I have two models, Project and Category, which have a many-to-many relationship between them. The Project model is very simple:
class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :categories
scope :in_categories, lambda { |categories|
joins(:categories).
where("categories.id in (?)", categories.collect(&:to_i))
}
end
The :in_categories scope takes an array of Category IDs (as strings), so using this scope I can get back every project that belongs to at least one of the categories passed in.
But what I'm actually trying to do is filter (a better name would be :has_categories). I want to just get the projects that belong to all of the categories passed in. So if I pass in ["1", "3", "4"] I only want to get the projects that belong to all of the categories.
There are two common solutions in SQL to do what you're describing.
Self-join:
SELECT ...
FROM Projects p
JOIN Categories c1 ON c1.project_id = p.id
JOIN Categories c3 ON c3.project_id = p.id
JOIN Categories c4 ON c4.project_id = p.id
WHERE (c1.id, c3.id, c4.id) = (1, 3, 4);
Note I'm using syntax to compare tuples. This is equivalent to:
WHERE c1.id = 1 AND c3.id = 3 AND c4.id = 4;
In general, the self-join solution has very good performance if you have a covering index. Probably Categories.(project_id,id) would be the right index, but analyze the SQL with EXPLAIN to be sure.
The disadvantage of this method is that you need four joins if you're searching for projects that match four different categories. Five joins for five categories, etc.
Group-by:
SELECT ...
FROM Projects p
JOIN Categories cc ON c.project_id = p.id
WHERE c.id IN (1, 3, 4)
GROUP BY p.id
HAVING COUNT(*) = 3;
If you're using MySQL (I assume you are), most GROUP BY queries invoke a temp table and this kills performance.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to adapt one of these SQL solutions to equivalent Rails ActiveRecord API.
It seems like in ActiveRecord you would do it like so:
scope :has_categories, lambda { |categories|
joins(:categories).
where("categories.id in (?)", categories.collect(&:to_i)).
group("projects.id HAVING COUNT(projects.id) = #{categories.count}")
}
Related
Using the Django ORM is it possible to perform a select_related (left join) with conditions additional to the default table1.id = table2.fk
Using the example models:
class Author(models.Model):
name = models.TextField()
age = models.IntegerField()
class Book(models.Model):
title = models.TextField()
and the raw sql
SELECT 'Book'.*, 'Author'.'name'
FROM 'Book'
LEFT JOIN
'Author'
ON 'Author'.'id' = 'Book'.'author_id'
AND 'Author'.'age' > 18 ;<---this line here is what id like to use via the ORM
I understand that in this simple example you can perform the filtering after the join, but that hasn't worked in my specific case. As i am doing sums across multiple left joins that require filters.
# gets all books which has author with age higher than 18
books = Book.objects.filter(author__age__gt=18)
returns queryset.
Then you can loop trough the queryset to access specific values and print them:
for b in books:
print(b.title, b.author.name, b.author.age)
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])
I suspect this is a rather common scenario and may show my ineptitude as a DB developer, but here goes anyway ...
I have two tables: Profiles and HiddenProfiles and the HiddenProfiles table has two relevant foreign keys: profile_id and hidden_profile_id that store ids from the Profiles table.
As you can imagine, a user can hide another user (wherein his profile ID would be the profile_id in the HiddenProfiles table) or he can be hidden by another user (wherein his profile ID would be put in the hidden_profile_id column). Again, a pretty common scenario.
Desired Outcome:
I want to do a join (or to be honest, whatever would be the most efficient query) on the Profiles and HiddenProfiles table to find all the profiles that a given profile is both not hiding AND not hidden from.
