Hello I was trying the update the data in the table using the rails console.
Box.where("code = 'learning'").update(duration: 10)
I ran this command.
The data is temporarily changing.
Box.where("code = 'learning'")
When I run this the precious data is being displayed.
Could anyone let me the issue.
Thank you in advance.
#update updates a single record.
user = User.find_by(name: 'David')
user.update(name: 'Dave')
It will return true/false depending on if the record was actually updated. You can see the validation errors by inspecting the errors object:
user.errors.full_messages
In non user-interactions situations like seed files and the console it can be helpful to use the bang methods such as #update!, #save! and #create! which will raise an exception if the record is invalid.
If you want to update multiple records at once you need to use #update_all:
Box.where("code = 'learning'")
.update_all(duration: 10)
This creates a single SQL update statement and is by far the most performant option.
You can also iterate through the records:
Box.where("code = 'learning'").find_each do |box|
box.update(duration: 10)
end
This is sometimes necissary if the value you are updating must be calculated in the application. But it is much slower as it creates N+1 database queries.
Related
Following the principle of fail-fast:
When querying the database where there should only ever be one record, I want an exception if .first() (first) encounters more than one record.
I see that there is a first! method that throws if there's less records than expected but I don't see anything for if there's two or more.
How can I get active record to fail early if there are more records than expected?
Is there a reason that active record doesn't work this way?
I'm used to C#'s Single() that will throw if two records are found.
Why would you expect activerecord's first method to fails if there are more than 1 record? it makes no sense for it to work that way.
You can define your own class method the count the records before getting the first one. Something like
def self.first_and_only!
raise "more than 1" if size > 1
first!
end
That will raise an error if there are more than 1 and also if there's no record at all. If there's one and only one it will return it.
It seems ActiveRecord has no methods like that. One useful method I found is one?, you can call it on an ActiveRecord::Relation object. You could do
users = User.where(name: "foo")
raise StandardError unless users.one?
and maybe define your own custom exception
If you care enough about queries performance, you have to avoid ActiveRecord::Relation's count, one?, none?, many?, any? etc, which spawns SQL select count(*) ... query.
So, your could use SQL limit like:
def self.single!
# Only one fast DB query
result = limit(2).to_a
# Array#many? not ActiveRecord::Calculations one
raise TooManySomthError if result.many?
# Array#first not ActiveRecord::FinderMethods one
result.first
end
Also, when you expect to get only one record, you have to use Relation's take instead of first. The last one is for really first record, and can produce useless SQL ORDER BY.
find_sole_by (Rails 7.0+)
Starting from Rails 7.0, there is a find_sole_by method:
Finds the sole matching record. Raises ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound if no record is found. Raises ActiveRecord::SoleRecordExceeded if more than one record is found.
For example:
Product.find_sole_by(["price = %?", price])
Sources:
ActiveRecord::FinderMethods#find_sole_by.
Rails 7 adds ActiveRecord methods #sole and #find_sole_by.
Rails 7.0 adds ActiveRecord::FinderMethods 'sole' and 'find_sole_by'.
For demo purposes, suppose that I have a class called DemoThing with a method called do_something.
Is there a way that (in code) I can check the number of times that do_something hits the database? Is there a way that I can "spy" on active record to count the number of times that the database was called?
For instance:
class DemoThing
def do_something
retVal = []
5.times do |i|
retVal << MyActiveRecordModel.where(:id => i)
end
retVal
end
end
dt = DemoThing.new
stuff = dt.do_something # want to assert that do_something hit the database 5 times
ActiveRecord should be logging each query in STDOUT.
But for the above code, it's pretty obvious that you're making 5 calls for each iteration of i.
Queries can be made more efficient by not mixing Ruby logic with querying.
In this example, gettings the ids before querying will mean that the query isn't called for each Ruby loop.
ids = 5.times.to_a
retVal = MyActiveRecordModel.where(id: ids) # .to_a if retVal needs to be an Array
Sure is. But first you must understand Rails' Query Cache and logger. By default, Rails will attempt to optimize performance by turning on a simple query cache. It is a hash stored on the current thread (one for every active database connection - Most rails processes will have just one ). Whenever a select statement is made (like find or where etc.), the corresponding result set is stored in a hash with the SQL that was used to query them as the key. You'll notice when you run the above method your log will show Model Load statement and then a CACHE statement. Your database was only queried one time, with the other 4 being loaded via cache. Watch your server logs as you run that query.
I found a gem for queries count https://github.com/comboy/sql_queries_count
I have an update-type method that I am trying to test in Rails using MiniTest and FactoryGirl. My problem is that although I can see that the update is happening correctly within the update function, it doesn't seem to carry over back into the test-function properly.
These is the objects we are working with, (obj is given a default location to start off with:
location1 = create :location
location2 = create :location
obj = create :object, location: location1
And then we call the update function, which takes id's:
obj.update_location(obj.id, location2.id)
The update function:
def update_location(obj_id, loc_id)
#obj = Object.find(obj_id)
#obj.location_id = loc_id
#obj.save
end
But when, back in the test file, I try to assert the change…
assert_equal obj.location_id, location2.id
...I get a failure. The console tells me that obj.location_id still equals location1.id! Why is this?
