I have 3 models Passenger, Taxi, Order i want to get a certain column of these tables. I used this to join them successfully.
Taxi.joins(:orders => :passenger).where(:taxi =>{:taxi_id =>2 } )
I want to select some of the columns of passenger table and some of the column of order,
but i do not know how can i do that?
The other problem is that, the result of this query is only columns of Taxi and not the column of taxi+order+passenger
I think i have a problem with my query
Taxi
.joins(orders: :passenger)
.where(taxi: {taxi_id: 2 })
.pluck('passengers.column_name, orders.column_name')
Taxi.joins(orders: :passenger).where(taxi:{taxi_id: 2}).includes(orders: :passenger).map do |taxi|
#this will not query again as the includes directive above already fetched
taxi.orders.map {|p| puts p}
end
Related
I have a model with the fields price, min_price,max_price, discount,in my product table. if I want to execute ascending descending orders, how that will get executed when we apply for an order on multiple fields. for example like below.
#products = Product.order("price asc").order("min_price desc").order("max_price asc").order("updated_at asc") (Query might be wrong but for reference im adding)
will it order as per the order sequence ?
If you append .to_sql to that, it will show the generated SQL so you can investigate yourself.
I tried a similar query:
Book.select(:id).order("id asc").order("pub_date desc").to_sql
=> "SELECT \"books\".\"id\" FROM \"books\" ORDER BY id asc, pub_date desc"
You might instead:
Book.select(:id).order(id: :asc, pub_date: :desc).to_sql
=> "SELECT \"books\".\"id\" FROM \"books\" ORDER BY \"books\".\"id\" ASC, \"books\".\"pub_date\" DESC"
... which you see adds the table name in, so is more reliable when if you are accessing multiple tables
I have a Company model that has_many Statement.
class Company < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :statements
end
I want to get statements that have most latest date field grouped by fiscal_year_end field.
I implemented the function like this:
c = Company.first
c.statements.to_a.group_by{|s| s.fiscal_year_end }.map{|k,v| v.max_by(&:date) }
It works ok, but if possible I want to use ActiveRecord query(SQL), so that I don't need to load unnecessary instance to memory.
How can I write it by using SQL?
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 these kinds of things, I find it helpful to get the raw SQL working first, and then translate it into ActiveRecord afterwards. It sounds like a textbook case of GROUP BY:
SELECT fiscal_year_end, MAX(date) AS max_date
FROM statements
WHERE company_id = 1
GROUP BY fiscal_year_end
Now you can express that in ActiveRecord like so:
c = Company.first
c.statements.
group(:fiscal_year_end).
order(nil). # might not be necessary, depending on your association and Rails version
select("fiscal_year_end, MAX(date) AS max_date")
The reason for order(nil) is to prevent ActiveRecord from adding ORDER BY id to the query. Rails 4+ does this automatically. Since you aren't grouping by id, it will cause the error you're seeing. You could also order(:fiscal_year_end) if that is what you want.
That will give you a bunch of Statement objects. They will be read-only, and every attribute will be nil except for fiscal_year_end and the magically-present new field max_date. These instances don't represent specific statements, but statement "groups" from your query. So you can do something like this:
- #statements_by_fiscal_year_end.each do |s|
%tr
%td= s.fiscal_year_end
%td= s.max_date
Note there is no n+1 query problem here, because you fetched everything you need in one query.
If you decide that you need more than just the max date, e.g. you want the whole statement with the latest date, then you should look at your options for the greatest n per group problem. For raw SQL I like LATERAL JOIN, but the easiest approach to use with ActiveRecord is DISTINCT ON.
Oh one more tip: For debugging weird errors, I find it helpful to confirm what SQL ActiveRecord is trying to use. You can use to_sql to get that:
c = Company.first
puts c.statements.
group(:fiscal_year_end).
select("fiscal_year_end, MAX(date) AS max_date").
to_sql
In that example, I'm leaving off order(nil) so you can see that ActiveRecord is adding an ORDER BY clause you don't want.
for example you want to get all statements by start of the months you should use this
#companey = Company.first
#statements = #companey.statements.find(:all, :order => 'due_at, id', :limit => 50)
then group them as you want
#monthly_statements = #statements.group_by { |statement| t.due_at.beginning_of_month }
Building upon Bharat's answer you can do this type of query in Rails using find_by_sql in this way:
Statement.find_by_sql ["Select t.* from statements t INNER JOIN (
SELECT fiscal_year_end, max(date) as MaxDate GROUP BY fiscal_year_end
) tm on t.fiscal_year_end = tm.fiscal_year_end AND
t.created_at = tm.MaxDate WHERE t.company_id = ?", company.id]
Note the last where part to make sure the statements belong to a specific company instance, and that this is called from the class. I haven't tested this with the array form, but I believe you can turn this into a scope and use it like this:
# In Statement model
scope :latest_from_fiscal_year, lambda |enterprise_id| {
find_by_sql[..., enterprise_id] # Query above
}
# Wherever you need these statements for a particular company
company = Company.find(params[:id])
latest_statements = Statement.latest_from_fiscal_year(company.id)
Note that if you somehow need all the latest statements for all companies then this most likely leave you with a N+1 queries problem. But that is a beast for another day.
Note: If anyone else has a way to have this query work on the association without using the last where part (company.statements.latest_from_year and such) let me know and I'll edit this, in my case in rails 3 it just pulled em from the whole table without filtering.
I have a users table, which has a one-to-many relationship with a user_purchases table via the foreign key user_id. That is, each user can make many purchases (or may have none, in which case he will have no entries in the user_purchases table).
user_purchases has only one other field that is of interest here, which is purchase_date.