In my head I thought it would be pretty straightforward, but the iterations I came up with kept seeming to miss one half of the problem. Finally, I ended up with something that looks like this:
SELECT "profiles".* FROM "profiles"
LEFT JOIN hidden_profiles hp1 on hp1.profile_id = profiles.id and (hp1.hidden_profile_id = 1)
LEFT JOIN hidden_profiles hp2 on hp2.hidden_profile_id = profiles.id and (hp2.profile_id = 1)
WHERE (hp1.hidden_profile_id is null) AND (hp2.profile_id is null)
Don't get me wrong, this "works" but in my heart of hearts I feel like there should be a better way. If in fact there is not, I'm more than happy to accept that answer from someone with more wisdom than myself on the matter. :)
And for what it's worth these are two RoR models sitting on a Postgres DB, so solutions tailored to those constraints are appreciated.
Models are as such:
class Profile < ActiveRecord::Base
...
has_many :hidden_profiles, dependent: :delete_all
scope :not_hidden_to_me, -> (profile) { joins("LEFT JOIN hidden_profiles hp1 on hp1.profile_id = profiles.id and (hp1.hidden_profile_id = #{profile.id})").where("hp1.hidden_profile_id is null") }
scope :not_hidden_by_me, -> (profile) { joins("LEFT JOIN hidden_profiles hp2 on hp2.hidden_profile_id = profiles.id and (hp2.profile_id = #{profile.id})").where("hp2.profile_id is null") }
scope :not_hidden, -> (profile) { self.not_hidden_to_me(profile).not_hidden_by_me(profile) }
...
end
class HiddenProfile < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :profile
belongs_to :hidden_profile, class_name: "Profile"
end
So to get the profiles I want I'm doing the following:
Profile.not_hidden(given_profile)
And again, maybe this is fine, but if there's a better way I'll happily take it.
If you want to get this list just for a single profile, I would implement an instance method to perform effectively the same query in ActiveRecord. The only modification I made is to perform a single join onto a union of subqueries and to apply the conditions on the subqueries. This should reduce the columns that need to be loaded into memory, and hopefully be faster (you'd need to benchmark against your data to be sure):
class Profile < ActiveRecord::Base
def visible_profiles
Profile.joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT profile_id p_id FROM hidden_profiles WHERE hidden_profile_id = #{id}
UNION ALL
SELECT hidden_profile_id p_id FROM hidden_profiles WHERE profile_id = #{id}
) hp ON hp.p_id = profiles.id").where("hp.p_id IS NULL")
end
end
Since this method returns an ActiveRecord scope, you can chain additional conditions if desired:
Profile.find(1).visible_profiles.where("created_at > ?", Time.new(2015,1,1)).order(:name)
Personally I've never liked the join = null approach. I find it counter intuitive. You're asking for a join, and then limiting the results to records that don't match.
I'd approach it more as
SELECT id FROM profiles p
WHERE
NOT EXISTS
(SELECT * FROM hidden_profiles hp1
WHERE hp1.hidden_profile_id = 1 and hp1.profile_id = p.profile_id)
AND
NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM hidden_profiles hp2
WHERE hp2.hidden_profile_id = p.profile_id and hp2.profile_id = 1)
But you're going to need to run it some EXPLAINs with realistic volumes to be sure of which works best.
The title is self-explanatory. Using 2.0.0-M3, I'd like to avoid unnecessary verbosity is the form of explicitly naming the columns to be joined on, since they are appropriately named, and since NATURAL JOIN is part of the SQL standard. Not to mention, Wikipedia itself even says that "The natural join is arguably one of the most important operators since it is the relational counterpart of logical AND."
I think the foregoing ought to be clear enough, but just if not, read on. Suppose I want to know the supplier-name and part-number of each part. Assuming appropriate case classes not shown:
class Suppliers(tag: Tag) extends Table[Supplier](tag, "suppliers") {
def snum = column[String]("snum")
def sname = column[String]("sname")
def * = (snum, sname) <> (Supplier.tupled, Supplier.unapply _)
}
class Shipments(tag: Tag) extends Table[Shipment](tag, "shipments") {
def snum = column[String]("snum")
def pnum = column[String]("pnum")
def * = (snum, pnum) <> (Shipment.tupled, Shipment.unapply _)
}
val suppliers = TableQuery[Suppliers]
val shipments = TableQuery[Shipments]
Given that both tables have the snum column I want to join on, seems as if
( suppliers join shipments ).run
ought to return a Vector with my desired data, but I get a failed attempt at an INNER JOIN, failing (at run-time) since it's missing any join condition.
