I'm using RoR and I want to do concurrency safe update queries. For example when I have
var user = User.find(user_id)
user.visits += 1
I get the following SQL code:
SELECT * FROM Users WHERE ID=1 -- find user's visits (1)
UPDATE Users SET Visits=2 WHERE ID=1 -- 1+1=2
But if there are several queries taking place at the same time, there will be locking problems.
According to RoR API I can use :lock => true attribute, but that's not what I want.
I found an awesome function update_counters:
User.update_counters(my_user.id, :visits => 1)
This gives the following SQL code
UPDATE Users SET Visits=Visits+1 WHERE ID=#something
Works great!
Now my question is how can I override the += function to do the update_counters thing instead?
Because
user.visits += 1 # better
User.update_counters(my_user.id, :visits => 1) # than this
UPDATE
I just created the following function
class ActiveRecord::Base
def inc(column, value)
User.update_counters(self.id, column => value)
end
end
Are there any other better ideas?
Don't know about better ideas, but I would define that method to the User class, not the ActiveRecord. And maybe increment_counter (that uses update_counters) would make it a bit more readable?
def inc(column, value)
self.increment_counter(column, value)
end
Haven't tested that and not saying this is definitely better idea, but that's probably how I'd do it.
Update:
And AFAIK you can't override the "+=", because "a += b" just a shortcut for "a = a + b" and you probably don't want to override "=" to use the update_counters :)
Related
Im current working on a small project and I want to seed my database faster. I migrated a new column called "grand_total_points" to my table of users. So originally I was using this code.
user = User.all
user.each do |x|
x.grand_total_points = x.total_points
x.save!
end
This takes me ages, because I have to update a million record.
Total_points have already been defined in my user model where it calculates all the users points that have been submitted. Forgive me for my explanation. Is there a way to use update_all method but with each included in it?
Yep, possible:
User.update_all('grand_total_points = total_points')
It will generate the following SQL query:
UPDATE "users" SET "grand_total_points" = 'total_points'
If total_points is not a column but an instance method, move the logic into update_all query.
User.update_all("grand_total_points = #{total_points calculation translated into SQL terms}")
I found something that could work. So basically i combine a ruby code with an execute SQL statement, and I put it in a migration file. Here's how the code works. I hope this helps. Make sure you follow the query according to your data.
class ChangeStuff < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
points = Point.select('user_id, SUM(value) AS value').group(:user_id)
points.each do |point|
execute "UPDATE users SET grand_total_points = #{point.value} WHERE users.id = #{point.user_id}"
end
end
end
You should run bundle exec rake db:migrate after that. The normal way takes me 2-3hours. This only took me 2minutes.
Is there a better way to update more record in one query with different values in Ruby on Rails? I solved using CASE in SQL, but is there any Active Record solution for that?
Basically I save a new sort order when a new list arrive back from a jquery ajax post.
#List of product ids in sorted order. Get from jqueryui sortable plugin.
#product_ids = [3,1,2,4,7,6,5]
# Simple solution which generate a loads of queries. Working but slow.
#product_ids.each_with_index do |id, index|
# Product.where(id: id).update_all(sort_order: index+1)
#end
##CASE syntax example:
##Product.where(id: product_ids).update_all("sort_order = CASE id WHEN 539 THEN 1 WHEN 540 THEN 2 WHEN 542 THEN 3 END")
case_string = "sort_order = CASE id "
product_ids.each_with_index do |id, index|
case_string += "WHEN #{id} THEN #{index+1} "
end
case_string += "END"
Product.where(id: product_ids).update_all(case_string)
This solution works fast and only one query, but I create a query string like in php. :) What would be your suggestion?
You should check out the acts_as_list gem. It does everything you need and it uses 1-3 queries behind the scenes. Its a perfect match to use with jquery sortable plugin. It relies on incrementing/decrementing the position (sort_order) field directly in SQL.
This won't be a good solution for you, if your UI/UX relies on saving the order manually by the user (user sorts out the things and then clicks update/save). However I strongly discourage this kind of interface, unless there is a specific reason (for example you cannot have intermediate state in database between old and new order, because something else depends on that order).
If thats not the case, then by all means just do an asynchronous update after user moves one element (and acts_as_list will be great to help you accomplish that).
Check out:
https://github.com/swanandp/acts_as_list/blob/master/lib/acts_as_list/active_record/acts/list.rb#L324
# This has the effect of moving all the higher items down one.
def increment_positions_on_higher_items
return unless in_list?
acts_as_list_class.unscoped.where(
"#{scope_condition} AND #{position_column} < #{send(position_column).to_i}"
).update_all(
"#{position_column} = (#{position_column} + 1)"
)
end
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
Is there a more efficient method for doing a Rails SQL statement of the following code?
It will be called across the site to hide certain content or users based on if a user is blocked or not so it needs to be fairly efficient or it will slow everything else down as well.
users.rb file:
def is_blocked_by_or_has_blocked?(user)
status = relationships.where('followed_id = ? AND relationship_status = ?',
user.id, relationship_blocked).first ||
user.relationships.where('followed_id = ? AND relationship_status = ?',
self.id, relationship_blocked).first
return status
end
In that code, relationship_blocked is just an abstraction of an integer to make it easier to read later.
In a view, I am calling this method like this:
- unless current_user.is_blocked_by_or_has_blocked?(user)
- # show the content for unblocked users here
Edit
This is a sample query.. it stops after it finds the first instance (no need to check for a reverse relationship)
Relationship Load (0.2ms) SELECT "relationships".* FROM "relationships" WHERE ("relationships".follower_id = 101) AND (followed_id = 1 AND relationship_status = 2) LIMIT 1
You can change it to only run one query by making it use an IN (x,y,z) statement in the query (this is done by passing an array of ids to :followed_id). Also, by using .count, you bypass Rails instantiating an instance of the model for the resulting relationships, which will keep things faster (less data to pass around in memory):
def is_blocked_by_or_has_blocked?(user)
relationships.where(:followed_id => [user.id, self.id], :relationship_status => relationship_blocked).count > 0
end
Edit - To get it to look both ways;
Relationship.where(:user_id => [user.id, self.id], :followed_id => [user.id, self.id], :relationship_status => relationship_blocked).count > 0
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 ]