Rails ActiveRecord Join Query With conditions - sql

I have following SQL Query:
SELECT campaigns.* , campaign_countries.points, offers.image
FROM campaigns
JOIN campaign_countries ON campaigns.id = campaign_countries.campaign_id
JOIN countries ON campaign_countries.country_id = countries.id
JOIN offers ON campaigns.offer_id = offers.id
WHERE countries.code = 'US'
This works perfectly well. I want its rails active record version some thing like:
Campaign.includes(campaign_countries: :country).where(countries: {code: "US"})
Above code runs more or less correct query (did not try to include offers table), issue is returned result is collection of Campaign objects so obviously it does not include Points
My tables are:
campaigns --HAS_MANY--< campaign_countries --BELONGS_TO--< countries
campaigns --BELONGS_TO--> offers
Any suggestions to write AR version of this SQL? I don't want to use SQL statement in my code.

I some how got this working without SQL but surely its poor man's solution:
in my controller I have:
campaigns = Campaign.includes(campaign_countries: :country).where(countries: {code: country.to_s})
render :json => campaigns.to_json(:country => country)
in campaign model:
def points_for_country country
CampaignCountry.joins(:campaign, :country).where(countries: {code: country}, campaigns: {id: self.id}).first
end
def as_json options={}
json = {
id: id,
cid: cid,
name: name,
offer: offer,
points_details: options[:country] ? points_for_country(options[:country]) : ""
}
end
and in campaign_countries model:
def as_json options={}
json = {
face_value: face_value,
actual_value: actual_value,
points: points
}
end
Why this is not good solution? because it invokes too many queries:
1. It invokes query when first join is performed to get list of campaigns specific to country
2. For each campaign found in first query it will invoke one more query on campaign_countries table to get Points for that campaign and country.
This is bad, Bad and BAD solution. Any suggestions to improve this?

If You have campaign, You can use campaign.campaign_countries to get associated campaign_countries and just get points from them.
> campaign.campaign_countries.map(&:points)
=> [1,2,3,4,5]
Similarly You will be able to get image from offers relation.
EDIT:
Ok, I guess now I know what's going on. You can use joins with select to get object with attached fields from join tables.
cs = Campaign.joins(campaign_countries: :country).joins(:offers).select('campaigns.*, campaign_countries.points, offers.image').where(countries: {code: "US"})
You can than reference additional fields by their name on Campaign object
cs.first.points
cs.first.image
But be sure, that additional column names do not overlap with some primary table fields or object methods.
EDIT 2:
After some more research I came to conclusion that my first version was actually correct for this case. I will use my own console as example.
> u = User.includes(:orders => :cart).where(:carts => { :id => [5168, 5167] }).first
> u.orders.length # no query is performed
=> 2
> u.orders.count # count query is performed
=> 5
So when You use includes with condition on country, in campaign_countries are stored only campaign_countries that fulfill Your condition.

Try this:
Campaign.joins( [{ :campaign_countries => :countries}, :offers]).where('`countries`.`code` = ?', "US")

Related

Get records with no related data using activerecord and RoR3?

