When I use a column alias in a query with find_by_sql, it doesn't appear to be set in the result objects, even when I add an attr_accessor for the property.
class Country < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessor :average_score
def self.sorted_by_average_score
sql = "SELECT country_id, AVG(score) AS average_score, countries.name " +
"FROM players " +
"INNER JOIN countries ON players.country_id = countries.id " +
"GROUP BY country_id "
Country.find_by_sql(sql)
end
end
I would expect to be able to do this:
countries = Country.sorted_by_average_score.first.average_score
...but it always returns nil, even though a value is definitely returned from the query.
Can anyone explain to me why the attribute isn't set in the object?
You don't need to use attr_accessor, see neutrino's explanation. You just need to access your virtual column by using the attributes hash. This question is the same as Rails: find_by_sql and virtual column. Sample code for your example:
countries = Country.sorted_by_average_score.first.attributes['average_score']
Because attr_accessors have nothing to do with the way ActiveRecord treats your columns. I've shown it in this question. Basically all the stuff going on in finders that touches columns, works with the attributes hash, not with the instance variables that your accessors declare.
edit: actually my answer doesn't answer the question completely. it just explains why attr_accessor could not be of any help here. looking forward to see someone do the rest of the job :)
Related
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.
I have a model AvailableSlot with attribute "max_attendees". AvailableSlot has_many BookedSlots.
I am looking for all AvailableSlots that are still available (where the booked_slots is less than max_attendees")
I tried
scope :with_capacity, -> { joins('LEFT OUTER JOIN booked_slots on booked_slots.available_slot_id = available_slots.id')
.group('available_slots.id').having("booked_slots.count < available_slots.max_attendees") }
and
#AvailableSlot.rb
def self.with_capacity
self.select{ |s| s.booked_slots.count < s.max_attendees }
end
but these return arrays, and the first one can't do a ".count", and the second solution can't do ".limit(3)" because the data that gets returned aren't active records.
One last question: for doing things like,
AvailableSlot.joins(:booked_slots).where("booked_slots.length < ?, max_attendees)
I can't use .length because that's not a column under booked_slots. What's a way to use this .joins.where format while using the activerecord methods like .count, .length, etc?
You need to create a virtual attribute for the having.
AvailableSlot.
joins('LEFT OUTER JOIN booked_slots on booked_slots.available_slot_id = available_slots.id').
select('available_slots.*, count(booked_slots) as booked_slots_count').
group('available_slots.id').
having('booked_slots_count < max_attendees')
This will also expose a the virtual attribute to the model.
Mind that this will make it so .count is more complicated and you'll have to pass jazz to it, check out the options available on the doc: http://apidock.com/rails/ActiveRecord/Calculations/ClassMethods/count
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.
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?
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 ]