In a Rails app, I have a model named TopicEdition with 2 attributes:
edition and an associated Topic.
The topic_editions table may look like
id | edition | topic_id
1 | 1 | 1
2 | 2 | 1
3 | 1 | 2
Now I need to get the list of TopicEdition having the highest edition for each topic.
Referring the table above, I should get back record with id 2 and 3.
I have tried to play around with group and maximum but without success.
My last attempt has been
TopicEdition.group(:topic_id).maximum(:edition)
How can I get what I need?
The followings work but it is kind of ugly
TopicEdition.find_by_sql 'SELECT * FROM topic_editions WHERE (topic_id, edition)
IN (SELECT topic_id, MAX(edition) FROM topic_editions GROUP BY topic_id)'
I think the easiest would be to use normal SQL to sort your query like this:
TopicEdition.group(:topic_id).order('MAX(edition)')
That will return only the last edition of each topic.
Related
I'm trying to make an efficient query to create a view that will contains counts for the number of successful logins by day as well as by type of user with no duplicate users per day.
I have 3 tables involved in this query. One table that contains all successful login attempts, one table for standard user accounts, and one table for admin user accounts. All user_id values are unique across the entire database so there are no user accounts that will share the same user_id with an admin account:
TABLE 1: user_account
user_id | username
---------|----------
1 | user1
2 | user2
TABLE 2: admin_account
user_id | username
---------|----------
6 | admin6
7 | admin7
TABLE 3: successful_logins
user_id | timestamp
---------|------------------------------
1 | 2022-01-23 14:39:12.63798-07
1 | 2022-01-28 11:16:45.63798-07
1 | 2022-01-28 01:53:51.63798-07
2 | 2022-01-28 15:19:21.63798-07
6 | 2022-01-28 09:42:36.63798-07
2 | 2022-01-23 03:46:21.63798-07
7 | 2022-01-28 19:52:16.63798-07
2 | 2022-01-29 23:12:41.63798-07
2 | 2022-01-29 18:50:10.63798-07
The resulting view I would like to generate would contain the following information from the above 3 tables:
VEIW: login_counts
date_of_login | successful_user_logins | successful_admin_logins
---------------|------------------------|-------------------------
2022-01-23 | 1 | 1
2022-01-28 | 2 | 2
2022-01-29 | 1 | 0
I'm currently reading up on how crosstabs work but having trouble figuring out how to write the query based on my table setups.
I actually was able to get the values I needed by using the following query:
SELECT
to_char(s.timestamp, 'YYYY-MM-DD') AS login_date,
count(distinct u.user_id) AS successful_user_logins,
count(distinct a.user_id) AS successful_admin_logins
FROM successful_logins s
LEFT JOIN user_account u ON u.user_id= s.user_id
LEFT JOIN admin_account a ON a.user_id= s.user_id
GROUP BY login_date
However, I was told it would be even quicker using crosstabs, especially considering the successful_logins table contains millions of records. So I'm trying to also create a version of the query using crosstabs then comparing both execution times.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Turns out it isn't possible to do what I was asking about using crosstabs, so the original query I have will have to do.
I have two separate splunk queries:
1st Query : Outputs unique user count in last 24 hours
2nd Query : Outputs unique users count in last 24 hours in geo = US
I want to create a timechart that will show , a line chart with % of user everyday from US.
How can this be achieved.
You can join the two queries by using :
|
So your query can look like this:
{firstQuery} as countUS| {secondQuery} as countTotal | eval perc=countUS/countTotal
You can use a conditional to count those from US
Example query:
index=data | timechart dc(user) as dc_user, dc(eval(if(geo=US,user,NULL))) as us_user | eval perc_us=round(us_user/dc_user*100,2) | table _time, perc_us
Alternatively you can use the SPL join command but that would be less efficient as it would have to read the data twice and join the results.
Can you anonymize your data, and show the query here? There's lots of ways to do this in Splunk, but we will need a bit more to go on.
for example
Query: index=myindex sourcetype=mySourcetype | stats count dc(ip) as userTotal | append [ index=myindex sourcetype=mySourcetype region=US | stats dc(ip) as USTotal]
So I have been out of the coding game for a while and recently decided to pick up rails. I have a question about the concept of Join tables in rails. Specifically:
1) why are these join tables needed in the database?
2) Why can't I just JOIN two tables on the fly like we do in SQL?
A join table allows a clean linking of association between two independent tables. Join tables reduce data duplication while making it easy to find relationships in your data later on.
