I have a relationship between two models, Registers and Competitions. I have a very complicated dynamic query that is being built and if the conditions are right I need to limit Registration records to only those where it's Competition parent meets a certain criteria. In order to do this without select from the Competition table I was thinking of something along the lines of...
Register.where("competition_id in ?", Competition.where("...").collect {|i| i.id})
Which produces this SQL:
SELECT "registers".* FROM "registers" WHERE (competition_id in 1,2,3,4...)
I don't think PostgreSQL liked the fact that the in parameters aren't surrounded by parenthesis. How can I compare the Register foreign key to a list of competition ids?
you can make it a bit shorter and skip the collect (this worked for me in 3.2.3).
Register.where(competition_id: Competition.where("..."))
this will result in the following sql:
SELECT "registers".* FROM "registers" WHERE "registers"."competition_id" IN (SELECT "competitions"."id" FROM "competitions" WHERE "...")
Try this instead:
competitions = Competition.where("...").collect {|i| i.id}
Register.where(:competition_id => competitions)
Related
I want to query the database but only find out if there is at least one result or not. I am trying to minimize the cost for this transaction. What would the structure be in Rails to have the query be SELECT TOP or SELECT FIRST in SQL?
You could try exists?
Person.exists?(5) # by primary key
Person.exists?(name: 'David')
Person.exists? # is there at least one row in the table?
Person.where(name: 'Spartacus', rating: 4).exists?
Person.active.exists? # if you have an "active" scope
Note that this limits the result set to 1 in the SQL query and the select clause is something like SELECT 1 AS one
I am trying to query my PostgreSQL database to get the latest (by created_at) and distinct (by user_id) Activity objects, where each user has multiple activities in the database. The activity object is structured as such:
Activity(id, user_id, created_at, ...)
I first tried to get the below query to work:
Activity.order('created_at DESC').select('DISTINCT ON (activities.user_id) activities.*')
however, kept getting the below error:
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PG::InvalidColumnReference: ERROR: SELECT DISTINCT ON expressions must match initial ORDER BY expressions
According to this post: PG::Error: SELECT DISTINCT, ORDER BY expressions must appear in select list, it looks like The ORDER BY clause can only be applied after the DISTINCT has been applied. This does not help me, as I want to get the distinct activities by user_id, but also want the activities to be the most recently created activities. Thus, I need the activities to be sorted before getting the distinct activities.
I have come up with a solution that works, but first grouping the activities by user id, and then ordering the activities within the groups by created_at. However, this takes two queries to do.
I was wondering if what I want is possible in just one query?
This should work, try the following
Solution 1
Activity.select('DISTINCT ON (activities.user_id) activities.*').order('created_at DESC')
Solution 2
If not work Solution 1 then this is helpful if you create a scope for this
activity model
scope :latest, -> {
select("distinct on(user_id) activities.user_id,
activities.*").
order("user_id, created_at desc")
}
Now you can call this anywhere like below
Activity.latest
Hope it helps
There are 2 tables : User and Teacher. Teacher.user_id is from User. So, how do I find in a single query, all the users who are not in teachers.
I meant something along the lines :
User.not_in(Teacher.all)
You can use where.not query from ActiveRecord try something like below:
User.where.not(id: Teacher.pluck(:user_id).reject {|x| x.nil?})
Note: used reject method, in case you have nil values in some records.
The other users seem to have neglected the rails 3 tag (since removed based on the approved answer. My answer left for posterity) : Please try this
User.where("id NOT IN (?)",Teacher.pluck(:user_id).join(","))
This will become SELECT * FROM users WHERE id NOT IN (....) (two queries one to get the user_id from teachers and another to get the user(s) not in that list) and may fail based on the size of teacher table.
Other option is an arel table:
users = User.arel_table
User.where(users[:id].not_in(Teacher.select(:user_id).where("user_id IS NOT NULL")))
This should produce a single query similar to
SELECT * FROM users
WHERE id NOT IN ( SELECT user_id FROM teachers WHERE user_id IS NOT NULL)
(one query better performance) * syntax was not fully tested
Another single query option might be
User.joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN teachers ON teachers.user_id = users.id").
where("teachers.user_id IS NULL")
I think you should be able to do something like this
User.where.not(id: Teacher.ids)
I have the following code to join two tables microposts and activities with micropost_id column and then order based on created_at of activities table with distinct micropost id.
Micropost.joins("INNER JOIN activities ON
(activities.micropost_id = microposts.id)").
where('activities.user_id= ?',id).order('activities.created_at DESC').
select("DISTINCT (microposts.id), *")
which should return whole micropost columns.This is not working in my developement enviornment.
