I write follow code to get one record from the table webeehs:
webeehs_result = Webeeh.find(:all, :conditions=>["webeeh_project_id=#{project_id}"])
Then I want to get one column value from this record, how could I do?
For example, the column name is webeeh_date.
first of all, never EVER write code like that. Building your own conditions as pure strings can leave you vulnerable to SQL injection exploits. If you must do conditions, then do it like this:
:conditions => ["webeeh_project_id = ?", project_id]
if you have a Project model, you should rename the webeeh_project_id column from your Webeeh model into project_id and have an association in your Project model like has_many :webeehs
Then, you won't need to call that find anymore, just do a p = Project.find(id) and then p.webeehs will return the webeehs you need.
the result will be an array which you can iterate through. And to get your webeeh.webeeh_date member, just call it like this:
result.each do |webeeh|
date = webeeh.webeeh_date
end
webeehs_result = Webeeh.findwebeeh_dates
is enough to get all columnn values.
For a different method and performance issues check the following: http://www.stopdropandrew.com/2010/01/28/finding-ids-fast-with-active-record.html
webeeh_result will usually be an array of results for the database.
You can iterate throughit using
webeehs_result.each do |webeeh|
# use "webeeh.webeeh_date" to access the column_name or do whatever you want with it.
end
Related
I'm not sure if this is just a lacking of the Rails language, or if I am searching all the wrong things here on Stack Overflow, but I cannot find out how to add an attribute to each record in an array.
Here is an example of what I'm trying to do:
#news_stories.each do |individual_news_story|
#user_for_record = User.where(:id => individual_news_story[:user_id]).pluck('name', 'profile_image_url');
individual_news_story.attributes(:author_name) = #user_for_record[0][0]
individual_news_story.attributes(:author_avatar) = #user_for_record[0][1]
end
Any ideas?
If the NewsStory model (or whatever its name is) has a belongs_to relationship to User, then you don't have to do any of this. You can access the attributes of the associated User directly:
#news_stories.each do |news_story|
news_story.user.name # gives you the name of the associated user
news_story.user.profile_image_url # same for the avatar
end
To avoid an N+1 query, you can preload the associated user record for every news story at once by using includes in the NewsStory query:
NewsStory.includes(:user)... # rest of the query
If you do this, you won't need the #user_for_record query — Rails will do the heavy lifting for you, and you could even see a performance improvement, thanks to not issuing a separate pluck query for every single news story in the collection.
If you need to have those extra attributes there regardless:
You can select them as extra attributes in your NewsStory query:
NewsStory.
includes(:user).
joins(:user).
select([
NewsStory.arel_table[Arel.star],
User.arel_table[:name].as("author_name"),
User.arel_table[:profile_image_url].as("author_avatar"),
]).
where(...) # rest of the query
It looks like you're trying to cache the name and avatar of the user on the NewsStory model, in which case, what you want is this:
#news_stories.each do |individual_news_story|
user_for_record = User.find(individual_news_story.user_id)
individual_news_story.author_name = user_for_record.name
individual_news_story.author_avatar = user_for_record.profile_image_url
end
A couple of notes.
I've used find instead of where. find returns a single record identified by it's primary key (id); where returns an array of records. There are definitely more efficient ways to do this -- eager-loading, for one -- but since you're just starting out, I think it's more important to learn the basics before you dig into the advanced stuff to make things more performant.
I've gotten rid of the pluck call, because here again, you're just learning and pluck is a performance optimization useful when you're working with large amounts of data, and if that's what you're doing then activerecord has a batch api you should look into.
I've changed #user_for_record to user_for_record. The # denote instance variables in ruby. Instance variables are shared and accessible from any instance method in an instance of a class. In this case, all you need is a local variable.
I need to do some bulk updates in some models and set value of a field as value of another field.
Right now I can do that with raw sql like this:
ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute("UPDATE `deleted_contents` SET `deleted_contents`.`original_id` = `deleted_contents`.`id` WHERE `deleted_contents`.`original_id` is NULL")
This is working fine, however I need to do this using ActiveRecord query interface due to many reasons.
I tried:
DeletedContent.where(original_id: nil).update_all(original_id: value_of_id_column)
For value_of_id_column I tried :id, self.id, id, etc, nothing works. What should I set for value_of_id_column to get the original query generated by rails? Is this possible, or using the raw sql is the only solution?
Also I do not want to iterate over each record and update. This is not a valid solution for me:
DeletedContent.where(original_id: nil).each do |deleted_content|
update_each_record
end
I'm pretty sure you cannot obtain that query by passing a hash to update_all.
