I have two classes. For simplicity, I removed unrelated data. I need join Order to Survey not vice-versa.
I know that I can run
select * from Order o right join order.survey s where s.id='x'
However, it is not what I would like to do. I would like to join Order to Survey with left outer join, but the survey doesn't have an instance of Order class in the class. The order holds an instance of the survey class, that's why it is easier to join tables from order class. I did it using SQL in Grails, however I wonder how it can be done using hql.
The sql code is as following.
Select survey.*,ao.* from survey sr left outer join order ao on ao.survey_id=sr.id
Models are as following
class Order{
Survey survey
}
class Survey {
}
Try this:
SELECT sr, (SELECT ao FROM namespace.Order ao WHERE ao.survey = sr.id)
FROM namespace.Survey sr
You list all Survey objects and if exists an associated Order you'll get by subquery
Pay attention: I've add namespace term, you'll change with your namespace class
In order to do joins in HQL, you have to extend your domain model. Add a back-ref to your Survey class:
class Survey {
static belongsTo = [ order:Order ]
}
so, you can resolve the Order instance from it:
Survey s = Survey.get someId
s.order
or
def orders = Survey.executeQuery 'select order from Survey where order.id = 111'
Related
I have been trying to find a solution to my problem for a few days, so I am turning towards the community, hopefully I am not missing something obvious here.
I have 2 models in rails:
class Room
has_many :accesses
end
class Access
belongs_to :accessor, polymorphic: true
end
Accessor can be of 2 types: Person or Team
I am trying to find the most efficient way to find the rooms that a user has access to, but which are not accessible from any teams.
I tried:
Room.joins(:accesses).where(accesses: {accessor: Person.find(1234)}).where.not(accesses: {accessor_type: Team'})
But that returns the rooms that people have accesses to, it does not filter out the ones that Team AND People have access to.
I am thinking the having clause is the way to go, in which it would count the number of Teams accesses to rooms, and keep the rooms that have 0 team accesses. Though all my attempts are failing.
I would love to hear any advice.
Left join
Instead of using HAVING, which requires us to add a GROUP BY, I'd start with a LEFT JOIN and a WHERE.
You can do this by left-joining to the room_accesses table specifically on "Team" accessor_type. We're left-joining because we're going to scope this join to only team accesses, and select only the rows where no such accesses exist. An inner join would not return these rows at all. We'll need to use a table alias as we're already using the room_accesses table to join to the person you are looking up.
We may as well admit Rails isn't great at this level of query abstraction, so let's just construct the raw SQL fragments for our first solution:
person = Person.find(1234)
person.rooms.joins(
"LEFT JOIN room_accesses team_accesses
ON team_accesses.room_id = rooms.id
AND team_accesses.accessor_type = 'Team'"
).where("team_accesses.id IS NULL")
This generates, for SQLite,
SELECT "rooms".* FROM "rooms"
INNER JOIN "room_accesses"
ON "rooms"."id" = "room_accesses"."room_id"
LEFT JOIN room_accesses team_accesses
ON team_accesses.room_id = rooms.id
AND team_accesses.accessor_type = 'Team'
WHERE "room_accesses"."accessor_id" = 1
AND "room_accesses"."accessor_type" = 'Person'
AND (team_accesses.id IS NULL)
Having
You can do this with aHAVING by similarly joining to room_accesses again with the team_accesses alias, grouping by rooms.id (since we want at most one record per room), and selecting the groups HAVING a zero count of team accesses:
person.rooms.joins(
"LEFT JOIN room_accesses team_accesses
ON team_accesses.room_id = rooms.id
AND team_accesses.accessor_type = 'Team'"
).group("rooms.id").having("COUNT(team_accesses.id) = 0")
generates:
SELECT "rooms".* FROM "rooms"
INNER JOIN "room_accesses"
ON "rooms"."id" = "room_accesses"."room_id"
LEFT JOIN room_accesses team_accesses
ON team_accesses.room_id = rooms.id
AND team_accesses.accessor_type = 'Team'
WHERE "room_accesses"."accessor_id" = 1
AND "room_accesses"."accessor_type" = 'Person'
GROUP BY rooms.id
HAVING (COUNT(team_accesses.id) = 0)
Using associations instead of raw SQL
You can get halfway there in Rails by defining a scoped association:
class Room < ApplicationRecord
has_many :room_accesses
has_many :team_accesses, ->{ where accessor_type: "Team" }, class_name: "RoomAccess"
end
Assuming you're using a recent version of ActiveRecord, this allows you to do
person.rooms.left_joins(:team_accesses)
However, the table name used for this left joins is "team_accesses_rooms", which is predictable in this simple case but not part of the public API to my knowledge and subject to being changed if other joins are used in this same query. Still, if you're feeling daring:
person.rooms.left_joins(:team_accesses).where(team_accesses_rooms: {id: nil})
Frankly I would not recommend this method as you're relying on a table alias that you're not in control of and is not obvious where it comes from. With the raw SQL, you are in control of it and it's obvious where it came from.
