I'm using a simple follower system in my application and I can get the number of any user's followers by running User.followers.count. However, when I try to sort all users by the number of followers they each have with #orderedUsers = User.all.order("followers.count DESC") it returns the error "ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: SQLite3::SQLException: no such column: followers.count". Obviously, this is because there is no such column. Is there a way to work around this to do what I wish to achieve?
Thanks.
This code should work (assuming the DB table names are users and followers):
User.joins(:followers).order("count(followers.user_id) desc")
How about something like:
#ordered_users = User.all.sort{|a,b| a.followers.count <=> b.followers.count}
For the reverse order, you can do:
#ordered_users = User.all.sort{|a,b| b.followers.count <=> a.followers.count}
Or, .reverse, as you say in the comments.
EDIT: #Alex Quach left a good alternative in a different post. I've modified it for where it will not include the current user in the list, which may be helpful:
User.all.where('id != ?', current_user.id).sort_by { |u| -u.followers.count }
I would strongly consider using a counter cache on the User model, to hold the count of followers.
This would give a very small performance impact on adding or removing followers, and greatly increase performance when performing sorts:
User.order(followers_count: :desc)
This would be particularly noticeable if you wanted the top-n users by follower count, or finding users with no followers.
Related
Assuming this simplified schema:
users has_many discount_codes
discount_codes has_many orders
I want to grab all users, and if they happen to have any orders, only include the orders that were created between two dates. But if they don't have orders, or have orders only outside of those two dates, still return the users and do not exclude any users ever.
What I'm doing now:
users = User.all.includes(discount_codes: :orders)
users = users.where("orders.created_at BETWEEN ? AND ?", date1, date2).
or(users.where(orders: { id: nil })
I believe my OR clause allows me to retain users who do not have any orders whatsoever, but what happens is if I have a user who only has orders outside of date1 and date2, then my query will exclude that user.
For what it's worth, I want to use this orders where clause here specifically so I can avoid n + 1 issues later in determining orders per user.
Thanks in advance!
It doesn't make sense to try and control the orders that are loaded as part of the where clause for users. If you were to control that it'd have to be part of the includes (which I think means it'd have to be a part of the association).
Although technically it can combine them into a single query in some cases, activerecord is going to do this as two queries.
The first query will be executed when you go to iterate over the users and will use that where clause to limit the users found.
It will then run a second query behind the scenes based on that includes statement. This will simply be a query to get all orders which are associated with the users that were found by the previous query. As such the only way to control the orders that are found through the user's where clause is to omit users from the result set.
If I were you I would create an instance method in User model for what you are looking for but instead of using where use a select block:
def orders_in_timespan(start, end)
orders.select{ |o| o.between?(start, end) }
end
Because of the way ActiveRecord will cache the found orders from the includes against the instance then if you start off with an includes in your users query then I believe this will not result in n queries.
Something like:
render json: User.includes(:orders), methods: :orders_in_timespan
Of course, the easiest way to confirm the number of queries is to look at the logs. I believe this approach should have two queries regardless of the number of users being rendered (as likely does your code in the question).
Also, I'm not sure how familiar you are with sql but you can call .to_sql on the end of things such as your users variable in order to see the sql that would be generated which might help shed some light on the discrepancies between what you're getting and what you're looking for.
Option 1: Write a custom query in SQL (ugly).
Option 2: Create 2 separate queries like below...
#users = User.limit(10)
#orders = Order.joins(:discount_code)
.where(created_at: [10.days.ago..1.day.ago], discount_codes: {user_id: users.select(:id)})
.group_by{|order| order.discount_code.user_id}
Now you can use it like this ...
#users.each do |user|
orders = #orders[user.id]
puts user.name
puts user.id
puts orders.count
end
I hope this will solve your problem.
You need to use joins instead of includes. Rails joins use inner joins and will reject all the records which don't have associations.
User.joins(discount_codes: :orders).where(orders: {created_at: [10.days.ago..1.day.ago]}).distinct
This will give you all distinct users who placed orders in a given period of time.
user = User.joins(:discount_codes).joins(:orders).where("orders.created_at BETWEEN ? AND ?", date1, date2) +
User.left_joins(:discount_codes).left_joins(:orders).group("users.id").having("count(orders.id) = 0")
Here I want to sort product list as per current user.
The user clicked the product most comes first in list and sort accordingly.
Here I have table product_counts which store user_id product_id and counts.
I tried this, but it taking a lot of queries to run which isn't good.
Product.all.sort_by{ |r| r.product_clicks.where(user_id: user.id).first.try(:count).to_i }.reverse!
If you have ProductCount model then the below query should work.
ProductCount.includes(:product).where(user_id: user.id).order(counts: :desc).map(&:product)
Here is a working query which will be faster:
ProductCount.joins(:product).where(user_id: current_user.id).order(count: :desc).map(&:product)
or
ProductCount.includes(:product).where(user_id: current_user.id).order(count: :desc).map(&:product)
The query with includes will be faster. Here is a guide for difference between joins & includes.
Let me know if it worked.
I have users, problems, and attempts which is a join table between users and problems. I'm looking to show an index of all the problems along with the current user's most recent attempt for each, if they have one.