(PG::InvalidColumnReference: ERROR: for SELECT DISTINCT, ORDER BY expressions must appear in select list
If I add activities.created_at in SELECT DISTINCT, I will get repeated micropost ids because the have distinct activities.created_at column. I have done a lot of search to reach here. But the problem always persist because of this postgres condition to avoid random selection.
I want to select based on order of activities.created_at with distinct micropost _id.
Please help..
To start with, we need to quickly cover what SELECT DISTINCT is actually doing. It looks like just a nice keyword to make sure you only get back distinct values, which shouldn't change anything, right? Except as you're finding out, behind the scenes, SELECT DISTINCT is actually acting more like a GROUP BY. If you want to select distinct values of something, you can only order that result set by the same values you're selecting -- otherwise, Postgres doesn't know what to do.
To explain where the ambiguity comes from, consider this simple set of data for your activities:
CREATE TABLE activities (
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
created_at TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE,
micropost_id INTEGER REFERENCES microposts(id)
);
INSERT INTO activities (id, created_at, micropost_id)
VALUES (1, current_timestamp, 1),
(2, current_timestamp - interval '3 hours', 1),
(3, current_timestamp - interval '2 hours', 2)
You stated in your question that you want "distinct micropost_id" "based on order of activities.created_at". It's easy to order these activities by descending created_at (1, 3, 2), but both 1 and 2 have the same micropost_id of 1. So if you want the query to return just micropost IDs, should it return 1, 2 or 2, 1?
If you can answer the above question, you need to take your logic for doing so and move it into your query. Let's say that, and I think this is pretty likely, you want this to be a list of microposts which were most recently acted on. In that case, you want to sort the microposts in descending order of their most recent activity. Postgres can do that for you, in a number of ways, but the easiest way in my mind is this:
SELECT micropost_id
FROM activities
JOIN microposts ON activities.micropost_id = microposts.id
GROUP BY micropost_id
ORDER BY MAX(activities.created_at) DESC
Note that I've dropped the SELECT DISTINCT bit in favor of using GROUP BY, since Postgres handles them much better. The MAX(activities.created_at) bit tells Postgres to, for each group of activities with the same micropost_id, sort by only the most recent.
You can translate the above to Rails like so:
Micropost.select('microposts.*')
.joins("JOIN activities ON activities.micropost_id = microposts.id")
.where('activities.user_id' => id)
.group('microposts.id')
.order('MAX(activities.created_at) DESC')
Hope this helps! You can play around with this sqlFiddle if you want to understand more about how the query works.
Try the below code
Micropost.select('microposts.*, activities.created_at')
.joins("INNER JOIN activities ON (activities.micropost_id = microposts.id)")
.where('activities.user_id= ?',id)
.order('activities.created_at DESC')
.uniq
I have two models, Monkey and Session, where Monkey has_many Session. I have a scope for Monkey:
scope :with_session_counts, -> {
joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN `sessions` ON `sessions`.`monkey_id` = `monkeys`.`id`")
.group(:id)
.select("`monkeys`.*, COUNT(DISTINCT `sessions`.`id`) as session_count")
}
in order to grab the number of associated Sessions (even when 0).
Querying #monkeys = Monkey.with_session_counts works as expected. However, when I test in my view:
<% unless #monkeys.empty?%>
I get this error:
Mysql2::Error: Column 'id' in field list is ambiguous:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS count_all, id AS id FROM `monkeys`
LEFT OUTER JOIN `sessions` ON `sessions`.`monkey_id` = `monkeys`.`id`
GROUP BY `monkeys`.`id`
How would I convince Rails to prefix id with the table name in presence of the JOIN?
Or is there a better alternative for the OUTER JOIN?
This applies equally to calling #monkeys.count(:all). I'm using RoR 4.2.1.
Update:
I have a partial fix for my issue (specify group("monkeys.id") explicitly) I wonder whether this is a bug in the code that generates the SELECT clause for count(:all). Note that in both cases (group("monkeys.id") and group(:id)) the GROUP BY part is generated correctly (i.e. with monkeys.id), but in the latter case the SELECT only contains id AS id. The reason I say 'partial' is because it works in that it does not break a call to empty?, but a call to count(:all) returns a Hash {monkey_id => number_of_sessions} instead of the number of records.
Update 2:
I guess my real question is: How can I get the number of associated sessions for each monkey, so that for all intents and purposes I can work with the query result as with Monkey.all? I know about counter cache but would prefer not to use it.
I believe it is not a bug. Like you added on your update, you have to specify the table that the id column belongs to. In this case group('monkeys.id') would do it.
How would the code responsible for generating the statement know the table to use? Without the count worked fine because it adds points.* to the projection and that is the one used by group by. However, if you actually wanted to group by Sessions id, you would have to specify it anyway.