I have a view with a huge paginated list of records that need filtering.
Users can filter by records a few different ways (such as 'saved' records, 'read' records, and 'mark deleted' records) and I'd like for them to be able to combine these filters any possible way.
My current, flawed, non-functioning approach. The code below does not produce anything unless all of the params are specified and valid:
#view. Set the 'se' filter to true; leave all others as is
<%= link_to list_url(:id=>params[:id], :se=>"true", :st=>params[:st], :re=>params[:re]) do %>
<div class="button">Toggle SE</div>
<% end %>
#controller query. Add whichever params are passed into the conditions for the new page.
#query is paginated and sorted
#records = Record.where("user_id IN (?) AND see = ? AND star = ? AND delete = ? AND like = ?", #users.select("id"), params[:se], params[:st], params[:re]).paginate :page => params[:page], :order => (sort_column + " " + sort_direction)
What is the best way to create this filtering system?
I imagine a client-side sort would be faster than asking the server to become involved every time - is there a simple AJAX way to accomplish this kind of thing? Imagine filters the user can toggle on and off in any combination.
Try this:
conditions = {:user_id => #users.select("id")}
{
:se => :see,
:st => :star,
:del => :delete
}.each{|k1, k2| conditions[k2] = params[k1] unless params[k1].blank?}
#records = Record.where(conditions).paginate(...)
The conditions hash will be filled based on the values present in the params hash.
Edit 1
You can combine conditions hash and array.
#records = Record.where(conditions).where(
":created_at > ?", Date.today - 30).paginate(...)
You can change the user_id condition to what ever you want by specifying
conditions[:user_id] = #user.id
In the above statement, if the RHS is an array, rails automatically generates the IN clause. Otherwise, equality check(=) is performed.
Can also use Anonymous scopes: Combine arrays of conditions in Rails
Related
I am trying to build a query that compares two object, and if they have the same id the record is not fetched. What I have is this:
#channels.each do |channel|
unless #guide_channels.where(:id => channel.id).exists?
#dropdown_channels = #dropdown_channels.where(:id => channel.id)
end
end
This creates the query, but puts a AND between every value which isn't what I have in mind. I want the "or" operator. Is there a 'orwhere' function I can use or is there a better way to do this with some compare function?
The point is that the .where() method of a AR::Relation objects adds the condition to a set of conditions that are then AND-ed together when the query is executed.
What you have to do is a query like NOT IN:
# select all the ids for related #guide_channels
# if #channels comes from a query (so it's a ActiveRecord::Relation):
guide_ids = #guide_channels.where(:id => #channels.pluck(:id)).pluck(:id)
# use .where(:id => #channels.map {|c| c.id}) instead if #channels is just an array
# then use the list to exclude results from the following.
#dropdown_channels = #dropdown_channels.where("id NOT IN (?)", guide_ids.to_a)
The first query will accumulate all the IDs for channels that have an entry in #guide_channels. The second one will use the result of the first to exclude the found channels from tthe results for the dropdown.
This strange behavior is due to ActiveRecord's lazy evaluation of scopes.
What happens is that the line
#dropdown_channels = #dropdown_channels.where(:id => channel.id)
Does not send a query to the DB until you actually use the value of #dropdown_channels, and when you do it concatenates all the conditions into one big query, this is why you get the AND between the conditions.
In order to force ActiveRecord to eager load the scope you can use either the all scope or the first scope, for example:
#dropdown_channels = #dropdown_channels.where(:id => channel.id).first
This will force ActiveRecord to calculate the query on spot returning the result immediately and not to accumulate the scopes for lazy evaluation.
Another approach could be to accumulate all those channels_ids and get them later in one query, instead of making a query for each one. This approach is more cost-effective relating to DB resources.
In order to achieve this :
dropdown_channels_ids = []
#channels.each do |channel|
unless #guide_channels.where(:id => channel.id).exists?
dropdown_channels_ids << channel.id
end
end
#dropdown_channels = #dropdown_channels.where(:id => dropdown_channels_ids)
In my database I have the table 'audits' which contains a field called 'changes' which stores data in the form of hash.
