Following the question I asked: Build a dynamic query using neo4j client
I got an answer about how can I return value dynamically using string only.
When I'm trying to use the syntax to return multi values from the query it failed,
I tried the following query:
var resQuery2 = WebApiConfig.GraphClient.Cypher
.Match("(movie:Movie {title:{title}})")
.OptionalMatch("(movie)<-[r]-(person:Person)")
.WithParam("title", title)
.Return(() => Return.As<string>("movie, collect([person.name, head(split(lower(type(r)), '_')), r.roles])"));
I'm getting the following error:
The deserializer is running in single column mode, but the response
included multiple columns which indicates a projection instead. If
using the fluent Cypher interface, use the overload of Return that
takes a lambda or object instead of single string. (The overload with
a single string is for an identity, not raw query text: we can't map
the columns back out if you just supply raw query text.)
Is it possible to return multiple nodes using only strings?
We can't get an output like in the question you asked previously - this is due to the fact that you are asking for a Node (the movie) and a Collection of strings (the collect) and they have no common properties, or even styles of property.
Firstly, let's look at the painful way to do this:
var q = gc.Cypher
.Match("(movie:Movie)")
.OptionalMatch("(movie)<-[r]-(person:Person)")
.Return(() => Return.As<string>("{movie:movie, roles:collect([person.name, head(split(lower(type(r)), '_')), r.roles])}"));
var results = q.Results;
Here we take the query items (movie, r, person) and create a type with them the {} around the results, and cast that to a string.
This will give you a horrible string with the Node data around the movie and then a collection of the roles:
foreach (var m in results)
{
//This is going to be painful to navigate/use
dynamic d = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<dynamic>(m);
Console.WriteLine(d.movie);
Console.WriteLine(d.roles);
}
You'd be a lot better off doing something like:
var q = gc.Cypher
.Match("(movie:Movie)")
.OptionalMatch("(movie)<-[r]-(person:Person)")
.Return(() => new
{
Movie = Return.As<Node<string>>("movie"),
Roles = Return.As<IEnumerable<string>>("collect([person.name, head(split(lower(type(r)), '_')), r.roles])")
});
var res = q.Results;
You could either JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<dynamic>() the Movie node, at your leisure, or write a strongly typed class.
In terms of a 'dynamic' object, I don't know how you were wanting to interact with the collect part of the return statement, if this doesn't help, you might need to update the question to show a usage expectation.
I want to replace the value of the 'Amount' key in a map (literal) with the sum of the existing 'Amount' value plus the new 'Amount' value such where both the 'type' and 'Price' match. The structure I have so far is:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
(I'm trying to get it to:)
RETURN [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:250},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as CombinedOrders
If there is no existing NewOrder.type and NewOrder.Price then it should obviously insert the new record rather than add it together.
Sorry, this is possibly really straight forward, but I'm not very good at this yet.
thanks
Edit:
I should add, that I have been able to get this working for a simpler map structure as such:
WITH [{type:1, Amount:100},{type:2, Amount:200},{type:3, Amount:300}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Amount:50} as NewValue
RETURN reduce(map=filter(p in ExistingOrders where not p.type=NewValue.type),x in [(filter(p2 in ExistingOrders where p2.type=NewValue.type)[0])]|CASE x WHEN null THEN NewValue ELSE {type:x.type,Amount:x.Amount+NewValue.Amount} END+map) as CombinedOrders
But I'm struggling I think because of the Orders[array] in my first example.
I believe you are just trying to update the value of the appropriate Amount in ExistingOrders.
The following query is legal Cypher, and should normally work:
WITH ExistingOrders, NewOrder, [x IN ExistingOrders WHERE x.type = NewOrder.type | x.Orders] AS eo
FOREACH (y IN eo |
SET y.Amount = y.Amount + CASE WHEN y.Price = NewOrder.Order.Price THEN NewOrder.Order.Amount ELSE 0 END
)
However, the above query produces a (somewhat) funny ThisShouldNotHappenError error with the message:
Developer: Stefan claims that: This should be a node or a relationship
What the message is trying to say (in obtuse fashion) is that you are not using the neo4j DB in the right way. Your properties are way too complicated, and should be separated out into nodes and relationships.
So, I will a proposed data model that does just that. Here is how you can create nodes and relationships that represent the same data as ExistingOrders:
CREATE (t1:Type {id:1}), (t2:Type {id:2}), (t3:Type {id:3}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300});
And here is a query that will update the correct Amount:
WITH {type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
MATCH (t:Type)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(o:Order)
WHERE t.id = NewOrder.type AND o.Price = NewOrder.Order.Price
SET o.Amount = o.Amount + NewOrder.Order.Amount
RETURN t.id, o.Price, o.Amount;
There's two parts to your question - one with a simple answer, and a second part that doesn't make sense. Let me take the simple one first!