I've tried four things to get a left join with conditions and none of them have worked.
The naive approach is something like...
#problems = Problem.enabled
#problems.each do { |prob|
prob.last_attempt = prob.attempts
.where(user_id: current_user.id)
.last
end
This gets all the problems and the attempts I want but is N+1 queries. So...
#problems = Problem.enabled
.includes(:attempts)
This does the left join (or the equivalent two queries) getting all the problems but also all the attempts, not just those for the current user. So...
#problems = Problem.enabled
.includes(:attempts)
.where(attempts: {user_id: current_user.id})
This gets only those problems that the current user has already attempted.
So...
//problem.rb
has_many :user_attempts,
-> (user) { where(user_id: user.id) },
class_name: 'Attempt'
//problem_controller.index
#problems = Problem.enabled
.includes(:user_attempts, current_user)
And this gives an error message from rails saying joins with instance
arguments are not supported.
So I'm stuck. What is the best way to do this? Is Arel the right tool? Can I skip active record and just get back a JSON blob? Am I just being dumb?
This question is quite similar to this one but I'd need a argument to the joined scope which isn't supported. And I'm hoping rails added something in last couple years.
Thanks so much for your help.
The way I solved this was to use raw sql. It's ugly and a security risk but I didn't find better.
results = Problem.connection.exec_query(%(
SELECT *
FROM problems
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT *
//etc.
)
))
And then manipulating the results array in memory.
I have a one to many relationship: User has many Payments. I am trying to find a query that gets the first payment of each user(using created_at from the payments table).
I have found a similar question with an SQL response, but I have no idea how to write it with Active Record.
how do I query sql for a latest record date for each user
Quoting the answer:
select t.username, t.date, t.value
from MyTable t
inner join (
select username, max(date) as MaxDate
from MyTable
group by username
) tm on t.username = tm.username and t.date = tm.MaxDate
For me, it would be min instead of max.
Thank you :)
Try this one for POSTGRES
Payment.select("DISTINCT ON(user_id) *").order("user_id, created_at ASC")
And For SQL
Payment.group(:user_id).having('created_at = MAX(created_at)')
If I'm going to answer the question above with: (I don't based on given raw SQL)
User has many Payments. I am trying to find a query that gets the first payment of each user(using created_at from the payments table).
Let say:
# Assumed to have a Single User, as reference
user = User.first
# Now, get first payment (from Payment model)
user.payments.last
# .last since it will always get the first created row by created_at.
If I fully understand what you're trying to do. I'm don't know why you need max or min date?
What about this?
If you want first payment of each user
dates = Payment.group(:user_id).minimum(:created_at).values
payments = Payment.where(created_at: dates)
From payment you can find user too.
I think you have username as foreign key, you can change accordingly. :)
Let me know if you face any issue, as I tested it works.
I know this answer is not the best, but it will work even or transactions with milliseconds difference, as rails saves date(created_at and updated_at) with ms level.
I am sorry for not replying to everything, but after multiple tests, this is the quickest answer (in run time) I came with:
Payment.where(:id => Payment.group(:user_id).pluck(:id))
I am saying it might not be the quickest way because I am using a sub query. I am getting the unique values and getting the ID's:
Payment.group(:user_id).pluck(:id)
Then I am matching those ID's.
The downside of this is that it won't work reversed, for getting the last payment.
There was also a possibility to use group_by and map but, since map is coming from ruby, it is taking much more time.
I'm not sure but try this :
In your controller :
def Page
#payments = Payment.first
end
in your html.erb :
<% #payments.each do |payment| %>
<p> <%= payment.amount %> </p>
Hope this help !
Record.association.order(:created_at).first
In my application a User has Highlights.
Each Highlight has a HighlightType. So if I run user.highlights I might see an output like this:
Notice that there are many highlights of type_id 47. This marks milestones of the number of times the user has gone running.
What I would like to do is return this full list of records, but only include one highlight for each highlight_type, and I want that one record to be the most recent record (in this case the "50th run" highlight). So in the example above I would get the same results but with IDs 195-199 removed.
Is there an efficient way to accomplish this?
I don't think there is an easy or clean way to achieve that, nor a "Rails way". Look at e.g. this link
According to one suggestion in that link you would do this SQL request:
SELECT h1.*
FROM highlights h1
LEFT JOIN highlights h2
ON (h1.user_id = h2.user_id
AND h1.highlight_type_id = h2.highlight_type_id
AND h1.created_at < h2.created_at)
WHERE h2.id IS NULL AND h1.user_id = <the user id you are interested in>
group by h1.highlight_type_id
I think it will be some performance problem if you have big tables maybe, an it not so very clean I think.
Otherwise, if there isn't so much highlights for a user I would have done something like this:
rows = {}
user.highlights.order('highlight_type_id, created_at DESC').each do |hi|
rows[hi.highlight_type_id] ||= hi
end
# then use rows which will have one object for each highlight_type_id
The DESC on created_at is important
EDIT:
I also saw some suggestions based on this
user.highlights.group('highlight_type_id').order('created_at DESC')
And that was also how I first thought it should be solved, but I tested it and it doesn't seems to get a correct result - at least on my test data.