I'm making a webapp where I'm using MongoMapper and Sinatra. I wonder how could I implement a search feature against a DB's collection. I though something like SQL's:
SELECT * FROM posts WHERE match(title) against ("String to search");
How could I achieve this with MongoMapper? Thanks!
ok this is from my project and does work:
Post.where(:title => Regexp.new(/^string/i)) # Limit output with: .limit(10)
Maybe it's the Regexp?
You query for documents that match a case sensitive rooted regular expression:
Post.where(:title => /^stringtosearch/).first
MongoDB does not support full text search so this is the best you can do at the moment.
Related
I have this use case where I get the symbolized deep associations from a certain model, and I have to perform certain queries that involve using outer joins. How can one do it WITHOUT resorting to write the full SQL by hand?
Answers I don't want:
- using includes (doesn't solve deep associations very well ( .includes(:cars => [:windows, :engine => [:ignition]..... works unexpectedly ) and I don't want its side-effects)
- writing the SQL myself (sorry, it's 2013, cross-db support, etc etc..., and the objects I fetch are read_only, more side-effects)
I'd like to have an Arel solution. I know that using the arel_table's from the models I can construct SQL expressions, there's also a DSL for the joins, but somehow i cannot use it in the joins method from the model:
car = Car.arel_table
engine = Engine.arel_table
eng_exp = car.join(engine).on(car[:engine_id].eq(engine[:id]))
eng_exp.to_sql #=> GOOD! very nice!
Car.joins(eng_exp) #=> Breaks!!
Why this doesn't work is beyond me. I don't know exactly what is missing. But it's the closest thing to a solution I have now. If somebody could help me completing my example or provide me with a nice work-around or tell me when will Rails include such an obviously necessary feature will have my everlasting gratitude.
This is an old question, but for the benefit of anyone finding it through search engines:
If you want something you can pass into .joins, you can either use .create_join and .create_on:
join_on = car.create_on(car[:engine_id].eq(engine[:id]))
eng_join = car.create_join(engine, join_on, Arel::Nodes::OuterJoin)
Car.joins(eng_join)
OR
use the .join_sources from your constructed join object:
eng_exp = car.join(engine, Arel::Nodes::OuterJoin).on(car[:engine_id].eq(engine[:id]))
Car.joins(eng_exp.join_sources)
I found a blog post that purports to address this problem: http://blog.donwilson.net/2011/11/constructing-a-less-than-simple-query-with-rails-and-arel/
Based on this (and my own testing), the following should work for your situation:
car = Car.arel_table
engine = Engine.arel_table
sql = car.project(car[Arel.star])
.join(engine, Arel::Nodes::OuterJoin).on(car[:engine_id].eq(engine[:id]))
Car.find_by_sql(sql)
If you don't mind adding a dependency and skipping AREL altogether, you could use Ernie Miller's excellent Squeel gem. It would be something like
Car.joins{engine.outer}.where(...)
This would require that the Car model be associated with Engine like so:
belongs_to :engine
I'm in the Rails console and I want to generate a list of user names that have a trailing whitespace in them. I was thinking that the syntax would look like this, but it didn't work. Any change a better programmer than me can point out what I'm doing wrong?
> User.name.where("% ")
Don't know if you're using MySQL, but an approach would be:
User.where("name LIKE '% '")
You may change this according to your database. This is kinda slow, though.
One way is
Job.all.select{|j| j =~ /^\d+$/}
but it may not be as efficient as the MySQL version.
Another possibility is to use a named scope to hide the ugly SQL:
named_scope :all_digits, lambda { |regex_str|
{ :condition => [" invoice_number REGEXP '?' " , regex_str] }
}
Then you have Job.all_digits.
Answer taken from How to specify Ruby regex when using Active Record in Rails?
You can have
regex_str = "\w+\s+$"
Thanks
Here's what I went with:
User.all.select { |c| c.name.end_with?(" ") }
This got me the list I needed.
It's based on Paritosh's first answer. I'm making his a the canonical answer because I think it's a better resource in general. My solution only helps me, but his has a lot of strategies that would be helpful.