E.g. if you compare a table called users:
| id | name |
-----------------
| 1 | Sara |
| 2 | John |
| 3 | Anthony |
with a table called languages:
| id| title |
----------------
| 1 | English |
| 2 | French |
| 3 | German |
| 4 | Spanish |
You can see that both truly exist as separate concepts from one another. Neither is subordinate to the other the way a single user may have many orders, (where each order row might store a unique foreign_key representing the user_id of the user that made it).
When a language can have many users, and a user can have many languages -- we need a way to join them.
We can do that by creating a join table, such as user_languages, to store every link between a user and the language(s) that they may speak. With each row containing every matchup between the pairs:
| id | user_id | language_id |
------------------------------
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 5 | 3 | 1 |
With this data we can see that Sara (user_id: 1) is trilingual, while John(user_id: 2) and Anthony(user_id: 3) only speak English.
By creating a join table in-between both tables to store the linkage, we preserve our ability to make powerful queries in relation to data on other tables. For example, with a join table separating users and languages it would now be easy to find every User that speaks English or Spanish or both.
But where join tables get even more powerful is when you add new tables. If in the future we wanted to link languages to a new table called schools, we could simply create a new join table called school_languages. Even better, we can add this join table without needing to make any changes to the languages SQL table itself.
As Rails models, the data relationship between these tables would look like this:
User --> user_languages <-- Language --> school_languages <-- School
By default every school and user would be linked to Language using the same language_id(s)
This is powerful. Because with two join tables (user_languages & school_languages) now referencing the same unique language_id, it will now be easy to write queries about how either relates. For example we could find all schools who speak the language(s) of a user, or find all users who speak the language(s) of a school. As our tables expand, we can ride the joins to find relations about pretty much anything in our data.
tl;dr: Join tables preserve relations between separate concepts, making it easy to make powerful relational queries as you add new tables.
I have a Client model and a Product model where a Client has many Products and a Product belongs to a CLient.
I need to find a query that only returns Clients if they have a record in the Product table
clients table
id | name
--------------
1 | Company A
2 | Company B
3 | Company C
products table
id | name | client_id
---------------------------
1 | Product A | 1
2 | Product B | 1
3 | Product C | 3
4 | Product D | 3
5 | Product E | 1
I only need Clients 1 3
For example something like
#clients = Client.where("client exists in products") #something to this effect
Simplest but not the fastest:
Client.where(:id => Product.select(:client_id).map(&:client_id))
SQL subquery (more faster):
Client.where("EXISTS(SELECT 1 from products where clients.id = products.client_id)")
Here's another solution. It's a subquery like Valery's second solution, but without writing out the sql:
Client.where(Product.where(client_id: Client.arel_table[:id]).exists)
Here is the solution which uses Where Exists gem (disclosure: I'm its author):
Client.where_exists(:products)
Another gem that exists to do that: activerecord_where_assoc (I'm the author)
With it:
Client.where_assoc_exists(:products)
If you had to also specify some of the products, when you could do it like this:
Client.where_assoc_exists(:products, id: my_products.map(&:id))
Doing it without a gem makes it easy to do mistakes.
Read more in the documentation. Here is an introduction and examples.
Also not the fastest but is concise:
Client.where(:id => Product.pluck(:client_id))
I am writing a quite complex query in Ruby on Rails 3.1.3, and I am using find_by_sql.
But I noticed a very strange behaviour, even if I use find_by_sql with very simple queries.
Here is a simple example:
Let' say that I have two models and related tables:
Model 1: Company
Table 1: companies
fields: id, name, address
| id | name | address |
+----+------+-----------------+
| 1 | ACME | Bond street, 56 |
and:
Model 2: Employee
Table 2: employees
fields: id, name, age
| id | name | age |
+----+------+-----+
| 1 | Fred | 56 |
| 2 | Adam | 27 |
Here is what happens; if I write:
Company.find_by_sql("SELECT * FROM `employees`")
I get:
Company Load (0.3ms) SELECT * from `employees`
=> [#<Company id: 1, name: "Fred">, #<Company id: 2, name: "Adam">]
I only get the fields of employees whose names match the ones in companies (i.e., the field age is missing)!
No #attributes at all.
Is it a bug? Can anyone please help me?
The console uses pretty printing to output data from any instances returned by the query. Pretty printing is implemented automatically in the class by ActiveRecord according to the columns associated with that particular model, and won't therefore display attributes that do not belong to that particular model.
That does not mean however the attributes were not loaded into the instances. Pretty printing is just not showing them, but they are still there.
So if you just do:
Company.find_by_sql("SELECT * from employees").first.age
You should still get 56 according to your example.
try:
Employee.find_by_sql("SELECT * FROM `employees`")
If you're selecting from the employees table you will want to use the Employee model.
Try this instead
Employee.find_by_sql("SELECT id, name, age FROM `employees`")