I am trying to query my PostgreSQL database to get the latest (by created_at) and distinct (by user_id) Activity objects, where each user has multiple activities in the database. The activity object is structured as such:
Activity(id, user_id, created_at, ...)
I first tried to get the below query to work:
Activity.order('created_at DESC').select('DISTINCT ON (activities.user_id) activities.*')
however, kept getting the below error:
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PG::InvalidColumnReference: ERROR: SELECT DISTINCT ON expressions must match initial ORDER BY expressions
According to this post: PG::Error: SELECT DISTINCT, ORDER BY expressions must appear in select list, it looks like The ORDER BY clause can only be applied after the DISTINCT has been applied. This does not help me, as I want to get the distinct activities by user_id, but also want the activities to be the most recently created activities. Thus, I need the activities to be sorted before getting the distinct activities.
I have come up with a solution that works, but first grouping the activities by user id, and then ordering the activities within the groups by created_at. However, this takes two queries to do.
I was wondering if what I want is possible in just one query?
This should work, try the following
Solution 1
Activity.select('DISTINCT ON (activities.user_id) activities.*').order('created_at DESC')
Solution 2
If not work Solution 1 then this is helpful if you create a scope for this
activity model
scope :latest, -> {
select("distinct on(user_id) activities.user_id,
activities.*").
order("user_id, created_at desc")
}
Now you can call this anywhere like below
Activity.latest
Hope it helps
Related
Looking for a way to get all of the related records for a resource and have them all distinct by a column(:author_id) and then ordered by the created_at column.
There are several similar questions on here, however I do not see any that include this ordering that I need. Trying to avoid converting to an array.
Post.find(id)
.ratings
.select(
"DISTINCT on (author_id) author_id, rating_number, created_at, id")
.order(created_at: :desc)
The first part works, but when introduce the order, it gives me an error to add created_at into the DISTINCT clause. It then works however I then get records that are not distinct on just :author_id.
So here's the lay of the land:
I have a Applicant model which has_many Lead records.
I need to group leads by applicant email, i.e. for each specific applicant email (there may be 2+ applicant records with the email) i need to get a combined list of leads.
I already have this working using an in-memory / N+1 solution
I want to do this in a single query, if possible. Right now I'm running one for each lead which is maxing out the CPU.
Here's my attempt right now:
Lead.
all.
select("leads.*, applicants.*").
joins(:applicant).
group("applicants.email").
having("count(*) > 1").
limit(1).
to_a
And the error:
Lead Load (1.2ms) SELECT leads.*, applicants.* FROM "leads" INNER
JOIN "applicants" ON "applicants"."id" = "leads"."applicant_id"
GROUP BY applicants.email HAVING count(*) > 1 LIMIT 1
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PG::GroupingError: ERROR: column
"leads.id" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an
aggregate function
LINE 1: SELECT leads.*, applicants.* FROM "leads" INNER JOIN
"appli...
This is a postgres specific issue. "the selected fields must appear in the GROUP BY clause".
must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
You can try this
Lead.joins(:applicant)
.select('leads.*, applicants.email')
.group_by('applicants.email, leads.id, ...')
You will need to list all the fields in leads table in the group by clause (or all the fields that you are selecting).
I would just get all the records and do the grouping in memory. If you have a lot of records, I would paginate them or batch them.
group_by_email = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = [] }
Applicant.eager_load(:leads).each_batch(10_000) do |batch|
batch.each do |applicant|
group_by_email[:applicant.email] << applicant.leads
end
end
You need to use a .where rather than using Lead.all. The reason it is maxing out the CPU is you are trying to load every lead into memory at once. That said I guess I am still missing what you actually want back from the query so it would be tough for me to help you write the query. Can you give more info about your associations and the expected result of the query?
I have the following code to join two tables microposts and activities with micropost_id column and then order based on created_at of activities table with distinct micropost id.
Micropost.joins("INNER JOIN activities ON
(activities.micropost_id = microposts.id)").
where('activities.user_id= ?',id).order('activities.created_at DESC').
select("DISTINCT (microposts.id), *")
which should return whole micropost columns.This is not working in my developement enviornment.
(PG::InvalidColumnReference: ERROR: for SELECT DISTINCT, ORDER BY expressions must appear in select list
If I add activities.created_at in SELECT DISTINCT, I will get repeated micropost ids because the have distinct activities.created_at column. I have done a lot of search to reach here. But the problem always persist because of this postgres condition to avoid random selection.
I want to select based on order of activities.created_at with distinct micropost _id.
Please help..
To start with, we need to quickly cover what SELECT DISTINCT is actually doing. It looks like just a nice keyword to make sure you only get back distinct values, which shouldn't change anything, right? Except as you're finding out, behind the scenes, SELECT DISTINCT is actually acting more like a GROUP BY. If you want to select distinct values of something, you can only order that result set by the same values you're selecting -- otherwise, Postgres doesn't know what to do.
To explain where the ambiguity comes from, consider this simple set of data for your activities:
CREATE TABLE activities (
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
created_at TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE,
micropost_id INTEGER REFERENCES microposts(id)
);
INSERT INTO activities (id, created_at, micropost_id)
VALUES (1, current_timestamp, 1),
(2, current_timestamp - interval '3 hours', 1),
(3, current_timestamp - interval '2 hours', 2)
You stated in your question that you want "distinct micropost_id" "based on order of activities.created_at". It's easy to order these activities by descending created_at (1, 3, 2), but both 1 and 2 have the same micropost_id of 1. So if you want the query to return just micropost IDs, should it return 1, 2 or 2, 1?