In the following book club example with associations:
class User
has_and_belongs_to_many :clubs
has_and_belongs_to_many :books
end
class Club
has_and_belongs_to_many :users
has_and_belongs_to_many :books
end
class Book
has_and_belongs_to_many :users
has_and_belongs_to_many :clubs
end
given a specific club record:
club = Club.find(params[:id])
how can I find all the users in the club who have all books in array of books?
club.users.where_has_all_books(books)
In PostgreSQL it can be done with a single query. (Maybe in MySQL too, I'm just not sure.)
So, some basic assumptions first. 3 tables: clubs, users and books, every table has id as a primary key. 3 join tables, books_clubs, books_users, clubs_users, each table contains pairs of ids (for books_clubs it will be [book_id, club_id]), and those pairs are unique within that table. Quite reasonable conditions IMO.
Building a query:
First, let's get ids of books from given club:
SELECT book_id
FROM books_clubs
WHERE club_id = 1
ORDER BY book_id
Then get users from given club, and group them by user.id:
SELECT CU.user_id
FROM clubs_users CU
JOIN users U ON U.id = CU.user_id
JOIN books_users BU ON BU.user_id = CU.user_id
WHERE CU.club_id = 1
GROUP BY CU.user_id
Join these two queries by adding having to 2nd query:
HAVING array_agg(BU.book_id ORDER BY BU.book_id) #> ARRAY(##1##)
where ##1## is the 1st query.
What's going on here: Function array_agg from the left part creates a sorted list (of array type) of book_ids. These are books of user. ARRAY(##1##) from the right part returns the sorted list of books of the club. And operator #> checks if 1st array contains all elements of the 2nd (ie if user has all books of the club).
Since 1st query needs to be performed only once, it can be moved to WITH clause.
Your complete query:
WITH club_book_ids AS (
SELECT book_id
FROM books_clubs
WHERE club_id = :club_id
ORDER BY book_id
)
SELECT CU.user_id
FROM clubs_users CU
JOIN users U ON U.id = CU.user_id
JOIN books_users BU ON BU.user_id = CU.user_id
WHERE CU.club_id = :club_id
GROUP BY CU.user_id
HAVING array_agg(BU.book_id ORDER BY BU.book_id) #> ARRAY(SELECT * FROM club_book_ids);
It can be verified in this sandbox: https://www.db-fiddle.com/f/cdPtRfT2uSGp4DSDywST92/5
Wrap it to find_by_sql and that's it.
Some notes:
ordering by book_id is not necessary; #> operator works with unordered arrays too. I just have a suspicion that comparison of ordered array is faster.
JOIN users U ON U.id = CU.user_id in 2nd query is only necessary for fetching user properties; in case of fetching user ids only it can be removed
It appears to work by grouping and counting.
club.users.joins(:books).where(books: { id: club.books.pluck(:id) }).group('users.id').having('count(*) = ?', club.books.count)
If anyone knows how to run the query without intermediate queries that would be great and I will accept the answer.
