I need an active record relation that gives me the latest record of a region, city, bed combination. I have the sql query written as below, but I need to figure out if there is away to use a different approach to have it return an active record relation and not an array. Any suggestions?
Current query:
#current_ltm_market_stats = LtmStatsByBedCount.find_by_sql(" SELECT *
FROM ltm_stats_by_bed_counts lstats
WHERE lstats.city_id = '#{#city_id}'
#{#region_id_condition}
AND (lstats.beds,lstats.city_id,lstats.region_id,lstats.reporting_date)
IN (SELECT lstats.beds,
lstats.city_id,
lstats.region_id,
max(lstats.reporting_date)
FROM ltm_stats_by_bed_counts lstats
WHERE lstats.city_id = '#{#city_id}'
#{#region_id_condition}
GROUP BY city_id, region_id, beds)
ORDER BY lstats.year DESC,lstats.month DESC")
I had tried this before which did result in a relation but it runs really slowly and the result is not exactly the same. Are there any better rails ways to do this?
#all_ltm_market_stats = LtmStatsByBedCount.where(city_id: #market.city_id, region_id: #market.region_id)
#current_ltm_market_stats = #latest_year_ltm_market_stats.where(month: #latest_year_ltm_market_stats.all_ltm_market_stats.select('Max(year)'))
Information in the question is incomplete, so i might have to update my answer when additional details are added, But here is the initial draft with available information:
#current_ltm_market_stats = LtmStatsByBedCount.
where(city_id: #city_id).
where(#region_id_condition).
where("(beds, city_id, region_id, reporting_date) IN (
SELECT lstats.beds,
lstats.city_id,
lstats.region_id,
max(lstats.reporting_date)
FROM ltm_stats_by_bed_counts lstats
WHERE lstats.city_id = '#{#city_id}'
#{#region_id_condition}
GROUP BY city_id, region_id, beds)").
order(year: :desc, month: :desc)
Note that you might have to adjust your #region_id_condition a bit for this to work.
Theoretically it is equivalent of your SQL version(which means it will generate same sql excluding table alias) and returns the AR relation object. Which is the only requirement in the question. Obviously SQL might be improved with additional information as well.
Additionally, you will want to have carefully crafted indexes on this table if you are going to use this query on larger datasets frequently.
Related
There are three models that matter here: Objective, Student, and Seminar. All are associated with has_and_belongs_to_many.
There is an ObjectiveStudent join model that includes columns "ready" and "points_all_time". There is an ObjectiveSeminar join model that includes column "priority".
I need to collect all of the objectives that are associated with a given student and also with a given seminar.
They need to also be marked with a "priority" above zero in the seminar. So I think I need this line:
obj_sems = ObjectiveSeminar.where(:seminar => given_seminar).where("priority > ?", 0)
Finally, they need to also be objectives where the student is ready, but has not scored above 7. So I think I need this line:
obj_studs = ObjectiveStudent.where(:user => given_student, :ready => true).where("points_all_time <= ?", 7)
Is there a way to gather all the objectives whose join table records appear in both of the above queries? Note that neither of the lists return objectives; they return objective_seminars, and objective_students, respectively. My end goal is to collect the objectives that meet all of the above criteria.
Or am I approaching this all wrong?
Bonus question: I would also love to sort the objectives by their priority in the given seminar. But I'm afraid that would add too much to the database load. What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you in advance for any insight.
In order to get Objectives you'll need to start your query from that.
In order to query with an AND condition the associated tables, you'll need inner joins with these tables.
Finally you'll need a distinct operator to only fetch each objective once.
The extended version of what (I think) you need is:
Objective.joins(objective_seminars: :seminar, objective_student: :student).
where(seminars: seminar_search_params, strudents: student_search_params).
where('objective_seminars.priority > 0').
where('objective_students.ready = 1 AND points_all_time <= 7').
order('objective_seminars.priority ASC').
distinct
Now for the database load it all depends on your indexes and the size of your tables.
The above query will translate to the following SQL (or something similar).
SELECT DISTINCT objectives.* FROM objectives
INNER JOIN objective_students ON objective_students.objective_id = objectives.id
INNER JOIN students ON students.id = objective_students.student_id
INNER JOIN objective_seminars ON objective_seminars.objective_id = objectives.id
INNER JOIN seminars ON seminars.id = objective_seminars.seminar_id
WHERE seminars_query AND
students_query AND
objective_seminars.priority > 0 AND
objective_students.ready = 1 AND points_all_time <= 7 AND
objective_seminars.priority ASC
So you'll need to add or extend your indexes so that all 5 tables queries can have an index helping out. The actual index implementation is up to you and depends on your application's specific (read - write load, tables size, cardinality etc)
I'm trying to sort documents of type 'Case' by the 'Name' of the 'Contact' they belong to in Solr. But cases have no 'ContactName' field or similar, only 'ContactId'.
