It seems like its the api won't permit a query filter of the form:
select * from purchaseorder where APAccountRef.value='33'
In the case of purchase orders it seems to mean that I need to bring down every purchase order to my server and scan for the account I need which is highly suboptimal. Is there some other syntax for querying against the many attributes which have been encoded like
"APAccountRef": {
"value": "33",
"name": "Accounts Payable (A/P)"
}
with just a name and value attribute?
If you refer to the documentation:
https://developer.intuit.com/docs/api/accounting/purchaseorder
It gives you a list of all fields, and a list of fields that are filterable. Your query is using a field that does not exist as part of Purchase Orders:
AccountRef.value='39'
The correct field is:
APAccountRef:
required
ReferenceType, filterable
Specifies to which AP account the bill is credited.
So your query should be:
SELECT * FROM purchaseorder WHERE APAccountRef = '39'
Try this in python-
"select * from purchaseorder where APAccountRef in ('33')"
Related
I have a index named product in elastic-search with field id, name etc..
I want to search products by id or name but my id field is integer and name is a text, I tried following but getting error while searching by name.
error type":"number_format_exception","reason":"For input string:
\"test\""
def self.search_by_name_or_id(query)
__elasticsearch__.search({
query: {
bool: {
must:{
multi_match: {
query: query,
fields: ["id", "name"]
}
}
}
}
})
end
Problem
Exception is clear, that you are trying to search test which is a String in the integer field and elasticsearch is not able to convert test in integer, instead of test if you had search for 10 or 100, then elasticsearch would convert it into integer and would not throw the exception.
Solution
You are trying to mix 2 things here, I am not sure about your design but if your id field can contain pure numbers i.e. integers, then it's not possible to achieve in a single query the way you are doing.
If you can convert your id field to String, then multi_match query would work perfectly fine, otherwise, you need to first check in your application, that search term can be converted to number or not, i.e. 10 or 100 would work fine but test10 or test100 would not and anyway there is no point of searching these terms in id field as it won't be present as its defined as integer in ES and ES would reject documents containing these terms during indexing time only. So based on your application code check you can construct the ES query which may or may not include the id field in multi-match.
So I have a model Item that has a huge postgresql JSON field called properties. Most of the time this field does not need to be queried on or changed, however we store price in this field.
I'm currently writing a script that updates this price, but there's only a few unique prices and thousands of Items so in order to save time I have a list of Items for each unique price and I'm attempting to do an update all:
Item.where(id: items).update_all("properties->>'price' = #{unique_price}")
But this gives me:
syntax error at or near "->>"
Is there a way to use update all to update a field in a postgres JSON field?
You need to use jsonb_set() function, here is an example:
Item.where(id: items).
update_all(
"properties = jsonb_set(properties, '{price}', to_json(#{unique_price}::int)::jsonb)"
)
This would preserve all values and update only one key.
Read documentation
You can also do this
Item.where(id: items).each do |item|
properties = item.properties
item.update(properties: properties.merge({
price: unique_price
}))
end
The keyword merge will override the value of the key provided with the new value ie unique_price
Merge documentation is here
What I came up with based on #Philidor's suggestion is very similar but with dynamic bindings:
assignment = ["field = jsonb_set(field, '{ name_of_the_key }', ?)", value.to_json]
scope.update_all(scope.model.sanitize_sql_for_assignment(assignment))
I have a document that looks like this:
{
"id": "some guid",
"name": "Bob",
"following": [
{
"id": "some_guid",
"priority": true
}
]
}
The idea is that a user can follow other users.
What I would like to do is, for a given user get the IDs and names of all users that they are following. The name is not stored with in the "following" collection.
If I were using SQL, I'd be doing something like this:
SELECT u.following_id, u.priority, j.name FROM users INNER JOIN j on u.following_id = j.id.
What is the equivalent in DocumentDb SQL?
The equivalent in DocumentDB is to do two round trips. First fetch the user document containing the array of who that user is following. Then build up a big OR clause and use that to fetch the documents of who they are following.
Alternatively, you may want to store the relationship in the other direction. So instead of storing who one user follows in that user's document, store the followedBy list in each of the followers. You can then do an ARRAY_CONTAINS query in one round trip.
You also might want to look at Azure's stream analytics product because it has graph querying capabilities.
I'm trying to grab the gift date of the most recent donation (in $USD) to my organization that has a fund ID not beginning in X (those are Canadian donations). Here's the code (in the controller) that I've used to pull out the gift date of the most recent overall donation, but it's a Canadian gift (fund_id = XP05). How do I get the most recent donation with a fund ID not beginning with an X?
#income_batch = Gift.between(Date.today - 2.weeks, Date.today, :field => :gift_date).order('gift_date DESC').first.gift_date
Assuming fund_id is a string field within your gifts table, you can use not like:
Gift.where("fund_id not like 'X%").between....
You should also avoid using an _id postfix on fields unless they're foreign keys, as Rails convention dictates that _id is specific for this purpose.
If fund_id is a foreign key, and you have a belongs_to :fund inside your Gift model, you can use joins and not like:
Gift.joins(:fund).where("funds.name not like 'X%").between....
This assumes that the field within the funds table is called name.
edit 2
If you stumble across this, check both answers as I'd now use pluck for this
I have a fairly large custom dataset that I'd like to return to be echoe'd out as json. One part is:
l=Location.find(row.id)
tmp[row.id]=l
but I'd like to do something like:
l=Location.find(row.id).select("name, website, city")
tmp[row.id]=l
but this doesn't seem to be working. How would I get this to work?
thx
edit 1
alternatively, is there a way that I can pass an array of only the attributes I want included?
pluck(column_name)
This method is designed to perform select by a single column as direct SQL query Returns Array with values of the specified column name The values has same data type as column.
Examples:
Person.pluck(:id) # SELECT people.id FROM people
Person.uniq.pluck(:role) # SELECT DISTINCT role FROM people
Person.where(:confirmed => true).limit(5).pluck(:id)
see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Calculations.html#method-i-pluck
Its introduced rails 3.2 onwards and accepts only single column. In rails 4, it accepts multiple columns
In Rails 2
l = Location.find(:id => id, :select => "name, website, city", :limit => 1)
...or...
l = Location.find_by_sql(:conditions => ["SELECT name, website, city FROM locations WHERE id = ? LIMIT 1", id])
This reference doc gives you the entire list of options you can use with .find, including how to limit by number, id, or any other arbitrary column/constraint.
In Rails 3 w/ActiveRecord Query Interface
l = Location.where(["id = ?", id]).select("name, website, city").first
Ref: Active Record Query Interface
You can also swap the order of these chained calls, doing .select(...).where(...).first - all these calls do is construct the SQL query and then send it off.
My answer comes quite late because I'm a pretty new developer. This is what you can do:
Location.select(:name, :website, :city).find(row.id)
Btw, this is Rails 4