SQL:
select * from user where room_id not in (select id from rooms);
what is the same equivalent query in rails console with this sql?
ex:
User.all.each { |u| user.room }
(sorry, but this example is not correct.)
You can translate it almost literally:
User.where('room_id not in (select id from rooms)').all
The where clause is quite flexible in what it accepts.
User.where("room_id not in (select id from rooms)")
but you want this since it would be rather faster:
User.where("not exist (select id from rooms where id=users.room_id)")
that's the closest you can get. There appears to be no way to create an Active Record query that translates to SQL NOT(). A search on the subject returns a bunch of SO questions with much the same answer.
You could do something like
User.all.select { |u| !Room.find_by_id(u.room_id) }
But that could be less efficient again.
I don't know if you are familiar with the squeel gem. It allows allows you to build very complex SQL-queries in a pure Ruby code. In your case it should be as simple as the following code (afer adding the gem 'squeel' line in your Gemfile and running bundle install):
room_ids = Room.select{id}; User.where{room_id.not_in room_ids}
Worth trying, isn't it?
Here's the squeel's page.
I have the following statement in Rails 3 using an SQLite3 database:
word = 'Hello'
word_entry = Word.where("name REGEXP :word", {:word => "[[:<:]]#{word}[[:>:]]"})
However, when running this under SQLite3, I keep getting:
SQLite3::SQLException: no such function: REGEXP
I read in the SQLite3 documentation that it does indeed support the REGEXP function.
In my gemfile, I have the line
gem 'sqlite3'
And my database config file looks like this:
development:
adapter: sqlite3
database: db/development.sqlite3
pool: 5
timeout: 5000
Any ideas what's going on?
RESOLUTION:
I ended up finding this solution. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for Rails 3.
So to use regular expressions I ended up switching to MYSQL instead of SQLite3.
I ran into the same issue. I took the code used in the resolution, ported it to work with Rails 3+ and made a gem for easier use. I hope this helps.
https://github.com/sei-mi/sqlite3_ar_regexp
From the fine manual:
The REGEXP operator is a special syntax for the regexp() user function. No regexp() user function is defined by default and so use of the REGEXP operator will normally result in an error message. If a application-defined SQL function named "regexp" is added at run-time, that function will be called in order to implement the REGEXP operator.
So the grammar supports REGEXP but the default SQLite library does not provide an implementation for it. You'll have to hook up your own implementation through some C wrangling if you want or need such a thing.
Presumably the rationale is that the SQLite people want to keep SQLite as small and tight as possible but including a whole regular expression library would add weight that most people don't want. Also, they would have to choose a regular expression library and include it with the SQLite source or they'd have to put up with the vagaries of everyone's regular expression support in libc. I'm not one of the SQLite developers so this is pure speculation.
I'm guessing that you'll probably have to make do with LIKE and GLOB. Using LIKE will provide a more portable solution.
You may be intested in the sqlite3-pcre package, which implements REGEXP for SQLite.
See this comment on a similar issue.
I had a similar question, and found a Gem named wherex that is well documented and worked out of the box.
Your expression from above
Word.where("name REGEXP :word", {:word => "[[:<:]]#{word}[[:>:]]"})
would there be
Word.where(:name => Regexp.new("[[:<:]]#{word}[[:>:]]"))
Works like a charm for me :-)
From source of sqlite3_ar_regexp project, I extract this:
db = SQLite3::Database.open( database_name )
db.create_function('regexp', 2) do |func, pattern, expression|
func.result = expression.to_s.match(
Regexp.new(pattern.to_s, Regexp::IGNORECASE)) ? 1 : 0
end
From source of sqlite3_ar_regexp project, I extract this:
db = ActiveRecord::Base.connection.raw_connection
db.create_function('regexp', 2) do |func, pattern, expression|
func.result = expression.to_s.match(
Regexp.new(pattern.to_s, Regexp::IGNORECASE)) ? 1 : 0
end
Improved upon a previous answer with ActiveRecord::Base.connection.raw_connection so that db name isn't needed
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