I have A -> AB <- B many to many relationship between 2 ManagedObjects (A and B), where AB is the junction table.
When querying A from db, how do i join B values to AB joint objects?
Query<A> query = await Query<A>(context)
..join(set: (a) => a.ab);
It gives me a list of A objects which contains AB joint objects, but AB objects doesn't include full B objects, but only b.id (not other fields from class B).
Cheers
When you call join, a new Query<T> is created and returned from that method, where T is the joined type. So if a.ab is of type AB, Query<A>.join returns a Query<AB> (it is linked to the original query internally).
Since you have a new Query<AB>, you can configure it like any other query, including initiating another join, adding sorting descriptors and where clauses.
There are some stylistic syntax choices to be made. You can condense this query into a one-liner:
final query = Query<A>(context)
..join(set: (a) => a.ab).join(object: (ab) => ab.b);
final results = await query.fetch();
This is OK if the query remains as-is, but as you add more criteria to a query, the difference between the dot operator and the cascade operator becomes harder to track. I often pull the join query into its own variable. (Note that you don't call any execution methods on the join query):
final query = Query<A>(context);
final join = query.join(set: (a) => a.ab)
..join(object: (ab) => ab.b);
final results = await query.fetch();
Related
I have two queries that select records where a union needs to be taken, one of which is a left join and one of which is a regular (i.e. inner) join.
Here's the left join case:
def regularAccountRecords = for {
(customer, account) <- customers joinLeft accounts on (_.accountId === _.accountId) // + some other special conditions
} yield (customer, account)
Here's the regular join case:
def specialAccountRecords = for {
(customer, account) <- customers join accounts on (_.accountId === _.accountId) // + some other special conditions
} yield (customer, account)
Now I want to take a union of the two record sets:
regularAccountRecords ++ specialAccountRecords
Obviously this doesn't work because in the regular join case it returns Query[(Customer, Account),...] and in the left join case it returns Query[(Customer, Rep[Option[Account]]),...] and this results in a Type Mismatch error.
Now, If this were a regular column type (e.g. Rep[String]) I could convert it to an optional via the ? operator (i.e. record.?) and get Rep[Option[String]] but using it on a table (i.e. the accounts table) causes:
Error:(62, 85) value ? is not a member of com.test.Account
How do I work around this issue and do the union properly?
Okay, looks like this is what the '?' projection is for but I didn't realize it because I disabled the optionEnabled option in the Codegen. Here's what your codegen extension is supposed to look like:
class MyCodegen extends SourceCodeGenerator(inputModel) {
override def TableClass = new TableClassDef {
override def optionEnabled = true
}
}
Alternatively, you can use implicit classes to tack this thing onto the generated TableClass yourself. Here is how that would look:
implicit class AccountExtensions(account:Account) {
def ? = (Rep.Some(account.id), account.name).shaped.<>({r=>r._1.map(_=> Account.tupled((r._2, r._1.get)))}, (_:Any) => throw new Exception("Inserting into ? projection not supported."))
}
NOTE: be sure to check the field ordering, depending on how this
projection is done, the union query might put the ID field in the wrong
place in the output, use
println(query.result.statements.headOption) to debug the output
SQL to be sure.
Once you do that, you will be able to use account.? in the yield statement:
def specialAccountRecords = for {
(customer, account) <- customers join accounts on (_.accountId === _.accountId)
} yield (customer, account.?)
...and then you will be able to unionize the tables correctly
regularAccountRecords ++ specialAccountRecords
I really wish the Slick people would put a note on how the '?' projection is useful in the documentation beyond the vague statement 'useful for outer joins'.
The title is self-explanatory. Using 2.0.0-M3, I'd like to avoid unnecessary verbosity is the form of explicitly naming the columns to be joined on, since they are appropriately named, and since NATURAL JOIN is part of the SQL standard. Not to mention, Wikipedia itself even says that "The natural join is arguably one of the most important operators since it is the relational counterpart of logical AND."
I think the foregoing ought to be clear enough, but just if not, read on. Suppose I want to know the supplier-name and part-number of each part. Assuming appropriate case classes not shown:
class Suppliers(tag: Tag) extends Table[Supplier](tag, "suppliers") {
def snum = column[String]("snum")
def sname = column[String]("sname")
def * = (snum, sname) <> (Supplier.tupled, Supplier.unapply _)
}
class Shipments(tag: Tag) extends Table[Shipment](tag, "shipments") {
def snum = column[String]("snum")
def pnum = column[String]("pnum")
def * = (snum, pnum) <> (Shipment.tupled, Shipment.unapply _)
}
val suppliers = TableQuery[Suppliers]
val shipments = TableQuery[Shipments]
Given that both tables have the snum column I want to join on, seems as if
( suppliers join shipments ).run
ought to return a Vector with my desired data, but I get a failed attempt at an INNER JOIN, failing (at run-time) since it's missing any join condition.
