Suppose I have a user table with columns id, name, age
With a normal get query User::get(), I get all results with those column's value.
But instead of just getting the id, name, age columns, is it possible if I add another column, perhaps a column with an alias of future_age with a value of age + 1.
The above result could be achieved in SQL like so:
SELECT res.*, (SELECT sum(res.age+1) from users where id = res.id) as future_age from users as res
I've thought about looping through the result and creating new key. but I think this would make the query execution time slow when the data is lengthy.
Is it possible to create the future_age key/column (I don't know the term hehe) directly on the query?
Currently, this is my query:
$user = User::get();
$new_res = []
if($user->count() > 0) {
foreach ($user as $u) {
$u['future_age'] = $u->age + 1
$new_res[] = $u;
}
}
The query works tho, but I don't think this is good if I have a large set of data.
Related
The code below is what I have to get all the duplicated products (by title) and group them together. It works perfectly fine. However, I so many records in my Products table and getting all of them causes a performance issue. Is there a way this could be optimised to avoid getting all records and group them in one query? Thank you.
$products = Product::all();
$groupsOfProducts = $products->groupBy('title');
$duplicatedProductsGrouped = [];
foreach($groupsOfProducts as $productGroup) {
$productIsDuplicated = $productGroup->count() > 1;
if($productIsDuplicated) {
$duplicatedProductsGrouped[] = $productGroup;
}
}
var_dump($duplicatedProductsGrouped);
You can use having in the group by:
Product::groupBy('title')->having(DB::raw('count(*)'), ">", "1")->select('title')->get()
And you will get the titles of the duplicates, then you can query the database with those titles
EDIT:
Please also try and see if this is faster
Product::getQuery()->whereIn('title', array_column( DB::select('select title from products group by title having count(*) > 1'), 'title'))->get();
with this line you will get ONLY the products that has a duplicate title, and so your Collection groupby should be faster to aggregate the records by the title
Let your database do the work. When you call Product::all(), you're getting every single record, then making PHP do the rest. Change your query to something like the following:
Product::selectRaw("title, COUNT(*) AS count")->groupBy("title")->get();
The result will be a Collection of Product instances with a title and count attribute, which you can access and determine duplicated ones:
$products = Product::selectRaw("title, COUNT(*) AS count")->groupBy("title")->get();
$duplicatedProducts = collect([]);
foreach($products AS $product){
if($product->count > 1){
$duplicatedProducts->push($product);
}
}
dd($duplicatedProducts);
I have 2 tables as defined in the below image.
Now I want to query the "match table" with following checks;
UserA in FromUser
FromUser Rating is less than 0 or undefined.
Result should be:
Match Table Object
Must have count of meetings like UserA have 3 meetings with userB and 3 meetings with userC. so the result should be like following:
[{id:"",fromUser:"",toUser:"",MeetingCount:3},{id:"",fromUser:"",toUser:"",MeetingCount:3}]
How can I achieve this? What I tried so far:
I queried the match table and now I want to loop against each matchId from match detail table to get its data.
matQueryFrom.equalTo("FROM_USER_OBJECTID",user.id);
matQueryFrom.find().then(function(matchObjects){
if(matchObjects!=undefined && matchObjects.length>0){
var returnList = [];
for(var i=0;i<matchObjects.length;i++){
var vrmatchObj = matchObjects[i];
var matDetailQuery = new Parse.Query(Parse.Object.extend("VR_MATCH_DETAIL"));
matDetailQuery.equalTo("VRMatches", vrmatchObj.id);
matDetailQuery.find().then(function(detailArray){
returnList.push(detailArray);
}).then(function(){console.log(returnList);});
}
return returnList;
}
});
Can anyone guide me how can i achieve this? Currently the returnList is always empty.
I have some errors using Linq on DataTable and I couldn't figure it out how to solve it. I have to admit that i am pretty new to Linq and I searched the forum and Internet and couldn't figure it out. hope you can help.
I have a DataTable called campaign with three columns: ID (int), Product (string), Channel (string). The DataTable is already filled with data. I am trying to select a subset of the campaign records which satisfied the conditions selected by the end user. For example, the user want to list only if the Product is either 'EWH' or 'HEC'. The selection criteria is dynaically determined by the end user.
I have the following C# code:
private void btnClick()
{
IEnumerable<DataRow> query =
from zz in campaign.AsEnumerable()
orderby zz.Field<string>("ID")
select zz;
string whereClause = "zz.Field<string>(\"Product\") in ('EWH','HEC')";
query = query.Where(whereClause);
DataTable sublist = query.CopyToDataTable<DataRow>();
}
But it gives me an error on line: query = query.Where(whereClause), saying
No property or field 'zz' exists in type 'DataRow'".
If I changed to:
string whereClause = "Product in ('EWH','HEC')"; it will say:
No property or field 'Product' exists in type 'DataRow'
Can anyone help me on how to solve this problem? I feel it could be a pretty simple syntax change, but I just don't know at this time.
First, this line has an error
orderby zz.Field<string>("ID")
because as you said, your ID column is of type int.
Second, you need to learn LINQ query syntax. Forget about strings, the same way you used from, orderby, select in the query, you can also use where and many other operators. Also you'll need to learn the equivalent LINQ constructs for SQL-ish things, like for instance IN (...) is mapped to Enumerable.Contains etc.
