get model with atleast one relation object in mongoid - ruby-on-rails-3

I have a Person object which has_many companies. I would like to get the person with atleast one company.
What I can get right now is
Person.where(:company_ids.size => 1)
This will return all the person with one company . But I need something like
Person.where(:company_ids.size.gte => 1)
But it seems , this does not work.
Solution :
sorry for all the trouble, but found out that with previously created objects , I didn't have company_ids ... since I had only added that later. I can get the count with following :
Person.where(:company_ids.exists => true).and("this.company_ids.length > 0")
Thanks everyone for helping out.

I assume company_ids a array field in person document
I am afraid there is no way of specifying conditions in size. But there is a workaround using javascript $where expression
db.person.find({$where: '(this.company_ids.length > 0)'})
am not sure about how to pass this expression in mongoid.
EDIT
yeah you can do this with mongoid too
Person.where("$where" => 'this.company_ids.length >0;' )

You should be able to do:
Person.where("this.company_ids.length > 3")

Did you check doing as
Person.where("this.company_ids >=1")

Related

Why does Postgres not accept my count column?

I am building a Rails app with the following models:
# vote.rb
class Vote < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :person
belongs_to :show
scope :fulfilled, -> { where(fulfilled: true) }
scope :unfulfilled, -> { where(fulfilled: false) }
end
# person.rb
class Person < ApplicationRecord
has_many :votes, dependent: :destroy
def self.order_by_votes(show = nil)
count = 'nullif(votes.fulfilled, true)'
count = "case when votes.show_id = #{show.id} AND NOT votes.fulfilled then 1 else null end" if show
people = left_joins(:votes).group(:id).uniq!(:group)
people = people.select("people.*, COUNT(#{count}) AS people.vote_count")
people.order('people.vote_count DESC')
end
end
The idea behind order_by_votes is to sort People by the number of unfulfilled votes, either counting all votes, or counting only votes associated with a given Show.
This seem to work fine when I test against SQLite. But when I switch to Postgres I get this error:
Error:
PeopleControllerIndexTest#test_should_get_previously_on_show:
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PG::UndefinedColumn: ERROR: column people.vote_count does not exist
LINE 1: ...s"."show_id" = $1 GROUP BY "people"."id" ORDER BY people.vot...
^
If I dump the SQL using #people.to_sql, this is what I get:
SELECT people.*, COUNT(nullif(votes.fulfilled, true)) AS people.vote_count FROM "people" LEFT OUTER JOIN "votes" ON "votes"."person_id" = "people"."id" GROUP BY "people"."id" ORDER BY people.vote_count DESC
Why is this failing on Postgres but working on SQLite? And what should I be doing instead to make it work on Postgres?
(PS: I named the field people.vote_count, with a dot, so I can access it in my view without having to do another SQL query to actually view the vote count for each person in the view (not sure if this works) but I get the same error even if I name the field simply vote_count.)
(PS2: I recently added the .uniq!(:group) because of some deprecation warning for Rails 6.2, but I couldn't find any documentation for it so I am not sure I am doing it right, still the error is there without that part.)
Are you sure you're not getting a syntax error from PostgreSQL somewhere? If you do something like this:
select count(*) as t.vote_count from t ... order by t.vote_count
I get a syntax error before PostgreSQL gets to complain about there being no t.vote_count column.
No matter, the solution is to not try to put your vote_count in the people table:
people = people.select("people.*, COUNT(#{count}) AS vote_count")
...
people.order(vote_count: :desc)
You don't need it there, you'll still be able to reference the vote_count just like any "normal" column in people. Anything in the select list will appear as an accessor in the resultant model instances whether they're columns or not, they won't show up in the #inspect output (since that's generated based on the table's columns) but you call the accessor methods nonetheless.
Historically there have been quite a few AR problems (and bugs) in getting the right count by just using count on a scope, and I am not sure they are actually all gone.
That depends on the scope (AR version, relations, group, sort, uniq, etc). A defaut count call that a gem has to generically use on a scope is not a one-fit-all solution. For that known reason Pagy allows you to pass the right count to its pagy method as explained in the Pagy documentation.
Your scope might become complex and the default pagy collection.count(:all) may not get the actual count. In that case you can get the right count with some custom statement, and pass it to pagy.
#pagy, #records = pagy(collection, count: your_count)
Notice: pagy will efficiently skip its internal count query and will just use the passed :count variable.
So... just get your own calculated count and pass it to pagy, and it will not even try to use the default.
EDIT: I forgot to mention: you may want to try the pagy arel extra that:
adds specialized pagination for collections from sql databases with GROUP BY clauses, by computing the total number of results with COUNT(*) OVER ().
Thanks to all the comments and answers I have finally found a solution which I think is the best way to solve this.
First of, the issue occurred when I called pagy which tried to count my scope by appending .count(:all). This is what caused the errors. The solution was to not create a "field" in select() and use it in .order().
So here is the proper code:
def self.order_by_votes(show = nil)
count = if show
"case when votes.show_id = #{show.id} AND NOT votes.fulfilled then 1 else null end"
else
'nullif(votes.fulfilled, true)'
end
left_joins(:votes).group(:id)
.uniq!(:group)
.select("people.*, COUNT(#{count}) as vote_count")
.order(Arel.sql("COUNT(#{count}) DESC"))
end
This sorts the number of people on the number of unfulfilled votes for them, with the ability to count only votes for a given show, and it works with pagy(), and pagy_arel() which in my case is a much better fit, so the results can be properly paginated.