I know I can do
suppliers.flatMap( s => shipments filter (sp => sp.snum === s.snum) map (sp => (s.sname, sp.pnum)) )
but, even without the names of all the columns I omitted for clarity of this question, it's still quite a lot more typing (and proofreading) than simply
suppliers join shipments
or, for that matter
SELECT * FROM suppliers NATURAL JOIN shipments;
If the Scala code is messier than the SQL code, then I really start questioning things. Is there no way simply to do a natural join in Slick?
Currently not supported by Slick. Please submit a ticket or pull request.
To improve readability of query code, you can put your join conditions into re-usable values. Or you can put the whole join in a function or method extension of Query[Suppliers,Supplier].
Alternatively you could look at the AutoJoin pattern (which basically makes your join conditions implicit) described here http://slick.typesafe.com/docs/#20130612_slick_vs_orm_scaladays_2013 and implemented here https://github.com/cvogt/play-slick/blob/scaladays2013/samples/computer-database/app/util/autojoin.scala
I have Three tables A, B, and C. A is a parent table with mutiple child records in B and C.
When I query into A I am getting too many records, as though FNH is doing a Cartesian product.
My query is of the form:
var list = session.Query<A>()
.Fetch(a=> a.Bs)
.Fetch(a=> a.Cs)
Where Bs is the IList property of A, and Cs is the IList property of A.
I should get only as many Bs as relate to A, and only as many Cs relate to A. Instead I get BxC elements of each.
Is there a better way to load these? I am pretty sure I avoided this exact issue in the past, but don't see it in my old example code.
I'm not sure if this is a NH bug or a mapping issue, however the query could be optimised to
session.Query<A>()
.Fetch(a=> a.Bs)
.ToFuture();
var results = session.Query<A>()
.Fetch(a=> a.Cs)
.ToFuture()
.ToList();
You could use a Transformer to get a distinct result:
var list = session.Query<A>()
.Fetch(a=> a.Bs)
.Fetch(a=> a.Cs)
.SetResultTransformer( Transformers.DistinctRootEntity )
This is NH3.2 syntax, for 2.1 you need to use new DistinctRootEntityTransformer() (I think) as parameter to SetResultTransformer instead.
I have this SQL expression:
SELECT Musclegroups.Name, COUNT(DISTINCT Workouts.WorkoutID) AS Expr1
FROM Workouts INNER JOIN
Series ON Workouts.WorkoutID = Series.WorkoutID INNER JOIN
Exercises ON Series.ExerciseID = Exercises.ExerciseID INNER JOIN
Musclegroups ON Musclegroups.MusclegroupID = Exercises.MusclegroupID
GROUP BY Musclegroups.Name
Since Im working on a project which uses EF in a WCF Ria LinqToEntitiesDomainService, I have to query this with LINQ (If this isn't a must then pls inform me).
I made this expression:
var WorkoutCountPerMusclegroup = (from s in ObjectContext.Series1
join w in ObjectContext.Workouts on s.WorkoutID equals w.WorkoutID
where w.UserID.Equals(userid) && w.Type.Equals("WeightLifting")
group s by s.Exercise.Musclegroup into g
select new StringKeyIntValuePair
{
TestID = g.Select(n => n.Exercise.MusclegroupID).FirstOrDefault(),
Key = g.Select(n => n.Exercise.Musclegroup.Name).FirstOrDefault(),
Value = g.Select(n => n.WorkoutID).Distinct().Count()
});
The StringKeyIntValuePair is just a custom Entity type I made so I can send down the info to the Silverlight client. Also this is why I need to set an "TestID" for it, as it is an entity and it needs one.
And the problem is, that this linq query produces this horrible SQL statement:
http://pastebay.com/144532
I suppose there is a better way to query this information, a better linq expression maybe. Or is it possible to just query with plain SQL somehow?