Only examples I could find are iterations of the example on this link: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/Join
But I couldn't apply it to my situation because of the sorting afterwards. The following gives me the cases I want but I can't sort it by the contact name afterwards because it only returns the fields of the cases.
{!join from=Id to=ContactId}*:*
SQL equivalent of what I want would be something like:
SELECT Case.Id, Contact.Name
FROM Case
LEFT JOIN Contact
ON Case.ContactId = Contact.Id
ORDER BY Contact.Name ASC;
So to answer my own question after some digging and a Solr training:
It is not best practice to use joins in a NoSql database like Solr. If you need joins, then your database is structured wrong. You should index everything you need, in the document itself, even if it is redundant. So in my case, I should index 'Contact.Name' field in my 'Case' documents.
Still, it is apparently possible to use SQL queries in Solr in case it is absolutely needed, if you're using SolrCloud but it doesn't support joins. However it is possible to work around that as follows:
SELECT s1.Id
FROM salesforce s1, salesforce s2
WHERE s1._type_ = 'Case' and s2._type_ = 'Contact' AND s1.ContactId = s2.Id
ORDER BY s2.Name ASC
It should be noted that the fields after '.' like the 'Id' in 's1.Id' must have 'docValues' activated in the schema. More info on docValues is here.
For the analytics of my site, I'm required to extract the 4 states of my users.
#members = list.members.where(enterprise_registration_id: registration.id)
# This pulls roughly 10,0000 records.. Which is evidently a huge data pull for Rails
# Member Load (155.5ms)
#invited = #members.where("user_id is null")
# Member Load (21.6ms)
#not_started = #members.where("enterprise_members.id not in (select enterprise_member_id from quizzes where quizzes.section_id IN (?)) AND enterprise_members.user_id in (select id from users)", #sections.map(&:id) )
# Member Load (82.9ms)
#in_progress = #members.joins(:quizzes).where('quizzes.section_id IN (?) and (quizzes.completed is null or quizzes.completed = ?)', #sections.map(&:id), false).group("enterprise_members.id HAVING count(quizzes.id) > 0")
# Member Load (28.5ms)
#completes = Quiz.where(enterprise_member_id: registration.members, section_id: #sections.map(&:id)).completed
# Quiz Load (138.9ms)
The operation returns a 503 meaning my app gives up on the request. Any ideas how I can refactor this code to run faster? Maybe by better joins syntax? I'm curious how sites with larger datasets accomplish what seems like such trivial DB calls.
The answer is your indexes. Check your rails logs (or check the console in development mode) and copy the queries to your db tool. Slap an "Explain" in front of the query and it will give you a breakdown. From here you can see what indexes you need to optimize the query.
For a quick pass, you should at least have these in your schema,
enterprise_members: needs an index on enterprise_member_id
members: user_id
quizes: section_id
As someone else posted definitely look into adding indexes if needed. Some of how to refactor depends on what exactly you are trying to do with all these records. For the #members query, what are you using the #members records for? Do you really need to retrieve all attributes for every member record? If you are not using every attribute, I suggest only getting the attributes that you actually use for something, .pluck usage could be warranted. 3rd and 4th queries, look fishy. I assume you've run the queries in a console? Again not sure what the queries are being used for but I'll toss in that it is often useful to write raw sql first and query on the db first. Then, you can apply your findings to rewriting activerecord queries.
What is the .completed tagged on the end? Is it supposed to be there? only thing I found close in the rails api is .completed? If it is a custom method definitely look into it. You potentially also have an use case for scopes.
THIRD QUERY:
I unfortunately don't know ruby on rails, but from a postgresql perspective, changing your "not in" to a left outer join should make it a little faster:
Your code:
enterprise_members.id not in (select enterprise_member_id from quizzes where quizzes.section_id IN (?)) AND enterprise_members.user_id in (select id from users)", #sections.map(&:id) )
Better version (in SQL):
select blah
from enterprise_members em
left outer join quizzes q on q.enterprise_member_id = em.id
join users u on u.id = q.enterprise_member_id
where quizzes.section_id in (?)
and q.enterprise_member_id is null
Based on my understanding this will allow postgres to sort both the enterprise_members table and the quizzes and do a hash join. This is better than when it will do now. Right now it finds everything in the quizzes subquery, brings it into memory, and then tries to match it to enterprise_members.