It seems that the #obj.save is working properly because I inserted puts #obj.inspect in the update-function and it outputs the correctly updated location_id.
I don't think it has to do with transaction-rollbacks because this is all taking place within a single test. (And I am under the impression that transaction rollbacks only happen in between tests).
In summary, my question is: Why doesn't my update persist back into the rails MiniTest test function?
EDIT: Here is the whole test:
test "update_location" do
location1 = create :location
location2 = create :location
#give the obj a starting `type`
obj = create :obj, location: location1
obj.update_location(obj.id, location2.id)
assert_equal obj.location_id, location2.id
end
Issue is resolved, and here is my understanding:
The issue was in how rails' ORM work. The original object 'obj' is loaded up with data from the DB when it is created…but later changes to the DB are not automatically stored to obj. I had thought that obj.some_attribute looks at the database for the record obj in order to find the attribute value--but in actuality I think that the attributes are simply loaded into the variable upon its creation and the database is NOT accessed if I call obj.some_attribute at a later point in time.
Normally, when an update is done through the variable itself, Rails knows to update the variable for you. So when you write obj.some_attribute = 5, and then later on write obj.some_attribute, Rails knows the value is supposed to be 5. But that Rails magic doesn't happen in this situation because it's not updating the record through the variable.
So what needs to be done is simply to reload the object from the database.
So assert_equal obj.reload.location_id, location2.id works!
2 questions that might help you find an answer:
Why are you using an instance variable #obj instead of a local variable obj
Why do you have a special method just to update 1 column. Would the update_column not work for you?
I'm currently working on saving a user social media posts in my app. The basic idea is to check if the post exists if it does update the data or if not create a new row. Right now I'm looping through all of the post that I receive from the social platform so potentially I'm looping through 3,000 and adding them to the database.
Is there a way that I could rewrite this to save all the items at once, which hopefully would speed up the save method?
post_data.each do |post_data_details|
post_instance = Post::Tumblr.
where(platform_id: platform_id).
where("data ->> 'id' = ?", post_data_details["id"].to_s).
first_or_initialize
exisiting_data = post_instance.data
new_data = exisiting_data.merge! post_data_details.to_hash
post_instance.data = new_data
post_instance.refreshed_at = date
post_instance.save!
end
It is good practice to run such long-running jobs via sidekiq or other background jobs solution.
You can also use single ActiveRecord transaction.
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Transactions/ClassMethods.html
But keep in mind, that if one of records will be invalid - whole trasaction will be rollbacked.
When I executing query
Mymodel.all.each do |model|
# ..do something
end
It uses allot of memory and amount of used memory increases at all the time and at the and it crashes. I found out that to fix it I need to disable identity_map but when I adding to my mongoid.yml file identity_map_enabled: false I am getting error
Invalid configuration option: identity_map_enabled.
Summary:
A invalid configuration option was provided in your mongoid.yml, or a typo is potentially present. The valid configuration options are: :include_root_in_json, :include_type_for_serialization, :preload_models, :raise_not_found_error, :scope_overwrite_exception, :duplicate_fields_exception, :use_activesupport_time_zone, :use_utc.
Resolution:
Remove the invalid option or fix the typo. If you were expecting the option to be there, please consult the following page with repect to Mongoid's configuration:
I am using Rails 4 and Mongoid 4, Mymodel.all.count => 3202400
How can I fix it or maybe some one know other way to reduce amount of memory used during executing query .all.each ..?
Thank you very much for the help!!!!
I started with something just like you by doing loop through millions of record and the memory just keep increasing.
Original code:
#portal.listings.each do |listing|
listing.do_something
end
I've gone through many forum answers and I tried them out.
1st attempt: I try to use the combination of WeakRef and GC.start but no luck, I fail.
2nd attempt: Adding listing = nil to the first attempt, and still fail.
Success Attempt:
#start_date = 10.years.ago
#end_date = 1.day.ago
while #start_date < #end_date
#portal.listings.where(created_at: #start_date..#start_date.next_month).each do |listing|
listing.do_something
end
#start_date = #start_date.next_month
end
Conclusion
All the memory allocated for the record will never be released during
the query request. Therefore, trying with small number of record every
request does the job, and memory is in good condition since it will be
released after each request.
Your problem isn't the identity map, I don't think Mongoid4 even has an identity map built in, hence the configuration error when you try to turn it off. Your problem is that you're using all. When you do this:
Mymodel.all.each
Mongoid will attempt to instantiate every single document in the db.mymodels collection as a Mymodel instance before it starts iterating. You say that you have about 3.2 million documents in the collection, that means that Mongoid will try to create 3.2 million model instances before it tries to iterate. Presumably you don't have enough memory to handle that many objects.
Your Mymodel.all.count works fine because that just sends a simple count call into the database and returns a number, it won't instantiate any models at all.
The solution is to not use all (and preferably forget that it exists). Depending on what "do something" does, you could:
Page through all the models so that you're only working with a reasonable number of them at a time.
Push the logic into the database using mapReduce or the aggregation framework.
Whenever you're working with real data (i.e. something other than a trivially small database), you should push as much work as possible into the database because databases are built to manage and manipulate big piles of data.