I would like to retrieve all audits with the following conditions:
- auditable_type = 'Expression'
- action = 'destroy'
- changes = :EXP_SUBMISSION_FK =>'9999992642' #note that this field stores hash values
#expression_history_deleted = Audit.find(:all, :conditions => ["auditable_type =? AND action = ? AND changes = ?",'Expression', 'destroy' , { :EXP_SUBMISSION_FK =>'9999992642'} ])
The code above return nothing.
If I remove 'changes' in the condition so that it reads as follows, I get a list of entries:
#expression_history_deleted = Audit.find(:all, :conditions => ["auditable_type =? AND action = ?",'Expression', 'destroy'])
<% #expression_history_deleted.each do |test| %>
<%= test.changes['EXP_SUBMISSION_FK'] %> ---displays the value
<% end %>
My question is how do I perform a search and set the conditions for the hash value.
****
I am using 'acts_as_audited' which stores all the changes in hash format in the 'audits' table.
****
I assume you're using the serialize function in ActiveRecord?
Unfortunately, I don't think it's easily possible to search it on the SQL level. It's obviously possible to pull out all of the records and handle the search in Ruby, but that's less than ideal.
I'd recommend moving anything you need to search on out of the serialized column and into its own.
If you are using ActiveRecord serialize macros, then you may dump containment of column changes and separete constructions like "audible_type: Expression". Try performing a series of fulltext search on that column and the work is done.
But more preferable way is to extract that data into real database level colums
Basically, I have an app with a tagging system and when someone searches for tag 'badger', I want it to return records tagged "badger", "Badger" and "Badgers".
With a single tag I can do this to get the records:
#notes = Tag.find_by_name(params[:tag_name]).notes.order("created_at DESC")
and it works fine. However if I get multiple tags (this is just for upper and lower case - I haven't figured out the 's' bit either yet):
Tag.find(:all, :conditions => [ "lower(name) = ?", 'badger'])
I can't use .notes.order("created_at DESC") because there are multiple results.
So, the question is.... 1) Am I going about this the right way? 2) If so, how do I get all my records back in order?
Any help much appreciated!
One implementation would be to do:
#notes = []
Tag.find(:all, :conditions => [ "lower(name) = ?", 'badger']).each do |tag|
#notes << tag.notes
end
#notes.sort_by {|note| note.created_at}
However you should be aware that this is what is known as an N + 1 query, in that it makes one query in the outer section, and then one query per result. This can be optimized by changing the first query to be:
Tag.find(:all, :conditions => [ "lower(name) = ?", 'badger'], :includes => :notes).each do |tag|
If you are using Rails 3 or above, it can be re-written slightly:
Tag.where("lower(name) = ?", "badger").includes(:notes) do |tag|
Edited
First, get an array of all possible tag names, plural, singular, lower, and upper
tag_name = params[:tag_name].to_s.downcase
possible_tag_names = [tag_name, tag_name.pluralize, tag_name.singularize].uniq
# It's probably faster to search for both lower and capitalized tags than to use the db's `lower` function
possible_tag_names += possible_tag_names.map(&:capitalize)
Are you using a tagging library? I know that some provide a method for querying multiple tags. If you aren't using one of those, you'll need to do some manual SQL joins in your query (assuming you're using a relational db like MySQL, Postgres or SQLite). I'd be happy to assist with that, but I don't know your schema.
Rails 2.3.5
I've looked at a number of other questions relating to building conditions dynamically for an ActiveRecord find.
I'm aware there are some great gems out there like search logic and that this is better in Rails3. However, I'm using geokit for geospacial search and I'm trying to build just a standard conditions set that will allow me to combine a slew of different filters.
I have 12 different filters that I'm trying to combine dynamically for an advanced search. I need to be able to mix equality, greater than, less than, in (?) and IS NULLs conditions.
Here's an example of what I'm trying to get working:
conditions = []
conditions << ["sites.site_type in (?)", params[:site_categories]] if params[:site_categories]
conditions << [<< ["sites.operational_status = ?", 'operational'] if params[:oponly] == 1
condition_set = [conditions.map{|c| c[0] }.join(" AND "), *conditions.map{|c| c[1..-1] }.flatten]
#sites = Site.find :all,
:origin => [lat,lng],
:units => distance_unit,
:limit => limit,
:within => range,
:include => [:chargers, :site_reports, :networks],
:conditions => condition_set,
:order => 'distance asc'
I seem to be able to get this working fine when there are only single variables for the conditions expression but when I have something that is a (?) and has an array of values I'm getting an error for the wrong number of bind conditions. The way I'm joining and flattening the conditions (based on the answer from Combine arrays of conditions in Rails) seems not to handle an array properly and I don't understand the flattening logic enough to track down the issue.