I know I can do
suppliers.flatMap( s => shipments filter (sp => sp.snum === s.snum) map (sp => (s.sname, sp.pnum)) )
but, even without the names of all the columns I omitted for clarity of this question, it's still quite a lot more typing (and proofreading) than simply
suppliers join shipments
or, for that matter
SELECT * FROM suppliers NATURAL JOIN shipments;
If the Scala code is messier than the SQL code, then I really start questioning things. Is there no way simply to do a natural join in Slick?
Currently not supported by Slick. Please submit a ticket or pull request.
To improve readability of query code, you can put your join conditions into re-usable values. Or you can put the whole join in a function or method extension of Query[Suppliers,Supplier].
Alternatively you could look at the AutoJoin pattern (which basically makes your join conditions implicit) described here http://slick.typesafe.com/docs/#20130612_slick_vs_orm_scaladays_2013 and implemented here https://github.com/cvogt/play-slick/blob/scaladays2013/samples/computer-database/app/util/autojoin.scala
I have an Article with a Set of Category.
How can I query, using the criteria interface, for all Articles that contain all Categories with a certain Id?
This is not an "in", I need exclusively those who have all necessary categories - and others. Partial matches should not come in there.
Currently my code is failing with this desperate attempt:
var c = session.CreateCriteria<Article>("a");
if (categoryKeys.HasItems())
{
c.CreateAlias("a.Categories", "c");
foreach (var key in categoryKeys)
c.Add(Restrictions.Eq("c", key)); //bogus, I know!
}
Use the "IN" restriction, but supplement to ensure that the number of category matches is equal to the count of all the categories you're looking for to make sure that all the categories are matched and not just a subset.
For an example of what I mean, you might want to take a look at this page, especially the "Intersection" query under the "Toxi solution" heading. Replace "bookmarks" with "articles" and "tags" with "categories" to map that back to your specific problem. Here's the SQL that they show there:
SELECT b.*
FROM tagmap bt, bookmark b, tag t
WHERE bt.tag_id = t.tag_id
AND (t.name IN ('bookmark', 'webservice', 'semweb'))
AND b.id = bt.bookmark_id
GROUP BY b.id
HAVING COUNT( b.id )=3
I believe you can also represent this using a subquery that may be easier to represent with the Criteria API
SELECT Article.Id
FROM Article
INNER JOIN (
SELECT ArticleId, count(*) AS MatchingCategories
FROM ArticleCategoryMap
WHERE CategoryId IN (<list of category ids>)
GROUP BY ArticleId
) subquery ON subquery.ArticleId = EntityTable.Id
WHERE subquery.MatchingCategories = <number of category ids in list>
I'm not 100% sure, but I think query by example may be what you want.
Assuming that Article to Category is a one-to-many relationship and that the Category has a many-to-one property called Article here is a VERY dirty way of doing this (I am really not proud of this but it works)
List<long> catkeys = new List<long>() { 4, 5, 6, 7 };
if (catkeys.Count == 0)
return;
var cr = Session.CreateCriteria<Article>("article")
.CreateCriteria("Categories", "cat0")
.Add(Restrictions.Eq("cat0.Id", catkeys[0]));
if (catkeys.Count > 1)
{
for (int i = 1; i < catkeys.Count; i++)
{
cr = cr.CreateCriteria("Article", "a" + i)
.CreateCriteria("Categories", "cat" + i)
.Add(Restrictions.Eq("cat" + i + ".Id", catkeys[i]));
}
}
var results = cr.List<Article>();
What it does is to re-join the relationship over and over again guaranteeing you the AND between category Ids. It should be very slow query especially if the list of Ids gets big.
I am offering this solution as NOT a recommended way but at least you can have something working while looking for a proper one.