In a Rails app, I have a model, Machine, that contains the following named scope:
named_scope :needs_updates, lambda {
{ :select => self.column_names.collect{|c| "\"machines\".\"#{c}\""}.join(','),
:group => self.column_names.collect{|c| "\"machines\".\"#{c}\""}.join(','),
:joins => 'LEFT JOIN "machine_updates" ON "machine_updates"."machine_id" = "machines"."id"',
:having => ['"machines"."manual_updates" = ? AND "machines"."in_use" = ? AND (MAX("machine_updates"."date") IS NULL OR MAX("machine_updates"."date") < ?)', true, true, UPDATE_THRESHOLD.days.ago]
}
}
This named scope works fine in development mode. In production mode, however, it returns the 2 models as expected, but the models are empty or uninitialized; that is, actual objects are returned (not nil), but all the fields are nil. For example, when inspecting the return value of the named scope in the console, the following is returned:
[#<Machine >, #<Machine >]
But, as you can see, all the fields of the objects returned are set to nil.
The production and development environments are essentially the same. Both are using a SQLite database. Here is the SQL statement that is generated for the query:
SELECT
"machines"."id",
"machines"."machine_name",
"machines"."hostname",
"machines"."mac_address",
"machines"."ip_address",
"machines"."hard_drive",
"machines"."ram",
"machines"."machine_type",
"machines"."use",
"machines"."comments",
"machines"."in_use",
"machines"."model",
"machines"."vendor_id",
"machines"."operating_system_id",
"machines"."location",
"machines"."acquisition_date",
"machines"."rpi_tag",
"machines"."processor",
"machines"."processor_speed",
"machines"."manual_updates",
"machines"."serial_number",
"machines"."owner"
FROM
"machines"
LEFT JOIN
"machine_updates" ON "machine_updates"."machine_id" = "machines"."id"
GROUP BY
"machines"."id",
"machines"."machine_name",
"machines"."hostname",
"machines"."mac_address",
"machines"."ip_address",
"machines"."hard_drive",
"machines"."ram",
"machines"."machine_type",
"machines"."use",
"machines"."comments",
"machines"."in_use",
"machines"."model",
"machines"."vendor_id",
"machines"."operating_system_id",
"machines"."location",
"machines"."acquisition_date",
"machines"."rpi_tag",
"machines"."processor",
"machines"."processor_speed",
"machines"."manual_updates",
"machines"."serial_number",
"machines"."owner"
HAVING
"machines"."manual_updates" = 't'
AND "machines"."in_use" = 't'
AND (MAX("machine_updates"."date") IS NULL
OR MAX("machine_updates"."date") < '2010-03-26 13:46:28')
Any ideas what's going wrong?
This might not be related to what is happening to you, but it sounds similar enough, so here it goes: are you using the rails cache for anything?
I got nearly the same results as you when I tried to cache the results of a query (as explained on railscast #115).
I tracked down the issue to a still open rails bug that makes cached ActiveRecords unusable - you have to choose between not using cached AR or applying a patch and getting memory leaks.
The cache works ok with non-AR objects, so I ended up "translating" the stuff I needed to integers and arrays, and cached that.
Hope this helps!
Seems like the grouping may be causing the problem. Is the data also identical in both dev & production?
Um, I'm not sure you're having the problem you think you're having.
[#<Machine >, #<Machine >]
implies that you have called "inspect" on the array... but not on each of the individual machine-objects inside it. This may be a silly question, but have you actually tried calling inspect on the individual Machine objects returned to really see if they have nil in the columns?
Machine.needs_updates.each do |m|
p m.inspect
end
?
If that does in fact result in nil-column data. My next suggestion is that you copy the generated SQL and go into the standard mysql interface and see what you get when you run that SQL... and then paste it into your question above so we can see.
Related
In my controller method for the the index view I have the following line.
#students_instance = Student.includes(:memo_tests => {:memo_target => :memo_level})
So for each Student I eager-load all necessary info.
Later on in a .map block, I call the .where() method on one of the relations as shown below.
#all_students = #students_instance.map do |student|
...
last_pass = student.memo_tests.where(:result => true).last.created_at.utc
difference_in_weeks = ((last_pass.to_i - current_date.to_i) / 1.week).round
...
end
This leads to a single SQL query for each student. And since I have over 300+ students, leads to very slow load times and over 300+ SQL queries.
Am I right in thinking that this is caused by the .where() method. I think this because I have checked everything else and these are the two lines that cause all of the queries.
More importantly, is there a better way to do this that reduces these queries to a single query?
The moment you ask where, the statement is translated to a query. Normally, the result should be sql-cached...
Anyway, in order to be sure, you can instead add programming logic to your statement. That way, you are not requesting a NEW sql statement.
last_pass = student.memo_tests.map {|m| m.created_at if m.result}.compact.sort.last
EDIT
I see the OP's question does not require sorting... So, leaving the sorting out:
last_pass = student.memo_tests.map {|m| m.created_at if m.result}.compact.last
compact is required to remove nil results from the array.
I've not played with Ruby in a while, and was just writing a simple db query tool.
The tool connects fine and returns the correct number of results for the query (56 rows in this case), but the value returned for each element is 'nil'. Executing the query in sqlplus works fine.
I've found similar problems on StackExchange, but most of the solutions don't apply, or require using ODBC directly. Ugh.
I'm including a stripped down version of what I've written. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?
require 'dbi'
dbh = DBI.connect('DBI:OCI8:foodb', 'user', 'password')
rs = dbh.prepare('select field_name from foo_user.cdr_fields where layout like ?')
rs.execute('phi_outage')
while rsRow = rs.fetch do
p rsRow
end
rs.finish
dbh.disconnect
The fetch method is an iterator so no need for a while loop. Try
rs.fetch do|row|
p row unless p.nil?
end
The API states that the method gets called for all remaining rows and will return nil when done.
I'm missing something simple - I do not want to access the results of this query in a view.
Here is the query:
#adm = Admin.where({:id => {"$ne" => params[:id].to_s},:email => params[:email]})
And of course when you inspect you get:
#adm is #<MongoMapper::Plugins::Querying::DecoratedPluckyQuery:0x007fb4be99acd0>
I understand (from asking the MM guys) why this is the case - they wished to delay the results of the actual query as long as possible, and only get a representation of the query object until we render (in a view!).
But what I'm trying to ascertain in my code is IF one of my params matches or doesn't match the result of my query in the controller so I can either return an error message or proceed.
Normally in a view I'm going to do:
#adm.id
To get the BSON out of this. When you try this on the Decorated Query of course it fails:
NoMethodError (undefined method `id' for #<MongoMapper::Plugins::Querying::DecoratedPluckyQuery:0x007fb4b9e9f118>)
This is because it's not actually a Ruby Object yet, it's still the query proxy.
Now I'm fundamentally missing something because I never read a "getting started with Ruby" guide - I just smashed my way in here and learned through brute-force. So, what method do I call to get the results of the Plucky Query?
The field #adm is set to a query as you've seen. So, to access the results, you'll need to trigger execution of the query. There are a variety of activation methods you can call, including all, first, and last. There's a little documentation here.
In this case, you could do something like:
adm_query = Admin.where({:id => {"$ne" => params[:id].to_s},:email => params[:email]})
#adm_user = adm_query.first
That would return you the first user and after checking for nil
if #adm_user.nil?
# do something if no results were found
end
You could also limit the query results:
adm_query = Admin.where( ... your query ...).limit(1)
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 ]