Suppose I have Posts and posts' Comments. I want to filter all the Posts that have more than 10 comments. I began writing something like Posts.includes(:comments).group("post.id").count("comments.id"), to obtain a hash of posts and their counts, and I can extract the information from there, but I want some one-line straightforward way to do that
Sure I can use some pure sql syntax statements, but I want it in a pure rails way. Any idea ?
Assuming the models are named in the more typical singular form of Post and Comment and have the usual association relationship, then the following should work:
Post.joins(:comments).group('posts.id').having('count(comments.id) > 10')
Related
I feel foolish, but I cannot find the answer to this.
If I have a User with many attributes, given a list of attributes, I can ask rails something like this:
User.where("attributes.id IN ?", list_of_attribute_ids)
With the appropriate joins or includes or whatever.
However, I have no idea how to find the inverse set of those users. That is, given 100 users, if the result return 75 entries, I don't know how to find the other 25!
I thought
User.where("attributes.id NOT IN ?", list_of_attribute_ids)
might work (similarly, User.where.not), but it doesn't! Instead, it looks for those users where any of their attributes are not one of the list, which is useful, but not what I want.
The only way I know how to do it, is with something like:
User.where.not(id: User.where("attributes.id IN ?", list_of_attribute_ids).pluck(:id))
Which is sort of like the SQL for select user where id not in (gather a list of ids).
But this is massively non-performant, and generally just can't cope with a database with more than a few (hundred) entries.
How do you do this?
I think you could use left outer joins, like #Vishal mentioned in the comments.
See the guides: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html#left-outer-joins
rails 4:
joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN <something>")
rails 5:
left_outer_joins(:something)
I want to display the SQL used in a count. However, Model.count.to_sql will not work because count returns a FixNum that doesn't have a to_sql method. I think the simplest solution is to do this:
Model.where(nil).to_sql.sub(/SELECT.*FROM/, "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM")
This creates the same SQL as is used in Model.count, but is it going to cause a problem further down the line? For example, if I add a complicated where clause and some joins.
Is there a better way of doing this?
You can try
Model.select("count(*) as model_count").to_sql
You may want to dip into Arel:
Model.select(Arel.star.count).to_sql
ASIDE:
I find I often want to find sub counts, so I embed the count(*) into another query:
child_counts = ChildModel.select(Arel.star.count)
.where(Model.arel_attribute(:id).eq(
ChildModel.arel_attribute(:model_id)))
Model.select(Arel.star).select(child_counts.as("child_count"))
.order(:id).limit(10).to_sql
which then gives you all the child counts for each of the models:
SELECT *,
(
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM "child_models"
WHERE "models"."id" = "child_models"."model_id"
) child_count
FROM "models"
ORDER BY "models"."id" ASC
LIMIT 10
Best of luck
UPDATE:
Not sure if you are trying to solve this in a generic way or not. Also not sure what kind of scopes you are using on your Model.
We do have a method that automatically calls a count for a query that is put into the ui layer. I found using count(:all) is more stable than the simple count, but sounds like that does not overlap your use case. Maybe you can improve your solution using the except clause that we use:
scope.except(:select, :includes, :references, :offset, :limit, :order)
.count(:all)
The where clause and the joins necessary for the where clause work just fine for us. We tend to want to keep the joins and where clause since that needs to be part of the count. While you definitely want to remove the includes (which should be removed by rails automatically in my opinion), but the references (much trickier especially in the case where it references a has_many and requires a distinct) that starts to throw a wrench in there. If you need to use references, you may be able to convert these over to a left_join.
You may want to double check the parameters that these "join" methods take. Some of them take table names and others take relation names. Later rails version have gotten better and take relation names - be sure you are looking at the docs for the right version of rails.
Also, in our case, we spend more time trying to get sub selects with more complicated relationships, we have to do some munging. Looks like we are not dealing with where clauses as much.
ref2
I am having trouble optimizing a large activerecord query. I need to include an associated model in my request but due to the size of the return set I only want to include a couple of the associated columns. For example I have:
Post.includes(:user).large_set
While I am looking for something like:
Post.includes(:user.name, :user.profile_pic).large_set
I need to actually use the name and profile pic attributes so Post.joins(:user) is not an option as far as I understand.
select is what you are looking for:
Post.select("posts.*, users.name, users.profile_pic").large_set
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html#selecting-specific-fields
You'll have to use join to accomplish what you want, as includes does not have this functionality. Or you could white your own includes method :-)
We have an SQL query in our Rails 3 app.
#followers returns an array of IDs of users following the current_user.
#followers = current_user.following
#feed_items = Micropost.where("belongs_to_id IN (?)", #followers)
Is there a more efficient way to do this query?
The query you have can't really be optimized anymore than it is. It could be made faster by adding an index to belongs_to_id (which you should almost always do for foreign keys anyway), but that doesn't change the actual query.
There is a cleaner way to write IN queries though:
Micropost.where(:belongs_to_id => #followers)
where #followers is an array of values for belongs_to_id.
It looks good to me.
However if you're looking for real minimum numer of characters in the code, you could change:
Micropost.where("belongs_to_id IN (?)", #followers)
to
Micropost.where("belongs_to_id = ?", #followers)
which reads a little easier.
Rails will see the array and do the IN.
As always the main goal of the ruby language is readability so little improvements help.
As for query being inefficent, you shuld check into indexs on that field.
They tend to be a little more specific for each db - you have only specified generic sql. in your question.
I would like to have a method called feed in my User model that returns all the entries from two tables (discussions, exchanges).
In User.rb
def feed
SELECT * FROM discussions, exchanges GROUP BY created_at
end
This doesn't work, i get a problem in rails console
syntax error, unexpected ';', expecting '='
Can anyone show me how to write SQL in here? Basically I want to return and sort entries from two different tables..
if you want actual ActiveRecord objects you can try the following
def feed
exchanges = Exchange.all
discussions = Discussion.all
(exchanges + discussions).sort! { |a, b| a.created_at <=> b.created_at }
end
this is quite ineffective, as the sorting could be done in sql, but ActiveRecord cannot instantiate records selected from different tables (you can somehow override this by using STI)
Firstly - you can't just write plain SQL in your ruby code and expect it to work.
It's ruby, not SQL. They are different languages.
If you can - use the ruby-way with associations instead (as per the other example).
However - if you desperately need to use raw SQL (eg you have legavy tables that don't match to models or have some complex combination-logic in teh SQL that doesn't easily map to assocations); then you need to pass SQL to the database... which means using a connection via Active Record.
Try:
def feed
ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute("SELECT * FROM discussions, exchanges GROUP BY created_at")
end
It will not return ruby models for you - just a raw results-object.
I'd recommend trying this in script/console and then doing a "puts my_user.feed.inspect" to have a look at the kind of thing it returns so you know how to use it.
Note: the presence of this kind of thing is considered a strong code smell - only use it where you really need it