FIRST QUERY:
You could also create a partial index on user_id for your first query. This will be especially good if there are a relatively small number of user_ids that are null in a large table. Partial index creation:
CREATE INDEX user_id_null_ix ON enterprise_members (user_id)
WHERE (user_id is null);
Anytime you query enterprise_members with something that matches the index's where clause, the partial index can be used and quickly limit the rows returned. See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/indexes-partial.html for more info.
Thanks everyone for your ideas. I basically did what everyone said. I added indexes, resorted how I called everything, but the major difference was using the pluck method.. Here's my new stats :
#alt_members = list.members.pluck :id # 23ms
if list.course.sections.tests.present? && #sections = list.course.sections.tests
#quiz_member_ids = Quiz.where(section_id: #sections.map(&:id)).pluck(:enterprise_member_id) # 8.5ms
#invited = list.members.count('user_id is null') # 12.5ms
#not_started = ( #alt_members - ( #alt_members & #quiz_member_ids ).count #0ms
#in_progress = ( #alt_members & #quiz_member_ids ).count # 0ms
#completes = ( #alt_members & Quiz.where(section_id: #sections.map(&:id), completed: true).pluck(:enterprise_member_id) ).count # 9.7ms
#question_count = Quiz.where(section_id: #sections.map(&:id), completed: true).limit(5).map{|quiz|quiz.answers.count}.max # 3.5ms
In SQLite (development) I don't have any errors, but in production with Postgres I get the following error. I don't really understand the error.
PG::Error: ERROR: column "commits.updated_at" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
LINE 1: ...mmits"."user_id" = 1 GROUP BY mission_id ORDER BY updated_at...
^
: SELECT COUNT(*) AS count_all, mission_id AS mission_id FROM "commits" WHERE "commits"."user_id" = 1 GROUP BY mission_id ORDER BY updated_at DESC
My controller method:
def show
#user = User.find(params[:id])
#commits = #user.commits.order("updated_at DESC").page(params[:page]).per(25)
#missions_commits = #commits.group("mission_id").count.length
end
UPDATE:
So i digged further into this PostgreSQL specific annoyance and I am surprised that this exception is not mentioned in the Ruby on Rails Guide.
I am using psql (PostgreSQL) 9.1.11
So from what I understand, I need to specify which column that should be used whenever you use the GROUP_BY clause. I thought using SELECT would help, which can be annoying if you need to SELECT a lot of columns.
Interesting discussion here
Anyways, when I look at the error, everytime the cursor is pointed to updated_at. In the SQL query, rails will always ORDER BY updated_at. So I have tried this horrible query:
#commits.group("mission_id, date(updated_at)")
.select("date(updated_at), count(mission_id)")
.having("count(mission_id) > 0")
.order("count(mission_id)").length
which gives me the following SQL
SELECT date(updated_at), count(mission_id)
FROM "commits"
WHERE "commits"."user_id" = 1
GROUP BY mission_id, date(updated_at)
HAVING count(mission_id) > 0
ORDER BY updated_at DESC, count(mission_id)
LIMIT 25 OFFSET 0
the error is the same.
Note that no matter what it will ORDER BY updated_at, even if I wanted to order by something else.
Also I don't want to group the records by updated_at just by mission_id.
This PostgreSQL error is just misleading and has little explanation to solving it. I have tried many formulas from the stackoverflow sidebar, nothing works and always the same error.
UPDATE 2:
So I got it to work, but it needs to group the updated_at because of the automatic ORDER BY updated_at. How do I count only by mission_id?
#missions_commits = #commits.group("mission_id, updated_at").count("mission_id").size
I guest you want to show general number of distinct Missions related with Commits, anyway it won't be number on page.
Try this:
#commits = #user.commits.order("updated_at DESC").page(params[:page]).per(25)
#missions_commits = #user.commits.distinct.count(:mission_id)
However if you want to get the number of distinct Missions on page I suppose it should be:
#missions_commits = #commits.collect(&:mission_id).uniq.count
Update
In Rails 3, distinct did not exist, but pure SQL counting should be used this way:
#missions_commits = #user.commits.count(:mission_id, distinct: true)
See the docs for PostgreSQL GROUP BY here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/sql-select.html#SQL-GROUPBY
Basically, unlike Sqlite (and MySQL) postgres requires that any columns selected or ordered on must appear in an aggregate function or the group by clause.