EDIT:
I realized that the TestID is unnecessary because the other property named "Key" (the one on which Im grouping) becomes the key of the group, so it will be a key also. And after this, my query looks like this:
var WorkoutCountPerMusclegroup = (from s in ObjectContext.Series1
join w in ObjectContext.Workouts on s.WorkoutID equals w.WorkoutID
where w.UserID.Equals(userid) && w.Type.Equals("WeightLifting")
group w.WorkoutID by s.Exercise.Musclegroup.Name into g
select new StringKeyIntValuePair
{
Key = g.Key,
Value = g.Select(n => n).Distinct().Count()
});
This produces the following SQL: http://pastebay.com/144545
This seems far better then the previous sql statement of the half-baked linq query.
But is this good enough? Or this is the boundary of LinqToEntities capabilities, and if I want even more clear sql, I should make another DomainService which operates with LinqToSQL or something else?
Or the best way would be using a stored procedure, that returns Rowsets? If so, is there a best practice to do this asynchronously, like a simple WCF Ria DomainService query?
I would like to know best practices as well.
Compiling of lambda expression linq can take a lot of time (3–30s), especially using group by and then FirstOrDefault (for left inner joins meaning only taking values from the first row in the group).
The generated sql excecution might not be that bad but the compilation using DbContext which cannot be precompiled with .NET 4.0.
As an example 1 something like:
var q = from a in DbContext.A
join b ... into bb from b in bb.DefaultIfEmtpy()
group new { a, b } by new { ... } into g
select new
{
g.Key.Name1
g.Sum(p => p.b.Salary)
g.FirstOrDefault().b.SomeDate
};
Each FirstOrDefault we added in one case caused +2s compile time which added up 3 times = 6s only to compile not load data (which takes less than 500ms). This basically destroys your application's usability. The user will be waiting many times for no reason.
The only way we found so far to speed up the compilation is to mix lambda expression with object expression (might not be the correct notation).
Example 2: refactoring of previous example 1.
var q = (from a in DbContext.A
join b ... into bb from b in bb.DefaultIfEmtpy()
select new { a, b })
.GroupBy(p => new { ... })
.Select(g => new
{
g.Key.Name1
g.Sum(p => p.b.Salary)
g.FirstOrDefault().b.SomeDate
});
The above example did compile a lot faster than example 1 in our case but still not fast enough so the only solution for us in response-critical areas is to revert to native SQL (to Entities) or using views or stored procedures (in our case Oracle PL/SQL).
Once we have time we are going to test if precompilation works in .NET 4.5 and/or .NET 5.0 for DbContext.
Hope this helps and we can get other solutions.
I have two models, Project and Category, which have a many-to-many relationship between them. The Project model is very simple:
class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :categories
scope :in_categories, lambda { |categories|
joins(:categories).
where("categories.id in (?)", categories.collect(&:to_i))
}
end
The :in_categories scope takes an array of Category IDs (as strings), so using this scope I can get back every project that belongs to at least one of the categories passed in.
But what I'm actually trying to do is filter (a better name would be :has_categories). I want to just get the projects that belong to all of the categories passed in. So if I pass in ["1", "3", "4"] I only want to get the projects that belong to all of the categories.
There are two common solutions in SQL to do what you're describing.
Self-join:
SELECT ...
FROM Projects p
JOIN Categories c1 ON c1.project_id = p.id
JOIN Categories c3 ON c3.project_id = p.id
JOIN Categories c4 ON c4.project_id = p.id
WHERE (c1.id, c3.id, c4.id) = (1, 3, 4);
Note I'm using syntax to compare tuples. This is equivalent to:
WHERE c1.id = 1 AND c3.id = 3 AND c4.id = 4;
In general, the self-join solution has very good performance if you have a covering index. Probably Categories.(project_id,id) would be the right index, but analyze the SQL with EXPLAIN to be sure.
The disadvantage of this method is that you need four joins if you're searching for projects that match four different categories. Five joins for five categories, etc.
Group-by:
SELECT ...
FROM Projects p
JOIN Categories cc ON c.project_id = p.id
WHERE c.id IN (1, 3, 4)
GROUP BY p.id
HAVING COUNT(*) = 3;
If you're using MySQL (I assume you are), most GROUP BY queries invoke a temp table and this kills performance.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to adapt one of these SQL solutions to equivalent Rails ActiveRecord API.
It seems like in ActiveRecord you would do it like so:
scope :has_categories, lambda { |categories|
joins(:categories).
where("categories.id in (?)", categories.collect(&:to_i)).
group("projects.id HAVING COUNT(projects.id) = #{categories.count}")
}