I am making scopes for a model that looks something like this:
class PressRelease < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :publications
end
What I want to get is all press_releases that does not have publications, but from a scope method, so it can be chained with other scopes. Any ideas?
Thanks!
NOTE: I know that there are methods like present? or any? and so on, but these methods does not return an ActiveRecord::Relation as scope does.
NOTE: I am using RoR 3
Avoid eager_loading if you do not need it (it adds overhead). Also, there is no need for subselect statements.
scope :without_publications, -> { joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN publications ON publications.press_release_id = press_releases.id").where(publications: { id: nil }) }
Explanation and response to comments
My initial thoughts about eager loading overhead is that ActiveRecord would instantiate all the child records (publications) for each press release. Then I realized that the query will never return press release records with publications. So that is a moot point.
There are some points and observations to be made about the way ActiveRecord works. Some things I had previously learned from experience, and some things I learned exploring your question.
The query from includes(:publications).where(publications: {id: nil}) is actually different from my example. It will return all columns from the publications table in addition to the columns from press_releases. The publication columns are completely unnecessary because they will always be null. However, both queries ultimately result in the same set of PressRelease objects.
With the includes method, if you add any sort of limit, for example chaining .first, .last or .limit(), then ActiveRecord (4.2.4) will resort to executing two queries. The first query returns IDs, and the second query uses those IDs to get results. Using the SQL snippet method, ActiveRecord is able to use just one query. Here is an example of this from one of my applications:
Profile.includes(:positions).where(positions: { id: nil }).limit(5)
# SQL (0.8ms) SELECT DISTINCT "profiles"."id" FROM "profiles" LEFT OUTER JOIN "positions" ON "positions"."profile_id" = "profiles"."id" WHERE "positions"."id" IS NULL LIMIT 5
# SQL (0.8ms) SELECT "profiles"."id" AS t0_r0, ..., "positions"."end_year" AS t1_r11 FROM "profiles" LEFT OUTER JOIN "positions" ON "positions"."profile_id" = "profiles"."id" # WHERE "positions"."id" IS NULL AND "profiles"."id" IN (107, 24, 7, 78, 89)
Profile.joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN positions ON positions.profile_id = profiles.id").where(positions: { id: nil }).limit(5)
# Profile Load (1.0ms) SELECT "profiles".* FROM "profiles" LEFT OUTER JOIN positions ON positions.profile_id = profiles.id WHERE "positions"."id" IS NULL LIMIT 5
Most importantly
eager_loading and includes were not intended to solve the problem at hand. And for this particular case I think you are much more aware of what is needed than ActiveRecord is. You can therefore make better decisions about how to structure the query.
you can de the following in your PressRelease:
scope :your_scope, -> { where('id NOT IN(select press_release_id from publications)') }
this will return all PressRelease record without publications.
Couple ways to do this, first one requires two db queries:
PressRelease.where.not(id: Publications.uniq.pluck(:press_release_id))
or if you don't want to hardcode association foreign key:
PressRelease.where.not(id: PressRelease.uniq.joins(:publications).pluck(:id))
Another one is to do a left join and pick those without associated elements - you get a relation object, but it will be tricky to work with it as it already has a join on it:
PressRelease.eager_load(:publications).where(publications: {id: nil})
Another one is to use counter_cache feature. You will need to add publication_count column to your press_releases table.
class Publications < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :presss_release, counter_cache: true
end
Rails will keep this column in sync with a number of records associated to given mode, so then you can simply do:
PressRelease.where(publications_count: [nil, 0])

Active Record query to match every subset element

In my RoR application, I've got a database lookup similar to this one:
Client.joins(:products).where({'product.id' => [1,2,3]})
Unfortunately this will return all clients that have bought product 1, 2 or 3 but I only want to get back the clients, that bought all of the three products. In other words, I'd like to write a query that matches for n elements in a given set.
Are there any elegant solutions for this?
This is not really elegant. But it should translate into the needed SQL.
Client.joins(:products).
where({'products.id' => [1,2,3]}).
group('users.id').
having('COUNT(DISTINCT products.id) >= 3')
Same answer with more dynamic way
ids = [1,2,3]
Client.joins(:products).
where({'products.id' => ids}).
group('users.id').
having('COUNT(DISTINCT products.id) >= ?', ids.size)