So let's say I have 3 values in params[:site_categories] I'll the above code leaves me with the following:
Conditions is
[["sites.operational_status = ?", "operational"], ["sites.site_type in (?)", ["shopping", "food", "lodging"]]]
The flattened attempt is:
["sites.operational_status = ? AND sites.site_type in (?)", ["operational"], [["shopping", "food", "lodging"]]]
Which gives me:
wrong number of bind variables (4 for 2)
I'm going to step back and work on converting all of this to named scopes but I'd really like to understand how to get this working this way.
Rails 4
users = User.all
users = User.where(id: params[id]) if params[id].present?
users = User.where(state: states) if states.present?
users.each do |u|
puts u.name
end
Old answer
Monkey patch the Array class. Create a file called monkey_patch.rb in config/initializers directory.
class Array
def where(*args)
sql = args.first
unless (sql.is_a?(String) and sql.present?)
return self
end
self[0] = self.first.present? ? " #{self.first} AND #{sql} " : sql
self.concat(args[1..-1])
end
end
Now you can do this:
cond = []
cond.where("id = ?", params[id]) if params[id].present?
cond.where("state IN (?)", states) unless states.empty?
User.all(:conditions => cond)
Pretty sure that I'm missing something really simple here:
I'm trying to display a series of pages that contain instances of two different models - Profiles and Groups. I need them ordering by their name attribute. I could select all of the instances for each model, then sort and paginate them, but this feels sloppy and inefficient.
I'm using mislav-will_paginate, and was wondering if there is any better way of achieving this? Something like:
[Profile, Group].paginate(...)
would be ideal!
Good question, I ran into the same problem a couple of times. Each time, I ended it up by writing my own sql query based on sql unions (it works fine with sqlite and mysql). Then, you may use will paginate by passing the results (http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2008/06/how-to-use-will_paginate-with-non-activerecord-collectionarray/). Do not forget to perform the query to count all the rows.
Some lines of code (not tested)
my_query = "(select posts.title from posts) UNIONS (select profiles.name from profiles)"
total_entries = ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute("select count(*) as count from (#{my_query})").first['count'].to_i
results = ActiveRecord::Base.connection.select_rows("select * from (#{my_query}) limit #{limit} offset #{offset}")
Is it overkilled ? Maybe but you've got the minimal number of queries and results are consistent.
Hope it helps.
Note: If you get the offset value from a http param, you should use sanitize_sql_for_conditions (ie: sql injection ....)
You can get close doing something like:
#profiles, #groups = [Profile, Group].map do |clazz|
clazz.paginate(:page => params[clazz.to_s.downcase + "_page"], :order => 'name')
end
That will then paginate using page parameters profile_page and group_page. You can get the will_paginate call in the view to use the correct page using:
<%= will_paginate #profiles, :page_param => 'profile_page' %>
....
<%= will_paginate #groups, :page_param => 'group_page' %>
Still, I'm not sure there's a huge benefit over setting up #groups and #profiles individually.
in my last project i stuck into a problem, i had to paginate multiple models with single pagination in my search functionality.
it should work in a way that the first model should appear first when the results of the first model a second model should continue the results and the third and so on as one single search feed, just like facebook feeds.
this is the function i created to do this functionality
def multi_paginate(models, page, per_page)
WillPaginate::Collection.create(page, per_page) do |pager|
# set total entries
pager.total_entries = 0
counts = [0]
offsets = []
for model in models
pager.total_entries += model.count
counts << model.count
offset = pager.offset-(offsets[-1] || 0)
offset = offset>model.count ? model.count : offset
offsets << (offset<0 ? 0 : offset)
end
result = []
for i in 0...models.count
result += models[i].limit(pager.per_page-result.length).offset(offsets[i]).to_a
end
pager.replace(result)
end
end
try it and let me know if you have any problem with it, i also posted it as an issue to will_paginate repository, if everyone confirmed that it works correctly i'll fork and commit it to the library.
https://github.com/mislav/will_paginate/issues/351
Have you tried displaying two different sets of results with their own paginators and update them via AJAX? It is not exactly what you want, but the result is similar.