The closest to what you want to obtain would be:
DeletedContent.where(original_id: nil).update_all("original_id = id")
I have to use a query like this :
query = Enc.joins(:rec).group("enc.bottle").
select("enc.bottle as mode, count(rec.id) as numrec, sum(enc.value) as sumvalue")
That I use with :
#enc = ActiveRecord::Base.connection.select_all(query)
To get the data, I've to do #enc.rows.first[0] (it works)
But #enc.rows.first["mode"] doesn't work ! Because each row of #enc.rows contains array.. not a map with the name of each field.
Maybe select_all is a wrong method.
Does it exist another method to get the data with the name of field ?
Thank you
EDIT
If you can associate a model with the query, then there's no need for the generic select_all method. You can use find_by_sql like this:
Enc.find_by_sql(query).first.mode
# => testing
Note that you will no be able to see the aliases when inspecting the results, but they are there. Also, the convention is to use plural names for the tables. You might find it easier to just sticks with the defaults.
I'm currently using
puts #object.inspect
to debug the results of queries in rails, but the output doesn't seem to include any joins I've defined for the query. How do I get the full array to show?
For example, if I do the following
#object = Object.joins("JOIN associations ON associations.id = object.association_id")
.where(:id => params[:object_id])
.select("objects.*, associations.*")
.first
puts #object.inspect
I get the all the Object fields in my debug array, but none of the association fields. Yet they are there when I try to use them in my view (#object.association_field etc)
PS - the above query looks ugly, I'm only trying to pull one record, but I was getting various errors if I tried to use .find() instead of .where().first. Suggestions welcome on how to make it more railsy
Why not the simplest possible way:
#object = Object.find(params[:object_id])
#association = #object.associations.first
puts "#{#object.inspect}, #{#association.inspect}"
(assuming that has_many :associations is defined in Object)
And the reason you are not getting fields for association is because the only thing that joins does is joining to another table in SQL. It does not fetch joined data. select only select subset of object's attributes, I think the rest is just ignored.
I have a class method on User, that returns applies a complicated select / join / order / limit to User, and returns the relation. It also applies a where(:admin => true) clause. Is it possible to remove this one particular where statement, if I have that relation object with me?
Something like
User.complex_stuff.without_where(:admin => true)
I know this is an old question, but since rails 4 now you can do this
User.complex_stuff.unscope(where: :admin)
This will remove the where admin part of the query, if you want to unscope the whole where part unconditinoally
User.complex_stuff.unscope(:where)
ps: thanks to #Samuel for pointing out my mistake
I haven't found a way to do this. The best solution is probably to restructure your existing complex_stuff method.
First, create a new method complex_stuff_without_admin that does everything complex_stuff does except for adding the where(:admin => true). Then rewrite the complex_stuff method to call User.complex_stuff_without_admin.where(:admin => true).
Basically, just approach it from the opposite side. Add where needed, rather than taking away where not needed.
This is an old question and this doesn't answer the question per say but rewhere is a thing that exists.
From the documentation:
Allows you to change a previously set where condition for a given attribute, instead of appending to that condition.
So something like:
Person.where(name: "John Smith", status: "live").rewhere(name: "DickieBoy")
Will output:
SELECT `people`.* FROM `people` WHERE `people`.`name` = 'DickieBoy' AND `people`.`status` = 'live';
The key point being that the name column has been overwritten, but the status column has stayed.
You could do something like this (where_values holds each where query; you'd have to tweak the SQL to match the exact output of :admin => true on your system). Keep in mind this will only work if you haven't actually executed the query yet (i.e. you haven't called .all on it, or used its results in a view):
#users = User.complex_stuff
#users.where_values.delete_if { |query| query.to_sql == "\"users\".\"admin\" = 't'" }
However, I'd strongly recommend using Emily's answer of restructuring the complex_stuff method instead.
I needed to do this (Remove a 'where' clause from an ActiveRecord::Relation which was being created by a scope) while joining two scopes, and did it like this: self.scope(from,to).values[:joins].
I wanted to join values from the two scopes that made up the 'joined_scope' without the 'where' clauses, so that I could add altered 'where' clauses separately (altered to use 'OR' instead of 'AND').
For me, this went in the joined scope, like so:
scope :joined_scope, -> (from, to) {
joins(self.first_scope(from,to).values[:joins])
.joins(self.other_scope(from,to).values[:joins])
.where(first_scope(from,to).ast.cores.last.wheres.inject{|ws, w| (ws &&= ws.and(w)) || w}
.or(other_scope(from,to).ast.cores.last.wheres.last))
}
Hope that helps someone