Scope with association and ActiveRecord

I have an app that records calls. Each call can have multiple units associated with it. Part of my app has a reports section which basically just does a query on the Call model for different criteria. I've figured out how to write some scopes that do what I want and chain them to the results of my reporting search functionality. But I can't figure out how to search by "unit". Below are relevant excerpts from my code:
Call.rb
has_many :call_units
has_many :units, through: :call_units
#Report search logic
def self.report(search)
search ||= { type: "all" }
# Determine which scope to search by
results = case search[:type]
when "open"
open_status
when "canceled"
cancel
when "closed"
closed
when "waitreturn"
waitreturn
when "wheelchair"
wheelchair
else
scoped
end
#Search results by unit name, this is what I need help with. Scope or express otherwise?
results = results. ??????
results = results.by_service_level(search[:service_level]) if search[:service_level].present?
results = results.from_facility(search[:transferred_from]) if search[:transferred_from].present?
results = results.to_facility(search[:transferred_to]) if search[:transferred_to].present?
# If searching with BOTH a start and end date
if search[:start_date].present? && search[:end_date].present?
results = results.search_between(Date.parse(search[:start_date]), Date.parse(search[:end_date]))
# If search with any other date parameters (including none)
else
results = results.search_by_start_date(Date.parse(search[:start_date])) if search[:start_date].present?
results = results.search_by_end_date(Date.parse(search[:end_date])) if search[:end_date].present?
end
results
end
Since I have an association for units already, I'm not sure if I need to make a scope for units somehow or express the results somehow in the results variable in my search logic.
Basically, you want a scope that uses a join so you can use a where criteria in against the associated model? Is that correct?
So in SQL you're looking for something like
select * from results r
inner join call_units c on c.result_id = r.id
inner join units u on u.call_unit_id = c.id
where u.name = ?
and the scope would be (from memory, I haven't debugged this) something like:
scope :by_unit_name, lambda {|unit_name|
joins(:units).where('units.unit_name = ?', unit_name)
}
units.name isn't a column in the db. Changing it to units.unit_name didn't raise an exception and seems to be what I want. Here's what I have in my results variable:
results = results.by_unit_name(search[:unit_name]) if search[:unit_name].present?
When I try to search by a different unit name no results show up. Here's the code I'm using to search:
<%= select_tag "search[unit_name]", options_from_collection_for_select(Unit.order(:unit_name), :unit_name, :unit_name, selected: params[:search].try(:[], :unit_name)), prompt: "Any Unit" %>

Filtering model with HABTM relationship

I have 2 models - Restaurant and Feature. They are connected via has_and_belongs_to_many relationship. The gist of it is that you have restaurants with many features like delivery, pizza, sandwiches, salad bar, vegetarian option,… So now when the user wants to filter the restaurants and lets say he checks pizza and delivery, I want to display all the restaurants that have both features; pizza, delivery and maybe some more, but it HAS TO HAVE pizza AND delivery.
If I do a simple .where('features IN (?)', params[:features]) I (of course) get the restaurants that have either - so or pizza or delivery or both - which is not at all what I want.
My SQL/Rails knowledge is kinda limited since I'm new to this but I asked a friend and now I have this huuuge SQL that gets the job done:
Restaurant.find_by_sql(['SELECT restaurant_id FROM (
SELECT features_restaurants.*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY restaurants.id ORDER BY features.id) AS rn FROM restaurants
JOIN features_restaurants ON restaurants.id = features_restaurants.restaurant_id
JOIN features ON features_restaurants.feature_id = features.id
WHERE features.id in (?)
) t
WHERE rn = ?', params[:features], params[:features].count])
So my question is: is there a better - more Rails even - way of doing this? How would you do it?
Oh BTW I'm using Rails 4 on Heroku so it's a Postgres DB.
This is an example of a set-iwthin-sets query. I advocate solving these with group by and having, because this provides a general framework.
Here is how this works in your case:
select fr.restaurant_id
from features_restaurants fr join
features f
on fr.feature_id = f.feature_id
group by fr.restaurant_id
having sum(case when f.feature_name = 'pizza' then 1 else 0 end) > 0 and
sum(case when f.feature_name = 'delivery' then 1 else 0 end) > 0
Each condition in the having clause is counting for the presence of one of the features -- "pizza" and "delivery". If both features are present, then you get the restaurant_id.
How much data is in your features table? Is it just a table of ids and names?
If so, and you're willing to do a little denormalization, you can do this much more easily by encoding the features as a text array on restaurant.
With this scheme your queries boil down to
select * from restaurants where restaurants.features #> ARRAY['pizza', 'delivery']
If you want to maintain your features table because it contains useful data, you can store the array of feature ids on the restaurant and do a query like this:
select * from restaurants where restaurants.feature_ids #> ARRAY[5, 17]
If you don't know the ids up front, and want it all in one query, you should be able to do something along these lines:
select * from restaurants where restaurants.feature_ids #> (
select id from features where name in ('pizza', 'delivery')
) as matched_features
That last query might need some more consideration...
Anyways, I've actually got a pretty detailed article written up about Tagging in Postgres and ActiveRecord if you want some more details.
This is not "copy and paste" solution but if you consider following steps you will have fast working query.
index feature_name column (I'm assuming that column feature_id is indexed on both tables)
place each feature_name param in exists():
select fr.restaurant_id
from
features_restaurants fr
where
exists(select true from features f where fr.feature_id = f.feature_id and f.feature_name = 'pizza')
and
exists(select true from features f where fr.feature_id = f.feature_id and f.feature_name = 'delivery')
group by
fr.restaurant_id
Maybe you're looking at it backwards?
Maybe try merging the restaurants returned by each feature.
Simplified:
pizza_restaurants = Feature.find_by_name('pizza').restaurants
delivery_restaurants = Feature.find_by_name('delivery').restaurants
pizza_delivery_restaurants = pizza_restaurants & delivery_restaurants
Obviously, this is a single instance solution. But it illustrates the idea.
UPDATE
Here's a dynamic method to pull in all filters without writing SQL (i.e. the "Railsy" way)
def get_restaurants_by_feature_names(features)
# accepts an array of feature names
restaurants = Restaurant.all
features.each do |f|
feature_restaurants = Feature.find_by_name(f).restaurants
restaurants = feature_restaurants & restaurants
end
return restaurants
end
Since its an AND condition (the OR conditions get dicey with AREL). I reread your stated problem and ignoring the SQL. I think this is what you want.
# in Restaurant
has_many :features
# in Feature
has_many :restaurants
# this is a contrived example. you may be doing something like
# where(name: 'pizza'). I'm just making this condition up. You
# could also make this more DRY by just passing in the name if
# that's what you're doing.
def self.pizza
where(pizza: true)
end
def self.delivery
where(delivery: true)
end
# query
Restaurant.features.pizza.delivery
Basically you call the association with ".features" and then you use the self methods defined on features. Hopefully I didn't misunderstand the original problem.
Cheers!
Restaurant
.joins(:features)
.where(features: {name: ['pizza','delivery']})
.group(:id)
.having('count(features.name) = ?', 2)
This seems to work for me. I tried it with SQLite though.

