I'm trying to order my default_scope in a way that the itens with the boolean important = true show first, and all order by created_at desc.
So, I have the following code:
default_scope order_by(:important => :desc, :created_at => :desc)
But, looks like important field order is ignored.
How can I made it work?
Thanks in advance
EDIT:
I just shift the order of the order params and it works:
default_scope order_by(:created_at => :desc, :important => :desc)
Just that simple.
This is an example on how to sort two columns in rails (probably you might have to slightly modify it to match your requirement), But I think you get the idea
<Model>.all(:order => 'important, created_at')
HTH
Related
I have two models: 'A' and 'B', and want to search objects from both of them using Thinking sphinx, but I want all results of model 'A' first and then 'B'. How can I do that?
I pass the following options to sphinx query
{:match_mode=>:extended, :sort_mode=>:extended, :star=>true, :order=>"#relevance DESC", :ignore_errors=>true, :populate=>true, :per_page=>10, :retry_stale=>true, :classes => [A,B]}
And then get search results using:
ThinkingSphinx.search "*xy*", options
But it gives results in mixed ordering, whereas I need all 'A' objects first. How can I do that?
The easiest way is to add an attribute to both models' indices:
has "1", :as => :sort_order, :type => :integer
The number within the string should be different per model. And then your :order argument becomes:
:order => 'sort_order ASC, #relevance DESC'
I am using rails 3 with mongoid.
I have a collection of Stocks with an embedded collection of Prices :
class Stock
include Mongoid::Document
field :name, :type => String
field :code, :type => Integer
embeds_many :prices
class Price
include Mongoid::Document
field :date, :type => DateTime
field :value, :type => Float
embedded_in :stock, :inverse_of => :prices
I would like to get the stocks whose the minimum price since a given date is lower than a given price p, and then be able to sort the prices for each stock.
But it looks like Mongodb does not allow to do it.
Because this will not work:
#stocks = Stock.Where(:prices.value.lt => p)
Also, it seems that mongoDB can not sort embedded objects.
So, is there an alternative in order to accomplish this task ?
Maybe i should put everything in one collection so that i could easily run the following query:
#stocks = Stock.Where(:prices.lt => p)
But i really want to get results grouped by stock names after my query (distinct stocks with an array of ordered prices for example). I have heard about map/reduce with the group function but i am not sure how to use it correctly with Mongoid.
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Aggregation
The equivalent in SQL would be something like this:
SELECT name, code, min(price) from Stock WHERE price<p GROUP BY name, code
Thanks for your help.
MongoDB / Mongoid do allow you to do this. Your example will work, the syntax is just incorrect.
#stocks = Stock.Where(:prices.value.lt => p) #does not work
#stocks = Stock.where('prices.value' => {'$lt' => p}) #this should work
And, it's still chainable so you can order by name as well:
#stocks = Stock.where('prices.value' => {'$lt' => p}).asc(:name)
Hope this helps.
I've had a similar problem... here's what I suggest:
scope :price_min, lambda { |price_min| price_min.nil? ? {} : where("price.value" => { '$lte' => price_min.to_f }) }
Place this scope in the parent model. This will enable you to make queries like:
Stock.price_min(1000).count
Note that my scope only works when you actually insert some data there. This is very handy if you're building complex queries with Mongoid.
Good luck!
Very best,
Ruy
MongoDB does allow querying of embedded documents, http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Advanced+Queries#AdvancedQueries-ValueinanEmbeddedObject
What you're missing is a scope on the Price model, something like this:
scope :greater_than, lambda {|value| { :where => {:value.gt => value} } }
This will let you pass in any value you want and return a Mongoid collection of prices with the value greater than what you passed in. It'll be an unsorted collection, so you'll have to sort it in Ruby.
prices.sort {|a,b| a.value <=> b.value}.each {|price| puts price.value}
Mongoid does have a map_reduce method to which you pass two string variables containing the Javascript functions to execute map/reduce, and this would probably be the best way of doing what you need, but the code above will work for now.
I want to ensure that only Movies with a watched date are brought back and ordered by that value in ascending order.
I think I'm fairly close with the following:
default_scope :conditions => { :watched_date => not null },
:order => 'watched_date ASC'
But I don't know how to add a condition for a non-null date.
Does it work if you change the conditions to this?:
:conditions => 'watched_date IS NOT NULL'
You might want to include the table name incase this is used in joins like so:
:conditions => 'movies.watched_date IS NOT NULL'
I think it's safe to say everyone loves doing something like this in Rails:
Product.find(:all, :conditions => {:featured => true})
This will return all products where the attribute "featured" (which is a database column) is true. But let's say I have a method on Product like this:
def display_ready?
