I have this in my code:
area_code_rec = #phone.area_codes.find_by_areacode(area_code)
It was brought to my attention that this may be more rails 3 like, but then
I am not sure if active record optimizes as the where() part should return
a full array or does it look at the rest of the statement and not do that ?
area_code_rec = #phone.area_codes.select(:id).where(:areacode => area_code).last
Related
I have 2 models: Comment and ReadReceipt. A Comment has many ReadReceipt for a given User. I want to create an ActiveRecord relation that would allow me Return all Comments with their ReadReceipt even if it doesn't exist. For example,
comments = Comment.includes(:read_receipts).all
comments.first.read_receipt -> #<ReadReceipt id: 1>
comments.last.read_receipt -> nil
Currently I have this #read_receipt on Comment. However, as I want to avoid N+1 queries I'm not sure what the best way to do this is. Do I need to do an left outer join? What's the Rails way to achieve this?
def read_receipt(user)
receipt = ReadReceipt.find_by(feed_item_id: id, contact_id: user.contact.id)
receipt ? true : false
end
I assume your join column is feed_item_id in ReadReceipt.
For Rails 4, use includes and do LEFT OUTER JOIN manually, this will save you from N+1 queries and will also give all those comments where read receipt doesn't exist:
comments = Comment.includes(:read_receipts).joins('LEFT OUTER JOIN read_receipts on read_receipts.feed_item_id = comments.id')
comments.map do |c|
c.read_receipt(some_user)
end
Because of includes earlier, read_receipts are already loaded in memory, using ActiveRecord for querying in read_receipt will run the query again with more parameters. You can use ruby instead if you want to get away with that. You can use loaded? to check if association is loaded or not.
Change your Comment#read_receipt to:
def read_receipt(user)
# this will not load read receipts again in memory or fire any other query with subparameters
if read_receipts.loaded? # this means association is already loaded, use Ruby
read_receipts.find { |r| r.feed_item_id == id && r.contact_id == user.contact_id } ? true : false
else
# do not load all read_receipts, instead use proper ActiveRecord
read_receipts.find_by(contact_id: user.contact.id) ? true : false
end
end
For Rails 5, use left_outer_joins:
comments = Comment.includes(:read_receipts).left_outer_joins(:read_receipts)
comments.map do |c|
c.read_receipt(some_user)
end
I'm wondering if anyone has experience using Ransack with HABTM relationships. My app has photos which have a habtm relationship with terms (terms are like tags). Here's a simplified explanation of what I'm experiencing:
I have two photos: Photo 1 and Photo 2. They have the following terms:
Photo 1: A, B, C
Photo 2: A, B, D
I built a ransack form, and I make checkboxes in the search form for all the terms, like so:
- terms.each do |t|
= check_box_tag 'q[terms_id_in][]', t.id
If I use: q[terms_id_in][] and I check "A, C" my results are Photo 1 and Photo 2. I only want Photo 1, because I asked for A and C, in this query I don't care about B or D but I want both A and C to be present on a given result.
If I use q[terms_id_in_all][] my results are nil, because neither photo includes only A and C. Or, perhaps, because there's only one term per join, so no join matches both A and C. Regardless, I want just Photo 1 to be returned.
If I use any variety of q[terms_id_eq][] I never get any results, so I don't think that works in this case.
So, given a habtm join, how do you search for models that match the given values while ignoring not given values?
Or, for any rails/sql gurus not familiar with Ransack, how else might you go about creating a search form like I'm describing for a model with a habtm join?
Update: per the answer to related question, I've now gotten as far as constructing an Arel query that correctly matches this. Somehow you're supposed to be able to use Arel nodes as ransackers, or as cdesrosiers pointed out, as custom predicates, but thus far I haven't gotten that working.