If you think it through, you'll see that this actually makes sense. Sqlite/MySQL cheat under the hood and silently drop those fields (not sure that's technically what happens).
Or thinking about it another way if you are grouping by a field, what's the point of ordering it? How would that even make sense unless you also had an aggregate function on the ordered field?
Can anyone explain this?
Project.includes([:user, :company])
This executes 3 queries, one to fetch projects, one to fetch users for those projects and one to fetch companies.
Project.select("name").includes([:user, :company])
This executes 3 queries, and completely ignores the select bit.
Project.select("user.name").includes([:user, :company])
This executes 1 query with proper left joins. And still completely ignores the select.
It would seem to me that rails ignores select with includes. Ok fine, but why when I put a related model in select does it switch from issuing 3 queries to issuing 1 query?
Note that the 1 query is what I want, I just can't imagine this is the right way to get it nor why it works, but I'm not sure how else to get the results in one query (.joins seems to only use INNER JOIN which I do not in fact want, and when I manually specifcy the join conditions to .joins the search gem we're using freaks out as it tries to re-add joins with the same name).
I had the same problem with select and includes.
For eager loading of associated models I used native Rails scope 'preload' http://apidock.com/rails/ActiveRecord/QueryMethods/preload
It provides eager load without skipping of 'select' at scopes chain.
I found it here https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/2303#issuecomment-3889821
Hope this tip will be helpful for someone as it was helpful for me.
Allright so here's what I came up with...
.joins("LEFT JOIN companies companies2 ON companies2.id = projects.company_id LEFT JOIN project_types project_types2 ON project_types2.id = projects.project_type_id LEFT JOIN users users2 ON users2.id = projects.user_id") \
.select("six, fields, I, want")
Works, pain in the butt but it gets me just the data I need in one query. The only lousy part is I have to give everything a model2 alias since we're using meta_search, which seems to not be able to figure out that a table is already joined when you specify your own join conditions.
Rails has always ignored the select argument(s) when using include or includes. If you want to use your select argument then use joins instead.
You might be having a problem with the query gem you're talking about but you can also include sql fragments using the joins method.
Project.select("name").joins(['some sql fragement for users', 'left join companies c on c.id = projects.company_id'])
I don't know your schema so i'd have to guess at the exact relationships but this should get you started.
I might be totally missing something here but select and include are not a part of ActiveRecord. The usual way to do what you're trying to do is like this:
Project.find(:all, :select => "users.name", :include => [:user, :company], :joins => "LEFT JOIN users on projects.user_id = users.id")
Take a look at the api documentation for more examples. Occasionally I've had to go manual and use find_by_sql:
Project.find_by_sql("select users.name from projects left join users on projects.user_id = users.id")
Hopefully this will point you in the right direction.
I wanted that functionality myself,so please use it.
Include this method in your class
#ACCEPTS args in string format "ASSOCIATION_NAME:COLUMN_NAME-COLUMN_NAME"
def self.includes_with_select(*m)
association_arr = []
m.each do |part|
parts = part.split(':')
association = parts[0].to_sym
select_columns = parts[1].split('-')
association_macro = (self.reflect_on_association(association).macro)
association_arr << association.to_sym
class_name = self.reflect_on_association(association).class_name
self.send(association_macro, association, -> {select *select_columns}, class_name: "#{class_name.to_sym}")
end
self.includes(*association_arr)
end
And you will be able to call like: Contract.includes_with_select('user:id-name-status', 'confirmation:confirmed-id'), and it will select those specified columns.
The preload solution doesn't seem to do the same JOINs as eager_load and includes, so to get the best of all worlds I also wrote my own, and released it as a part of a data-related gem I maintain, The Brick.
By overriding ActiveRecord::Associations::JoinDependency.apply_column_aliases() like this then when you add a .select(...) then it can act as a filter to choose which column aliases get built out.
With gem 'brick' loaded, in order to enable this selective behaviour, add the special column name :_brick_eager_load as the first entry in your .select(...), which turns on the filtering of columns while the aliases are being built out. Here's an example:
Employee.includes(orders: :order_details)
.references(orders: :order_details)
.select(:_brick_eager_load,
'employees.first_name', 'orders.order_date', 'order_details.product_id')
Because foreign keys are essential to have everything be properly associated, they are automatically added, so you do not need to include them in your select list.
Hope it can save you both query time and some RAM!