This looks like a situation where you'd make two queries, one to get all the ids you need, the other select perform a WHERE IN.
I am trying to execute a query to gather specific data but encountering problems in the query on the on portion of the query. To start off this is my class:
class TimeSlot {
String timeslot_id
String time_chunk_id
String uid
String exam_id
String start_time
String is_special_arrangement
static mapping = {
table 'timeslot'
id name: "timeslot_id", column: "timeslot_id"
version false
}
}
This is the query I'm trying to get working:
TimeSlot.executeQuery("Select t.time_chunk_id, t.uid, t.start_time, t.timeslot_id, t.is_special_arrangement, e.length from TimeSlot t inner join Exams e on t.exam_id = e.exam_id where t.exam_id = ? and t.time_chunk_id = ?", [testArray[i], timeChunkArray[x]])
It's throwing an error on the on portion because it's expecting a clause, but I need the data to specifically pertain to the exam.id comparison of both tables. Is there another way around this or a different way to set up the query so it will work like it does in any SQL editor?
It would be easier if you alter the domain class and add one to many relationship
class TimeSlot {
static hasMany = [examinations:Exams]
Then HQL can be
select ... from TimeSlot t join t.examinations e
I have a BlogPost model with a :category attribute. I am making a new BlogPost form, and I would like for the select menu to populate itself with each category entered in previous records by the user.
Therefore, I need one query to find all BlogPosts with a User ID, and then round up a list of each category they have entered. The same category will exist in multiple records, but of course I only want to return copy of it for the select menu.
Thank you :)
You can SELECT DISTINCT categories returned an INNER JOIN to the right user :
Category
.joins( :posts )
.where( posts: { user_id: current_user.id } )
.uniq
This should send a query like this :
SELECT DISTINCT categories.*
FROM categories
INNER JOIN posts ON posts.category_id = categories.id
WHERE posts.user_id = [whatever]
EDIT NOTE: be wary that uniq is both a method on a Relation and on an Array. Be sure to call it on the relation before it is cast to an array, or you will perform the uniq on an array of non-distinct results, which works too, but is absurd performance-wise.
Let's say that I have 4 models which are related in the following ways:
Schedule has foreign key to Project
Schedule has foreign key to User
Project has foreign key to Client
In my Schedule#index view I want the most optimized SQL so that I can display links to the Schedule's associated Project, Client, and User. So, I should not pull all of the columns for the Project, Client, and User; only their IDs and Name.
If I were to manually write the SQL it might look like this:
select
s.id,
s.schedule_name,
s.schedule_type,
s.project_id,
p.name project_name,
p.client_id client_id,
c.name client_name,
s.user_id,
u.login user_login,
s.created_at,
s.updated_at,
s.data_count
from
Users u inner join
Clients c inner join
Schedules s inner join
Projects p
on p.id = s.project_id
on c.id = p.client_id
on u.id = s.user_id
order by
s.created_at desc
My question is: What would the ActiveRecord code look like to get Rails 3 to generate that SQL? For example, somthing like:
#schedules = Schedule. # ?
I already have the associations setup in the models (i.e. has_many / belongs_to).
I think this will build (or at least help) you get what you're looking for:
Schedule.select("schedules.id, schedules.schedule_name, projects.name as project_name").joins(:user, :project=>:client).order("schedules.created_at DESC")
should yield:
SELECT schedules.id, schedules.schedule_name, projects.name as project_name FROM `schedules` INNER JOIN `users` ON `users`.`id` = `schedules`.`user_id` INNER JOIN `projects` ON `projects`.`id` = `schedules`.`project_id` INNER JOIN `clients` ON `clients`.`id` = `projects`.`client_id`
The main problem I see in your approach is that you're looking for schedule objects but basing your initial "FROM" clause on "User" and your associations given are also on Schedule, so I built this solution based on the plain assumption that you want schedules!
I also didn't include all of your selects to save some typing, but you get the idea. You will simply have to add each one qualified with its full table name.