Per that answer, I setup the following ransack initializer:
Ransack.configure do |config|
config.add_predicate 'has_terms',
:arel_predicate => 'in',
:formatter => proc {|term_ids| Photo.terms_subquery(term_ids)},
:validator => proc {|v| v.present?},
:compounds => true
end
... and then setup the following method on Photo:
def self.terms_subquery(term_ids)
photos = Arel::Table.new(:photos)
terms = Arel::Table.new(:terms)
photos_terms = Arel::Table.new(:photos_terms)
photos[:id].in(
photos.project(photos[:id])
.join(photos_terms).on(photos[:id].eq(photos_terms[:photo_id]))
.join(terms).on(photos_terms[:term_id].eq(terms[:id]))
.where(terms[:id].in(term_ids))
.group(photos.columns)
.having(terms[:id].count.eq(term_ids.length))
).to_sql
end
Unfortunately this doesn't seem to work. While terms_subquery produces the correct SQL, the result of Photo.search(:has_terms => [2,5]).result.to_sql is just "SELECT \"photos\".* FROM \"photos\" "
With a custom ransack predicate defined as in my answer to your related question, this should work with a simple change to your markup:
- terms.each do |t|
= check_box_tag 'q[id_has_terms][]', t.id
UPDATE
The :formatter doesn't do what I thought, and seeing as how the Ransack repo makes not a single mention of "subquery," you may not be able to use it for what you're trying to do, after all. All available options seem to be exhausted, so there would be nothing left to do but monkey patch.
Why not just skip ransack and query the "photos" table as you normally would with active record (or even with the Arel query you now have)? You already know the query works. Is there a specific benefit you hoped to reap from using Ransack?
I'm trying to work out a more efficient way to add a note count, with a couple of simple where conditions applied to the query. This can take forever, though, as there are as many as 20K records to iterate over. Would welcome any thinking on this.
def reblog_array(notes)
data = []
notes.select('note_type, count(*) as count').where(:note_type => 'reblog', :created_at => Date.today.years_ago(1)..Date.today).group('DATE(created_at)').each do |n|
data << n.count
end
return data
end
This is what's passed to reblog_array(notes) from my controller.
#tumblr = Tumblr.find(params[:id])
#notes = Note.where("tumblr_id = '#{#tumblr.id}'")
From what I can tell, you are trying to calculate how many reblogs/day this Tumblr account/blog had? If so,
notes.where(:note_type => 'reblog', :created_at => Date.today.years_ago(1)..Date.today).group('DATE(created_at)').count.values
should give you the right result, without having to iterate over the result list again. One thing to note, your call right now won't indicate when there are days with 0 reblogs. If you drop the call to #values, you'll get a hash of date => count.
As an aside and in case you didn't know, I'd also suggest making more use of the ActiveRecord relations:
Class Tumblr
has_many :notes
end
#tumblr = Tumblr.find(params[:id])
#notes = #tumblr.notes
this way you avoid writing code like Note.where("tumblr_id = '#{#tumblr.id}'"). It's best to avoid string-interpolated parameters, in favour of code like Note.where(:tumblr_id => #tumblr.id) or Note.where("tumblr_id = ?", #tumblr.id) to leave less chance that you'll write code vulnerable to SQL injection
I'm writing a Rails 3 ActiveRecord query using the "where" syntax, that uses both the SQL IN and the SQL OR operator and can't figure out how to use both of them together.
This code works (in my User model):
Question.where(:user_id => self.friends.ids)
#note: self.friends.ids returns an array of integers
but this code
Question.where(:user_id => self.friends.ids OR :target => self.friends.usernames)
returns this error
syntax error, unexpected tCONSTANT, expecting ')'
...user_id => self.friends.ids OR :target => self.friends.usern...
Any idea how to write this in Rails, or just what the raw SQL query should be?
