I have this query:
absences = Absence.joins(:user).where('users.company_id = ?', #company.id).where('"from" <= ? and "to" >= ?', self.date, self.date).group('user_id').select('user_id, sum(hours) as hours')
This will return user_id's with a total of hours.
Now I need to to loop through all users of the company and do some calculations.
company.users.each do |user|
tc = TimeCheck.find_or_initialize_by(:user_id => user.id, :date => self.date)
tc.expected_hours = user.working_hours - absences.where('user_id = ?', user.id).first.hours
end
For performance reasons I want to have only one query to the absences table (the first one) and afterwards to look in memory for the correct user. How do I best accomplish this? I believe by default absences will be a ActiveRecord::Relation and not a result set. Is there a command I can use to instruct activerecord to execute the query, and afterwards search in memory?
Or do I need to store absences as array or hash first?
One SQL optimization you could make is:
change:
absences.where('user_id = ?', user.id).first.hours
to:
absences.detect { |u| u.user_id == user.id }.hours
Also, You might not need to loop through company.users. You may be able to loop through absences instead, depending on the business requirements.
Related
So i'm currently using the following command to join and query my tables - looking for an OrderItem amongst my Orders where the orderable_id = applicable_product_item_id the total_price = 0 and the buyer_id = current_user
Order.joins(:items)
.where(order_items: {id: OrderItem.where(orderable_id: applicable_product_item_id)})
.where(total_price: 0)
.where(buyer_id: current_user)
This all works fine, but now i want to query further and i want to know if the order that it has found has a created_at date > searchable_created_by_date
i've tried using another .where in the query as well as selecting the .first in the array and further querying that i.e. query = above_query.first
then
query.where("created_at > ?", searchable_created_by_date)
but i get
Undefined method where for #<Order:0x007fbc8d8edf90>
furman87's comment sounds right to me:
You'll have to specify the table in your where clause -- .where("orders.created_at > ?", searchable_created_by_date)
You might also try:
Order.
where(total_price: 0).
where(buyer_id: current_user).
where("created_at > ?", searchable_created_by_date).
joins(:order_items).
where(order_items: {id: OrderItem.where(orderable_id: applicable_product_item_id)})
I think putting the created_at statement before the joins statement will disambiguate the query - but I'm not 100% sure.
Also, I would have thought that you would have done joins(:order_items). But, I suppose that depends on how you have your associations set up. If joins(:items) works for you, then more power to you! (And ignore the comment.)
I have a collection of users with various statuses: active, disabled, or deleted (as an enum). I want a count of users with each status as well as a count of the total number of users. What is the most efficient way for me to do that?
I've read the questions on size vs. length vs. count in Ruby and that makes me think I should load all of the user records and then iterate over the collection multiple times to get the length of each status array.
This is what my code looks like currently:
# pagination code omitted...
all_users = User.all
total_count = all_users.length
active_count = all_users.select {|u| u.status == User.statuses['active']}.length
disabled_count = all_users.select {|u| u.status == User.statuses['disabled']}.length
deleted_count = all_users.select {|u| u.status == User.statuses['deleted']}.length
The requests from the client take about 1.25-1.5 seconds as written for 1,000 users.
I've also tried making multiple DB queries with code like this:
# pagination code omitted...
total_count = User.count
active_count = User.where(status: User.statuses['active']).count
disabled_count = User.where(status: User.statuses['disabled']).count
deleted_count = User.where(status: User.statuses['deleted']).count
That might be marginally faster by ~100ms. Is there a faster way to do this?
I'm not sure if it is relevant, but for background info: I am using Rails as an API in this context to an AngularJS frontend. I am using Kaminari to paginate the collection, but I still need counts of each status. I am in a B2B environment so it is unlikely that any instance will have more than 1,000 users. I don't need to scale higher than that.
Thanks in advance!
Do it all at once, in the database by grouping your count query.
User.group(:status).count
Then to get the total number of users just sum the result. Here's an example from one of my tables. Here I'm grouping on a boolean field, but you can group on whatever you want.
> Course.group(:is_enabled).count
=> {false=>46, true=>26524}
That might be marginally faster by ~100ms.
Create an index on your 'status' column in your database:
# in your terminal
rails g migration AddIndexOnStatusOfUsers
# in db/migrate/xxxxx_add_index_on_status_of_users.rb
def change
add_index :users, :status
end
You should benchmark them all and let us know. Would be interesting. Pure SQL answers are always more scalable of course...
u = User.select('user.status')
active_count = 0
disabled_count = 0
deleted_count = 0
u.each do |u|
if u.status = 'active'
active_count += 1
elsif u.status = 'deleted'
deleted_count +=1
else
disabled_count +=1
end
end
In Ruby on Rails, I'm trying to order the matches of a player by whether the current user is the winner.
The sort order would be:
Sort by whether the current user is the winner
Then sort by created_at, etc.
I can't figure out how to do the equivalent of :
Match.all.order('winner_id == ?', #current_user.id)
I know this line is not syntactically correct but hopefully it expresses that the order must be:
1) The matches where the current user is the winner
2) the other matches
You can use a CASE expression in an SQL ORDER BY clause. However, AR doesn't believe in using placeholders in an ORDER BY so you have to do nasty things like this:
by_owner = Match.send(:sanitize_sql_array, [ 'case when winner_id = %d then 0 else 1 end', #current_user.id ])
Match.order(by_owner).order(:created_at)
That should work the same in any SQL database (assuming that your #current_user.id is an integer of course).