I am trying to write a Sequel ORM statement that will return a dataset with the following columns:
user_id
date of the users SECOND purchase, if it exists
So users who have not made at least 2 purchases will not appear in this dataset. What is the best way to write this Sequel statement?
Please note I am looking for a dataset with ALL users returned who have >= 2 purchases
Thanks!
EDIT FOR CLARITY
Here is a similar statement I wrote to get users and their first purchase date (as opposed to 2nd purchase date, which I am asking for help with in the current post):
DB[:users].join(:user_purchases, :user_id => :id)
.select{[:user_id, min(:purchase_date)]}
.group(:user_id)
You don't seem to be worried about the dates, just the counts so
DB[:user_purchases].group_and_count(:user_id).having(:count > 1).all
will return a list of user_ids and counts where the count (of purchases) is >= 2. Something like
[{:count=>2, :user_id=>1}, {:count=>7, :user_id=>2}, {:count=>2, :user_id=>3}, ...]
If you want to get the users with that, the easiest way with Sequel is probably to extract just the list of user_ids and feed that back into another query:
DB[:users].where(:id => DB[:user_purchases].group_and_count(:user_id).
having(:count > 1).all.map{|row| row[:user_id]}).all
Edit:
I felt like there should be a more succinct way and then I saw this answer (from Sequel author Jeremy Evans) to another question using select_group and select_more : https://stackoverflow.com/a/10886982/131226
This should do it without the subselect:
DB[:users].
left_join(:user_purchases, :user_id=>:id).
select_group(:id).
select_more{count(:purchase_date).as(:purchase_count)}.
having(:purchase_count > 1)
It generates this SQL
SELECT `id`, count(`purchase_date`) AS 'purchase_count'
FROM `users` LEFT JOIN `user_purchases`
ON (`user_purchases`.`user_id` = `users`.`id`)
GROUP BY `id` HAVING (`purchase_count` > 1)"
Generally, this could be the SQL query that you need:
SELECT u.id, up1.purchase_date FROM users u
LEFT JOIN user_purchases up1 ON u.id = up1.user_id
LEFT JOIN user_purchases up2 ON u.id = up2.user_id AND up2.purchase_date < up1.purchase_date
GROUP BY u.id, up1.purchase_date
HAVING COUNT(up2.purchase_date) = 1;
Try converting that to sequel, if you don't get any better answers.
The date of the user's second purchase would be the second row retrieved if you do an order_by(:purchase_date) as part of your query.
To access that, do a limit(2) to constrain the query to two results then take the [-1] (or last) one. So, if you're not using models and are working with datasets only, and know the user_id you're interested in, your (untested) query would be:
DB[:user_purchases].where(:user_id => user_id).order_by(:user_purchases__purchase_date).limit(2)[-1]
Here's some output from Sequel's console:
DB[:user_purchases].where(:user_id => 1).order_by(:purchase_date).limit(2).sql
=> "SELECT * FROM user_purchases WHERE (user_id = 1) ORDER BY purchase_date LIMIT 2"
Add the appropriate select clause:
.select(:user_id, :purchase_date)
and you should be done:
DB[:user_purchases].select(:user_id, :purchase_date).where(:user_id => 1).order_by(:purchase_date).limit(2).sql
=> "SELECT user_id, purchase_date FROM user_purchases WHERE (user_id = 1) ORDER BY purchase_date LIMIT 2"
In Rails 3, how do i select rows based on unique column values, i need to get all the columns for eg:
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT date) FROM records
This only returns date column, but i want all the columns (name, date , age , created_at) columns not just the date.
Thanks for your help
The issue here is that, by definition, there may be multiple records with the same date. It requires logic in the user space to determine which of the multiple records with the unique date to use. Here's some code to get those rows:
Record.select("distinct date").each do |record|
records = Record.find_by_date record.date
puts records.count # do something with the records
end
If what you're really after is uniqueness among multiple columns, list all the relevant columns in the distinct query:
Record.select("distinct date, name, age, created_at").each do |record|
puts record.date
puts record.name
puts record.age
puts record.created_at
# ``record'' still represents multiple possible records
end
The fact that you are using distinct means that each "row" returned actually represents n rows, so the DB doesn't know which of the n rows to pull the remaining columns from. That's why it only returns the columns used in distinct. It can do no other...
I think this will help you
Model.find(:all, :select => 'DISTINCT name, date, age, created_at')
Please use it and let me know.
Model.group(:column)
For your case:
Record.group(:date)
This will return all your columns with no "date" repetitions.
For rails 3.2 and higher, Model.select('DISTINCT name, date, age, created_at')
I'm using rails and am trying to figure out how to use ActiveRecord within the method to combine the following into one query:
def children_active(segment)
parent_id = Category.select('id').where('segment' => segment)
Category.where('parent_id'=>parent_id, 'active' => true)
end
Basically, I'm trying to get sub categories of a category that is designated by a unique column called segment. Right now, I'm getting the id of the category in the first query, and then using that value for the parent_id in the second query. I've been trying to figure out how to use AR to do a join so that it can be accomplished in just one query.
You can use self join with a alias table name:
Category.joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN categories AS segment_categories on segment_categories.id = categories.parent_id").where("segment_categories.segment = ?", segment).where("categories.active = ?", true)
This may looks not so cool, but it can implement the query in one line, and there will be much less performance loss than your solution when data collection is big, because "INCLUDE IN" is much more slower than "JOIN".