You don't need to use raw SQL, just provide the pattern as a string, and add named parameters:
Question.where('user_id in (:ids) or target in (:usernames)',
:ids => self.friends.ids, :usernames => self.friends.usernames)
Or positional parameters:
Question.where('user_id in (?) or target in (?)',
self.friends.ids, self.friends.usernames)
You can also use the excellent Squeel gem, as #erroric pointed out on his answer (the my { } block is only needed if you need access to self or instance variables):
Question.where { user_id.in(my { self.friends.ids }) |
target.in(my { self.friends.usernames }) }
Though Rails 3 AR doesn't give you an or operator you can still achieve the same result without going all the way down to SQL and use Arel directly. By that I mean that you can do it like this:
t = Question.arel_table
Question.where(t[:user_id].in(self.friends.ids).or(t[:username].in(self.friends.usernames)))
Some might say it ain't so pretty, some might say it's pretty simply because it includes no SQL. Anyhow it most certainly could be prettier and there's a gem for it too: MetaWhere
For more info see this railscast: http://railscasts.com/episodes/215-advanced-queries-in-rails-3
and MetaWhere site: http://metautonomo.us/projects/metawhere/
UPDATE: Later Ryan Bates has made another railscast about metawhere and metasearch: http://railscasts.com/episodes/251-metawhere-metasearch
Later though Metawhere (and search) have become more or less legacy gems. I.e. they don't even work with Rails 3.1. The author felt they (Metawhere and search) needed drastic rewrite. So much that he actually went for a new gem all together. The successor of Metawhere is Squeel. Read more about the authors announcement here:
http://erniemiller.org/2011/08/31/rails-3-1-and-the-future-of-metawhere-and-metasearch/
and check out the project home page:
http://erniemiller.org/projects/squeel/
"Metasearch 2.0" is called Ransack and you can read something about it from here:
http://erniemiller.org/2011/04/01/ransack-the-library-formerly-known-as-metasearch-2-0/
Alternatively, you could use Squeel. To my eyes, it is simpler. You can accomplish both the IN (>>) and OR (|) operations using the following syntax:
Question.where{(:user_id >> my{friends.id}) | (:target >> my{friends.usernames})}
I generally wrap my conditions in (...) to ensure the appropriate order of operation - both the INs happen before the OR.
The my{...} block executes methods from the self context as defined before the Squeel call - in this case Question. Inside of the Squeel block, self refers to a Squeel object and not the Question object (see the Squeel Readme for more). You get around this by using the my{...} wrapper to restore the original context.
raw SQL
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE user_id in (LIST OF friend.ids) OR target in (LIST OF friends.usernames)
with each list comma separate. I don't know the Rails ActiveRecord stuff that well. For AND you would just put a comma between those two conditions, but idk about OR
I was wondering if there was a way to use "find_by_sql" within a named_scope. I'd like to treat custom sql as named_scope so I can chain it to my existing named_scopes. It would also be good for optimizing a sql snippet I use frequently.
While you can put any SQL you like in the conditions of a named scope, if you then call find_by_sql then the 'scopes' get thrown away.
Given:
class Item
# Anything you can put in an sql WHERE you can put here
named_scope :mine, :conditions=>'user_id = 12345 and IS_A_NINJA() = 1'
end
This works (it just sticks the SQL string in there - if you have more than one they get joined with AND)
Item.mine.find :all
=> SELECT * FROM items WHERE ('user_id' = 887 and IS_A_NINJA() = 1)
However, this doesn't
Items.mine.find_by_sql 'select * from items limit 1'
=> select * from items limit 1
So the answer is "No". If you think about what has to happen behind the scenes then this makes a lot of sense. In order to build the SQL rails has to know how it fits together.
When you create normal queries, the select, joins, conditions, etc are all broken up into distinct pieces. Rails knows that it can add things to the conditions without affecting everything else (which is how with_scope and named_scope work).
With find_by_sql however, you just give rails a big string. It doesn't know what goes where, so it's not safe for it to go in and add the things it would need to add for the scopes to work.
This doesn't address exactly what you asked about, but you might investigate 'contruct_finder_sql'. It lets you can get the SQL of a named scope.
named_scope :mine, :conditions=>'user_id = 12345 and IS_A_NINJA() = 1'
named_scope :additional {
:condtions => mine.send(:construct_finder_sql,{}) + " additional = 'foo'"
}
sure why not
:named_scope :conditions => [ your sql ]