andWhere with or and like into a single where statement
*/
'(LOWER(task.title) LIKE LOWER(:search) OR LOWER(task.description) LIKE LOWER(:search))',
// :search is like a param variable, and the search object is the key value pair. Both have to match
{ search: `%${search}%` },
);
}
/* execute the query
- getMany means that you are expecting an array of results
*/
let tasks;
try {
tasks = await query.getMany();
} catch (error) {
this.logger.error(
`Failed to get tasks for user "${
user.username
}", Filters: ${JSON.stringify(filterDto)}`,
error.stack,
);
throw new InternalServerErrorException();
}
return tasks;
}
I have a list of
{
date: specificCreatedAtDate,
userId: mysteryId
}
My solution is
.andWhere(
new Brackets((qb) => {
qb.where(
'userTable.date = :date0 AND userTable.type = :userId0',
{
date0: dates[0].date,
userId0: dates[0].type,
}
);
for (let i = 1; i < dates.length; i++) {
qb.orWhere(
`userTable.date = :date${i} AND userTable.userId = :userId${i}`,
{
[`date${i}`]: dates[i].date,
[`userId${i}`]: dates[i].userId,
}
);
}
})
)
That will produce something similar
const userEntity = await repository.find({
where: [{
userId: id0,
date: date0
},{
id: id1,
userId: date1
}
....
]
})
I am currently working on an application that uses MongoDB as the data repository. I am mainly concerned about the graphLookup query to establish links between different people, based on what flights they took. My document contains an array field, that in turn contains key value pairs. I need to establish the links based on one of the key:value pairs of that array.
I have already tried some queries of aggregation pipeline with $graphLookup as one of the stages and they have all worked fine. But now that I am trying to use it with an array, I am hitting a blank.
Below is the array field from the first document :
"movementSegments":[
{
"carrierCode":"MO269",
"departureDateTimeMillis":1550932676000,
"arrivalDateTimeMillis":1551019076000,
"departurePort":"DOH",
"arrivalPort":"LHR",
"departurePortText":"HAMAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT",
"arrivalPortText":"LONDON HEATHROW",
"serviceNameText":"",
"serviceKey":"BA007_1550932676000",
"departurePortLatLong":"25.273056,51.608056",
"arrivalPortLatLong":"51.4706,-0.461941",
"departureWeeklyTemporalSpatialWindow":"DOH_8",
"departureMonthlyTemporalSpatialWindow":"DOH_2",
"arrivalWeeklyTemporalSpatialWindow":"LHR_8",
"arrivalMonthlyTemporalSpatialWindow":"LHR_2"
}
]
The other document has the below field :
"movementSegments":[
{
"carrierCode":"MO269",
"departureDateTimeMillis":1548254276000,
"arrivalDateTimeMillis":1548340676000,
"departurePort":"DOH",
"arrivalPort":"LHR",
"departurePortText":"HAMAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT",
"arrivalPortText":"LONDON HEATHROW",
"serviceNameText":"",
"serviceKey":"BA003_1548254276000",
"departurePortLatLong":"25.273056,51.608056",
"arrivalPortLatLong":"51.4706,-0.461941",
"departureWeeklyTemporalSpatialWindow":"DOH_4",
"departureMonthlyTemporalSpatialWindow":"DOH_1",
"arrivalWeeklyTemporalSpatialWindow":"LHR_4",
"arrivalMonthlyTemporalSpatialWindow":"LHR_1"
},
{
"carrierCode":"MO270",
"departureDateTimeMillis":1548254276000,
"arrivalDateTimeMillis":1548340676000,
"departurePort":"DOH",
"arrivalPort":"LHR",
"departurePortText":"HAMAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT",
"arrivalPortText":"LONDON HEATHROW",
"serviceNameText":"",
"serviceKey":"BA003_1548254276000",
"departurePortLatLong":"25.273056,51.608056",
"arrivalPortLatLong":"51.4706,-0.461941",
"departureWeeklyTemporalSpatialWindow":"DOH_4",
"departureMonthlyTemporalSpatialWindow":"DOH_1",
"arrivalWeeklyTemporalSpatialWindow":"LHR_4",
"arrivalMonthlyTemporalSpatialWindow":"LHR_1"
}
]
And I am running the below query :
db.person_events.aggregate([
{ $match: { eventId: "22446688" } },
{
$graphLookup: {
from: 'person_events',
startWith: '$movementSegments.carrierCode',
connectFromField: 'carrierCode',
connectToField: 'carrierCode',
as: 'carrier_connections'
}
}
])
The above query creates an array field in the document, but there are no values in it. As per the expectation, both my documents should get linked based on the carrier number.