You can make it less unpleasant by using a class method as a scope:
class Match < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.this_person_first(id)
by_owner = sanitize_sql_array([ 'case when winner_id = %d then 0 else 1 end', id])
order(by_owner)
end
end
# and later...
Match.this_person_first(#current_user.id).order(:created_at)
to hide the nastiness.
This can be achived using Arel without writing any raw SQL!
matches = Match.arel_table
Match
.order(matches[:winner_id].eq(#current_user.id).desc)
.order(created_at: :desc)
Works for me with Postgres 12 / Rails 6.0.3 without any security warning
If you want to do sorting on the ruby side of things (instead of the SQL side), then you can use the Array#sort_by method:
query.sort_by(|a| a.winner_id == #current_user.id)
If you're dealing with bigger queries, then you should probably stick to the SQL side of things.
I would build a query and then execute it after it's built (mostly because you may not have #current_user. So, something like this:
query = Match.scoped
query = query.order("winner_id == ?", #current_user.id) if #current_user.present?
query = query.order("created_at")
#results = query.all
I have this scope in my artist model that gives me the artists, in the order of their popularity within a certain time period. popularity in the popularity_caches table is computed every day.
scope :by_popularity, lambda { |*args|
options = (default_popularity_options).merge(args[0] || {})
select("SUM(popularity) AS popularity, artists.*").
from("popularity_caches FORCE INDEX (popularity_cache_group), artists FORCE INDEX (index_artists_on_id_and_genre_id)").
where("popularity_caches.target_type = 'Artist'").
where("popularity_caches.target_id = artists.id").
where("popularity_caches.time_frame = ?", options[:time_frame]).
where("popularity_caches.started_on > ?", options[:started_on]).
where("popularity_caches.started_on < ?", options[:ended_on]).
group("artists.id").
order("popularity DESC")
}
This seems to work except when I want to get the count: Artist.by_popularity.count. I get a funky hash in return (probably the count of artists that have popularity_caches within that period):
#<OrderedHash {295954=>1, 20143=>1, 157532=>1, 181291=>1, 300086=>1, 50100=>1, 262898=>1, 293888=>1, 130158=>2, 279943=>1, 336758=>1, 100201=>1, 134290=>2, 22726=>3, 144620=>2, 62497=>2 # snip
This is the SQL I probably want in return:
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT(artists.id)) AS count_all
FROM popularity_caches FORCE INDEX (popularity_cache_group), artists FORCE INDEX (index_artists_on_id_and_genre_id)
WHERE (popularity_caches.target_type = 'Artist')
AND (popularity_caches.target_id = artists.id)
AND (popularity_caches.time_frame = 'week')
AND (popularity_caches.started_on > '2011-02-28 16:00:00')
AND (popularity_caches.started_on < '2011-10-05')
ORDER BY popularity DESC
To get the count, I had to make a separate method that pretty much does the same thing, except the SQL is formed differently. It kinds sucks through, because when I want to paginate, I have to pass two things:
#artists = Artists.by_popularity(some args).paginate(
:total_entries => Artist.count_by_popularity(pass in the same args here as in Artist.by_popularity),
:per_page => 5,
page => ...
)
That smells to me because it's very brittle.
Is there a way to do this in ARel? Maybe override how it counts things (distinct artists.id) and removing the group by so it doesn't return a hash for the count?
Thanks!
Solved with the amazing scuttle.io:
PopularityCach.select(
Arel::Nodes::Group.new(Artist.arel_table[:id]).count.as('count_all')
).where(
PopularityCach.arel_table[:target_type].eq('Artist').and(
PopularityCach.arel_table[:target_id].eq(Artist.arel_table[:id]).and(
PopularityCach.arel_table[:time_frame].eq('week').and(
PopularityCach.arel_table[:started_on].gt('2011-02-28 16:00:00').and(
PopularityCach.arel_table[:started_on].lt('2011-10-05')
)
)
)
)
).order(:popularity).reverse_order
I want to grab the most recent entry from a table. If I was just using sql, you could do
Select top 1 * from table ORDER BY EntryDate DESC
I'd like to know if there is a good active record way of doing this.
I could do something like:
table.find(:order => 'EntryDate DESC').first
But it seems like that would grab the entire result set, and then use ruby to select the first result. I'd like ActiveRecord to create sql that only brings across one result.
You need something like:
Model.first(:order => 'EntryDate DESC')
which is shorthand for
Model.find(:first, :order => 'EntryDate DESC')
Take a look at the documentation for first and find for details.
The Rails documentation seems to be pretty subjective in this instance. Note that .first is the same as find(:first, blah...)
From:http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Base.html#M002263
"Find first - This will return the first record matched by the options used. These options can either be specific conditions or merely an order. If no record can be matched, nil is returned. Use Model.find(:first, *args) or its shortcut Model.first(*args)."
Digging into the ActiveRecord code, at line 1533 of base.rb (as of 9/5/2009), we find:
def find_initial(options)
options.update(:limit => 1)
find_every(options).first
end
This calls find_every which has the following definition:
def find_every(options)
include_associations = merge_includes(scope(:find, :include), options[:include])
if include_associations.any? && references_eager_loaded_tables?(options)
records = find_with_associations(options)
else
records = find_by_sql(construct_finder_sql(options))
if include_associations.any?
preload_associations(records, include_associations)
end
end
records.each { |record| record.readonly! } if options[:readonly]
records
end
Since it's doing a records.each, I'm not sure if the :limit is just limiting how many records it's returning after the query is run, but it sure looks that way (without digging any further on my own). Seems you should probably just use raw SQL if you're worried about the performance hit on this.
Could just use find_by_sql http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Base.html#M002267
table.find_by_sql "Select top 1 * from table ORDER BY EntryDate DESC"