Rails Order by frequency of a column in another table

I have a table KmRelationship which associates Keywords and Movies
In keyword index I would like to list all keywords that appear most frequently in the KmRelationships table and only take(20)
.order doesn't seem to work no matter how I use it and where I put it and same for sort_by
It sounds relatively straight forward but i just can't seem to get it to work
Any ideas?
Assuming your KmRelationship table has keyword_id:
top_keywords = KmRelationship.select('keyword_id, count(keyword_id) as frequency').
order('frequency desc').
group('keyword_id').
take(20)
This may not look right in your console output, but that's because rails doesn't build out an object attribute for the calculated frequency column.
You can see the results like this:
top_keywords.each {|k| puts "#{k.keyword_id} : #{k.freqency}" }
To put this to good use, you can then map out your actual Keyword objects:
class Keyword < ActiveRecord::Base
# other stuff
def self.most_popular
KmRelationship.
select('keyword_id, count(keyword_id) as frequency').
order('frequency desc').
group('keyword_id').
take(20).
map(&:keyword)
end
end
And call with:
Keyword.most_popular
#posts = Post.select([:id, :title]).order("created_at desc").limit(6)
I have this listed in my controller index method which allows the the order to show the last post with a limit of 6. It might be something similar to what you are trying to do. This code actually reflects a most recent post on my home page.

Rails, Ransack: How to search HABTM relationship for "all" matches instead of "any"

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?

Rails 3 selecting only values

In rails 3, I would like to do the following:
SomeModel.where(:some_connection_id => anArrayOfIds).select("some_other_connection_id")
This works, but i get the following from the DB:
[{"some_other_connection_id":254},{"some_other_connection_id":315}]
Now, those id-s are the ones I need, but I am uncapable of making a query that only gives me the ids. I do not want to have to itterate over the resulst, only to get those numbers out. Are there any way for me to do this with something like :
SomeModel.where(:some_connection_id => anArrayOfIds).select("some_other_connection_id").values()
Or something of that nautre?
I have been trying with the ".select_values()" found at Git-hub, but it only returns "some_other_connection_id".
I am not an expert in rails, so this info might be helpful also:
The "SomeModel" is a connecting table, for a many-to-many relation in one of my other models. So, accually what I am trying to do is to, from the array of IDs, get all the entries from the other side of the connection. Basicly I have the source ids, and i want to get the data from the models with all the target ids. If there is a magic way of getting these without me having to do all the sql myself (with some help from active record) it would be really nice!
Thanks :)
Try pluck method
SomeModel.where(:some => condition).pluck("some_field")
it works like
SomeModel.where(:some => condition).select("some_field").map(&:some_field)
SomeModel.where(:some_connection_id => anArrayOfIds).select("some_other_connection_id").map &:some_other_connection_id
This is essentially a shorthand for:
results = SomeModel.where(:some_connection_id => anArrayOfIds).select("some_other_connection_id")
results.map {|row| row.some_other_connection_id}
Look at Array#map for details on map method.
Beware that there is no lazy loading here, as it iterates over the results, but it shouldn't be a problem, unless you want to add more constructs to you query or retrieve some associated objects(which should not be the case as you haven't got the ids for loading the associated objects).

Associated models and SUM query in Rails

I've got two Rails models, a Child and a Parent say.
I know that I can do this:
Child.sum(:income, :conditions => "parent_id = #{#parent_id}")
But I want to be able to do this:
Parent.children.sum(:income)
But this is giving me the wrong values if I try it. Is there a more concise way of writing
Child.sum(:income, :conditions => "parent_id = #{#parent_id}")
?
TIA
[ps: Rails 3 dev environment]
Sorry but I have just found out the answer to this. I needed to add to_a to the collection of Child objects, and call a proc, as so:
Parent.children.to_a.sum(&:income)
This works a charm.
Sorry for bumping up an old thread, but I think I found better(best?) solution. Below is code for my project that I ended up
self.purchases.where(:script_id => script_id, :approved => true).sum(:instances)
It produces one query that does exactly what I need
SELECT SUM("purchases"."instances") AS sum_id FROM "purchases" WHERE "purchases"."customer_id" = 1 AND "purchases"."script_id" = 1 AND "purchases"."approved" = 't'
I ran into an issue where the child was delegating to the parent and I needed to find a sum.
children.to_a.sum(:parent_income)
was giving me a major N+1 problem. The solution was to use:
children.joins(:parent).sum(:income)