(self.photos.length > 0) && (File.exist?(self.file.path))
end
...and I want to find all products where that method returns true. I can think of several messy ways of doing it, but I think it's also safe to say we love Rails because most things are not messy.
I'd say it's a pretty common problem for me... I'd have to imagine that a good answer will help many people. Any non-messy ideas?
The only reliable way to filter these is the somewhat ugly method of retrieving all records and running them through a select:
display_ready_products = Product.all.select(&:display_ready?)
This is inefficient to the extreme especially if you have a large number of products which are probably not going to qualify.
The better way to do this is to have a counter cache for your photos, plus a flag set when your file is uploaded:
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :photos
end
class Photo < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :product, :counter_cache => true
end
You'll need to add a column to the Product table:
add_column :products, :photos_count, :default => 0
This will give you a column with the number of photos. There's a way to pre-populate these counters with the correct numbers at the start instead of zero, but there's no need to get into that here.
Add a column to record your file flag:
add_column :products, :file_exists, :boolean, :null => false, :default => false
Now trigger this when saving:
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
before_save :assign_file_exists_flag
protected
def assign_file_exists_flag
self.file_exists = File.exist?(self.file.path)
end
end
Since these two attributes are rendered into database columns, you can now query on them directly:
Product.find(:all, :conditions => 'file_exists=1 AND photos_count>0')
You can clean that up by writing two named scopes that will encapsulate that behavior.
You need to do a two level select:
1) Select all possible rows from the database. This happens in the db.
2) Within Ruby, select the valid rows from all of the rows. Eg
possible_products = Product.find(:all, :conditions => {:featured => true})
products = possible_products.select{|p| p.display_ready?}
Added:
Or:
products = Product.find(:all, :conditions => {:featured => true}).select {|p|
p.display_ready?}
The second select is the select method of the Array object. Select is a very handy method, along with detect. (Detect comes from Enumerable and is mixed in with Array.)
How can I write an AR find query to have the results ordered by the number of records in a has_many association?
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :photos
end
I want to do something like...
User.find(:all, :order => photos.count)
I realize my find is not valid code. Say I have the following data.
User 1, which has 3 photos
User 2, which has 5 photos
User 3, which has 2 photos
I want my find to bring me back the users in the order of...
User 2,
User 1,
User 3
based on the count of of the users photos
The easiest way to achieve this is probably to add a counter cache to that model and then sort by that column.
class Photo < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user, :counter_cache => true
end
And be sure to add a column to your users table called photos_count.
Then you will be able to...
User.find(:all, :order => 'photos_count')
If you don't want an extra column, you could always ask for an extra column in the returned result set:
User.all(:select => "#{User.table_name}.*, COUNT(#{Photo.table_name}.id) number_of_photos",
:joins => :photos,
:order => "number_of_photos")
This generates the following SQL:
SELECT users.*, COUNT(photos.id) number_of_photos
FROM `users` INNER JOIN `photos` ON photos.user_id = users.id
ORDER BY number_of_photos
If you don't want to add a counter cache column, your only option is to sort after the find. If you :include the association in your find, you won't incur any additional database work.
users = User.find(:all, :include => :photos).sort_by { |u| -u.photos.size }
Note the negative sign in the sort_by block to sort from high to low.
I would advise you not to write direct SQL, since implementations of it may vary from store to store. Fortunately, you have arel:
User.joins(:photos).group(Photo.arel_table[:user_id]).
order(Photo.arel_table[:user_id].count)
Counter cache will help, but you'll need an extra column in the db.
I'd add this as a comment on the top answer, but I can't for some reason. According to this post:
http://m.onkey.org/active-record-query-interface
The User.all(options) method will be deprecated after Rails 3.0.3, and replaced with a bunch of other (handy, chainable) active record type stuff, but it makes it very hard to figure out how to put together the same kind of query.
As a result, I've gone ahead and implemented the counter cache method. This was pretty easy and painless with the exception that you need to remember to update the column information in your migration, otherwise all existing records will have "0."
Here's what I used in my migration:
class AddUserCountToCollections < ActiveRecord::Migration
def self.up
add_column :collections, :collectionusers_count, :integer, :default => 0
Collection.reset_column_information
Collection.all.each do |c|
Collection.update_counters c.id, :collectionusers_count => c.collectionusers.count
end
end
def self.down
remove_column :collections, :collectionusers_count
end
end
In theory this should be faster, too. Hope that's helpful going forward.
Your question doesn't make sense. The :order parameter specifies a column name and an optional ordering direction i.e. asc(ending) or desc(ending).
What is the result that you're trying to achieve?