Complex Join Queries in Rails

I have 3 tables - venues, users, and updates (which have a integer for rating) - and I want to write a query that will return a list of all my venues as well as their average ratings using only the most recent update for each person, venue pair. For example, if user 1 rates venue A once at 9 am with a 4, and then rates it again at 5 pm with a 3, I only want to use the rating of 3, since it's more recent. There are also some optional conditions, such as how recent the updates must be, and if there is an array of user ids the users must be within.
Does anybody have a suggestion on what the best way to write something like this is so that it is clean and efficient? I have written the following named_scope which should do the trick, but it is pretty ugly:
named_scope :with_avg_ratings, lambda { |*params|
hash = params.first || {}
has_params = hash[:user_ids] || hash[:time_ago]
dir = hash[:dir] || 'DESC'
{
:joins => %Q{
LEFT JOIN (select user_id, venue_id, max(updated_at) as last_updated_at from updates
WHERE type = 'Review' GROUP BY user_id, venue_id) lu ON lu.venue_id = venues.id
LEFT JOIN updates ON lu.last_updated_at = updates.updated_at
AND updates.venue_id = venues.id AND updates.user_id = lu.user_id
},
:select => "venues.*, ifnull(avg(rating),0) as avg_rating",
:group => "venues.id",
:order => "avg_rating #{dir}",
:conditions => Condition.block { |c|
c.or { |a|
a.and "updates.user_id", hash[:user_ids] if hash[:user_ids]
a.and "updates.updated_at", '>', hash[:time_ago] if hash[:time_ago]
} if has_params
c.or "updates.id", 'is', nil if has_params
}
}
}
I include the last "updates.id is null" condition because I still want the venues returned even if they don't have any updates associated with them.
Thanks,
Eric
Yikes, that looks like a job for find_by_sql to me. When you're doing something that complex, I find it's best to take the job away from ActiveRecord and DIY.