Just to be clear about the query, the documents contain an eventId field, and the match pipeline returns one document to me after the match stage.
Well, I don't know how I missed it, but here is the solution to my problem which gives me the required results :
db.person_events.aggregate([
{ $match: { eventId: "22446688" } },
{
$graphLookup: {
from: 'person_events',
startWith: '$movementSegments.carrierCode',
connectFromField: 'movementSegments.carrierCode',
connectToField: 'movementSegments.carrierCode',
as: 'carrier_connections'
}
}
])
With SQL we can do the following :
select * from x where concat(x.y ," ",x.z) like "%find m%"
when x.y = "find" and x.z = "me".
How do I do the same thing with MongoDB, When I use a JSON structure similar to this:
{
data:
[
{
id:1,
value : "find"
},
{
id:2,
value : "me"
}
]
}
The comparison to SQL here is not valid since no relational database has the same concept of embedded arrays that MongoDB has, and is provided in your example. You can only "concat" between "fields in a row" of a table. Basically not the same thing.
You can do this with the JavaScript evaluation of $where, which is not optimal, but it's a start. And you can add some extra "smarts" to the match as well with caution:
db.collection.find({
"$or": [
{ "data.value": /^f/ },
{ "data.value": /^m/ }
],
"$where": function() {
var items = [];
this.data.forEach(function(item) {
items.push(item.value);
});
var myString = items.join(" ");
if ( myString.match(/find m/) != null )
return 1;
}
})
So there you go. We optimized this a bit by taking the first characters from your "test string" in each word and compared the tokens to each element of the array in the document.
The next part "concatenates" the array elements into a string and then does a "regex" comparison ( same as "like" ) on the concatenated result to see if it matches. Where it does then the document is considered a match and returned.
Not optimal, but these are the options available to MongoDB on a structure like this. Perhaps the structure should be different. But you don't specify why you want this so we can't advise a better solution to what you want to achieve.
I have a collection in which documents are all in this format:
{"user_id": ObjectId, "book_id": ObjectId}
It represents the relationship between user and book, which is also one-to-many, that means, a user can have more than one books.
Now I got three book_id, for example:
["507f191e810c19729de860ea", "507f191e810c19729de345ez", "507f191e810c19729de860efr"]
I want to query out the users who have these three books, because the result I want is not the document in this collection, but a newly constructed array of user_id, it seems complicated and I have no idea about how to make the query, please help me.
NOTE:
The reason why I didn't use the structure like:
{"user_id": ObjectId, "book_ids": [ObjectId, ...]}
is because in my system, books increase frequently and have no limit in amount, in other words, user may read thousands of books, so I think it's better to use the traditional way to store it.
This question is not restricted by MongoDB, you can answer it in relational database thoughts.
Using a regular find you cannot get back all user_id fields who own all the book_id's because you normalized your collection (flattened it).
You can do it, if you use aggregation framework:
db.collection.aggregate([
{
$match: {
book_id: {
$in: ["507f191e810c19729de860ea",
"507f191e810c19729de345ez",
"507f191e810c19729de860efr" ]
}
}
},
{
$group: {
_id: "$user_id",
count: { $sum: 1 }
}
},
{
$match: {
count: 3
}
},
{
$group: {
_id: null,
users: { $addToSet: "$_id" }
}
}
]);
What this does is filters through the pipeline only for documents which match one of the three book_id values, then it groups by user_id and counts how many matches that user got. If they got three they pass to the next pipeline operation which groups them into an array of user_ids. This solution assumes that each 'user_id,book_id' record can only appear once in the original collection.