If you can answer the above question, you need to take your logic for doing so and move it into your query. Let's say that, and I think this is pretty likely, you want this to be a list of microposts which were most recently acted on. In that case, you want to sort the microposts in descending order of their most recent activity. Postgres can do that for you, in a number of ways, but the easiest way in my mind is this:
SELECT micropost_id
FROM activities
JOIN microposts ON activities.micropost_id = microposts.id
GROUP BY micropost_id
ORDER BY MAX(activities.created_at) DESC
Note that I've dropped the SELECT DISTINCT bit in favor of using GROUP BY, since Postgres handles them much better. The MAX(activities.created_at) bit tells Postgres to, for each group of activities with the same micropost_id, sort by only the most recent.
You can translate the above to Rails like so:
Micropost.select('microposts.*')
.joins("JOIN activities ON activities.micropost_id = microposts.id")
.where('activities.user_id' => id)
.group('microposts.id')
.order('MAX(activities.created_at) DESC')
Hope this helps! You can play around with this sqlFiddle if you want to understand more about how the query works.
Try the below code
Micropost.select('microposts.*, activities.created_at')
.joins("INNER JOIN activities ON (activities.micropost_id = microposts.id)")
.where('activities.user_id= ?',id)
.order('activities.created_at DESC')
.uniq
I have two models, Monkey and Session, where Monkey has_many Session. I have a scope for Monkey:
scope :with_session_counts, -> {
joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN `sessions` ON `sessions`.`monkey_id` = `monkeys`.`id`")
.group(:id)
.select("`monkeys`.*, COUNT(DISTINCT `sessions`.`id`) as session_count")
}
in order to grab the number of associated Sessions (even when 0).
Querying #monkeys = Monkey.with_session_counts works as expected. However, when I test in my view:
<% unless #monkeys.empty?%>
I get this error:
Mysql2::Error: Column 'id' in field list is ambiguous:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS count_all, id AS id FROM `monkeys`
LEFT OUTER JOIN `sessions` ON `sessions`.`monkey_id` = `monkeys`.`id`
GROUP BY `monkeys`.`id`
How would I convince Rails to prefix id with the table name in presence of the JOIN?
Or is there a better alternative for the OUTER JOIN?
This applies equally to calling #monkeys.count(:all). I'm using RoR 4.2.1.
Update:
I have a partial fix for my issue (specify group("monkeys.id") explicitly) I wonder whether this is a bug in the code that generates the SELECT clause for count(:all). Note that in both cases (group("monkeys.id") and group(:id)) the GROUP BY part is generated correctly (i.e. with monkeys.id), but in the latter case the SELECT only contains id AS id. The reason I say 'partial' is because it works in that it does not break a call to empty?, but a call to count(:all) returns a Hash {monkey_id => number_of_sessions} instead of the number of records.
Update 2:
I guess my real question is: How can I get the number of associated sessions for each monkey, so that for all intents and purposes I can work with the query result as with Monkey.all? I know about counter cache but would prefer not to use it.
I believe it is not a bug. Like you added on your update, you have to specify the table that the id column belongs to. In this case group('monkeys.id') would do it.
How would the code responsible for generating the statement know the table to use? Without the count worked fine because it adds points.* to the projection and that is the one used by group by. However, if you actually wanted to group by Sessions id, you would have to specify it anyway.
We have 2 tables: users and statuses
The status table has a user_id, status and occured_on. The status is either 'removed' or 'added' and occured_on is the date the user was removed or added.
I need the current added users. That is, all the (distinct) users whose newest status record is 'added'.
I'm using Rails, and have tried:
User
.joins(:statuses)
.where('statuses.status = ?', 'added')
.order('statuses.occured_on DESC')
.uniq
Which translates to the SQL:
SELECT DISTINCT users.*
FROM users
INNER JOIN statuses
ON statuses.user_id = users.id
WHERE statuses.status = 'added'
ORDER BY statuses.occured_on DESC
That gives me the error:
PG::Error: ERROR: for SELECT DISTINCT, ORDER BY expressions must appear in select list
LINE 1: ...statuses.status = 'added') ORDER BY statuses.oc...
I'd be happy knowing either the Rails code that would work or the straight SQL.
Also, I'd prefer no sub-selects if possible.
Concider the following database schema change:
StatusTable:
StatusId
Status
UserId
ActiveFrom
ActiveTo
Afterwards you can add additional checks such as:
CONSTRAINT chk_from_to CHECK (ActiveFrom <= ActiveTo)
Then your query would look something like:
SELECT users.*
FROM users
JOIN statuses ON UserId = users.user_id AND ActiveFrom < CURRENT_TIMESTAMP AND ActiveTo > CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
WHERE statuses.Status = 'active'
With such structure you might need to change the way you change statuses, but from my own experience, this structure is much more flexible, and easier to query.
SELECT * FROM users INNER JOIN statuses ON users.id=statuses.user_id WHERE statuses.status='added' ORDER BY statuses.occured_on
After clarification, I don't think the schema is well designed for your goal. Can you clarify why you want the status change history contained in that table? My general approach to this would be that active users should be contained in a table called projects_users, containing project_id, user_id. When they are "removed" they should be removed from that table. Logs of the actions - adding and remove users from projects - should be stored in a separate table.
There's no good way that I'm aware of to write this query given your current design. Even if you fixed the errors, this runs error free in MySQL (which is exactly what you have)
SELECT DISTINCT `users`.* FROM `users`
INNER JOIN `projects_users`
ON `users`.`id`=`projects_users`.`user_id`
WHERE `status`='added'
ORDER BY `projects_users`.`occured_on` DESC
it still won't get you the correct results. The ORDER BY clause will just get you the most recent change to "added", it won't guarantee there is not a more recent "removed" action. To do that you'd need to compare the date of each most recent added record to the date of the most recent removed record, for each user, a nightmare.