As far as I can tell, it seems you're asking how to concatenate a new map on to a collection of maps. So, how to add a new item in an array. Just use + like this simple example:
return [{item:1}, {item:2}] + [{item:3}];
Note that the single item we're adding at the end isn't a map, but a collection with only one item.
So for your query:
RETURN [
{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:200},
{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:**250**},
{Price:12,Amount:300}]}]
+
[{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}]
as **CombinedOrders**
Should do the trick.
Or you could maybe do it a bit cleaner, like this:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
RETURN ExistingOrders + [NewOrder];
OK now for the part that doesn't make sense. In your example, it looks like you want to modify the map inside of the collection. But you have two {type:2} maps in there, and you're looking to merge them into something with one resulting {type:3} map in the output that you're asking for. If you need to deconflict map entries and change what the map entry ought to be, it might be that cypher isn't your best choice for that kind of query.
I figured it out:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},Price:12,Amount:300}]},{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,{type:2, Orders:[{Price:11,Amount:50}]} as NewOrder
RETURN
reduce(map=filter(p in ExistingOrders where not p.type=NewOrder.type),
x in [(filter(p2 in ExistingOrders where p2.type=NewOrder.type)[0])]|
CASE x
WHEN null THEN NewOrder
ELSE {type:x.type, Orders:[
reduce(map2=filter(p3 in x.Orders where not (p3.Price=(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Price)),
x2 in [filter(p4 in x.Orders where p4.Price=(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Price)[0]]|
CASE x2
WHEN null THEN NewOrder.Orders[0]
ELSE {Price:x2.Price, Amount:x2.Amount+(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Amount}
END+map2 )]} END+map) as CombinedOrders
...using nested Reduce functions.
So, to start with it combines a list of orders without matching type, with a list of those orders (actually, just one) with a matching type. For those latter ExistingOrders (with type that matches the NewOrder) it does a similar thing with Price in the nested reduce function and combines non-matching Prices with matching Prices, adding the Amount in the latter case.
I have entity and also use dapper, I have 1 form with 2 date fields... named before and after so users can search in between those dates. The one from entity works perfectly but the one from dapper does not work for some reason what could possibly be wrong
here is the entity one
var article = (from x in db.Articles
where x.created >= before && x.created <= after
select x);
and here is the one from dapper
var article = sqlConnection.Query<Article>("Select * from articles where created>=#befor AND created<=#afte ", new { befor = before, afte = after});
and yes I have all the connections for Dapper working as it does go to the database but for some reason its not picking records between those 2 dates..any suggestions..
dapper is just a wrapper around raw TSQL (with a slight caveat around in, where dapper adds some magic to make varadic "in" queries simpler). So; if it works in TSQL it should work fine in dapper, as long as your inputs make sense. For example, I am assuming that before and after in this example are typed as non-nullable DateTime, i.e.
DateTime before = ..., after = ...;
var article = sqlConnection.Query<Article>(
"Select * from articles where created>=#befor AND created<=#afte ",
new { befor = before, afte = after});
as a side note, it would perhaps be more obvious to just use:
DateTime before = ..., after = ...;
var article = sqlConnection.Query<Article>(
"Select * from articles where created>=#before AND created<=#after",
new { before, after });
but fundamentally, as long as those parameters have non-null values that are DateTimes, it should work fine.
The problem here could be that the before and after values are send as string and the current locale may be causing the date to be interpreted incorrectly.
I am sure this is a stupid question, but how would I get a pagedlist of filtered items?
Here is how I ended up doing it:
PagedList<Company> company = Company.GetPaged(1, 10);
var list = Company.Find(x => x.CompanyName.ToLower().Contains(query.ToLower()));
company .Clear();
foreach (var x in list)
company .Add(x);
return View(company );
In other words I want to do a find on the table, and return a paged list of the results.
Thanks!
There is a fantastic example of this in NerdDinner.
If you have trouble finding it then let me know and I'll post the code for ya.
Actually it's fairly easy to get the paged list and you said the answer in your question
In other words I want to do a find on
the table, and return a paged list of
the results.
Create your LINQ query (do a find on the table)
New up a SubSonic.Schema.PagedList(of T) (return a paged list)
For example:
var list = Company.Find(x => x.CompanyName.ToLower().Contains(query.ToLower()));
var paged = new SubSonic.Schema.PagedList<Company>(list,1,10)