With all that being said, here is your query
var productFilter = new[] { "EWH", "HEC" };
var query =
from zz in campaign.AsEnumerable()
where productFilter.Contains(zz.Field<string>("Product"))
orderby zz.Field<int>("ID")
select zz;
Update As per your comment, if you want to make this dynamic, then you need to switch to lambda syntax. Multiple and criteria can be composed by chaining multiple Where clauses like this
List<string> productFilter = ...; // coming from outside
List<string> channelFilter = ...; // coming from outside
var query = campaign.AsEnumerable();
// Apply filters if needed
if (productFilter != null && productFilter.Count > 0)
query = query.Where(zz => productFilter.Contains(zz.Field<string>("Product")));
if (channelFilter != null && channelFilter.Count > 0)
query = query.Where(zz => channelFilter.Contains(zz.Field<string>("Channel")));
// Once finished with filtering, do the ordering
query = query.OrderBy(zz => zz.Field<int>("ID"));
I am having trouble with the following piece of code. Before I paste it, Let me give a bit of history on what should happen.
I have a model containing 2 fields of interest at the moment, which is the name of the order the customer placed, and the date at which he/she placed it. A pre-calculated date will be used to query the dateplaced field (and should only query the dates , and not the time). The query counts the amount of duplicates that occur in the MondayOrder field, and groups them together. Now , when I exclude the where clause which should query the dates, the query runs great. However, The goal of this query is to count the amount of orders for the following week based on the date the order has been placed.
List<string> returnlist = new List<string>();
DateTime dt = getNextWeekMondaysDate().Date;
switch (day)
{
case DayOfWeek.Monday:
{
var CountOrders =
from x in Data.EntityDB.Orders
group x by x.MondayOrder into m
let count = m.Count()
select new
{
MondayOrderItem = m.Key, Amount = count
};
foreach (var item in CountOrders)
{
returnlist.Add(item.MondayOrderItem + " : " +
item.Amount);
}
}
break;
The getNextWeekMondaysDate() method has an overload which I can use, where if I supply it a date, it will get the following Monday's date from the parameter given. The problem is though, LINQ does not accept queries such as the following:
var CountOrders =
from x in Data.EntityDB.Orders
where getNextWeekMondaysDate(x.DatePlaced.Value).Date == dt
group x by x.MondayOrder into m
let count = m.Count()
select new { MondayOrderItem = m.Key, Amount = count };
This is exactly what I must achieve. Is there any workaround for this situation?
UPDATE
Here is the exception I get when I try the 2nd query.
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.DateTime getNextWeekMondaysDate(System.DateTime)' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
You cannot do this directly, as user-defined method calls cannot be translated to SQL by the EF query provider. The provider recognizes a limited set of .NET methods that can be translated to SQL and also a number of canonical functions as well. Anything that cannot be expressed using these methods only is off-limits unless you write your own query provider (which is only theoretically an option).
As a practical workaround, you can calculate an appropriate range for x.DatePlaced.Value in code before the query and then use specific DateTime values on the where clause.
As an intellectual exercise, note that this method is recognized by the query provider and can be used as part of the expression. So this abomination should work too:
var CountOrders =
from x in Data.EntityDB.Orders
where EntityFunctions.AddDays(
x.DatePlaced.Date.Value,
(9 - DateAndTime.DatePart(DateInterval.WeekDay, x.DatePlaced.Value)) % 7)
.Date == dt
group x by x.MondayOrder into m
let count = m.Count()
select new { MondayOrderItem = m.Key, Amount = count };
Linq to Entities doesn't know how to convert arbitrary C# methods into SQL - it's not possible in general.
So, you have to work with the methods it does understand.
In this case, you could do something like this:
DateTime weekBegin = CalculateWeekBegin( dt );
DateTime weekEnd = CalculateWeekEnd( dt );
var CountOrders =
from x in Data.EntityDB.Orders
where x.DatePlaced.Value >= weekBegin && x.DatePlaced.Value < weekEnd
group x by x.MondayOrder into m
let count = m.Count()
select new { MondayOrderItem = m.Key, Amount = count });
I am looking to optimize my LINQ query because although it works right, the SQL it generates is convoluted and inefficient...
Basically, I am looking to select customers (as CustomerDisplay objects) who ordered the required product (reqdProdId), and are registered with a credit card number (stored as a row in RegisteredCustomer table with a foreign key CustId)
var q = from cust in db.Customers
join regCust in db.RegisteredCustomers on cust.ID equals regCust.CustId
where cust.CustomerProducts.Any(co => co.ProductID == reqdProdId)
where regCust.CreditCardNumber != null && regCust.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.DisplayName,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
As an overview, a Customer has a corresponding Person which has the Name; PersonID is a foreign key in Customer table.
If I look at the SQL generated, I see all columns being selected from the Person table. Fyi, DisplayName is an extension method which uses Customer.FirstName and LastName. Any ideas how I can limit the columns from Person?
Secondly, I want to get rid of the Any clause (and use a sub-query) to select all other CustomerIds who have the required ProductID, because it (understandably) generates an Exists clause.
As you may know, LINQ has a known issue with junction tables, so I cannot just do a cust.CustomerProducts.Products.
How can I select all Customers in the junction table with the required ProductID?
Any help/advice is appreciated.
The first step is to start your query from CustomerProducts (as Alex Said):
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay =
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
join regCust in db.RegisteredCustomers
on custProd.Customer.ID equals regCust.CustId
where
custProd.ProductID == reqProdId
&& regCust.CreditCardNumber != null
&& regCust.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
This will simplify your syntax and hopefully result in a better execution plan.
Next, you should consider creating a foreign key relationship between Customers and RegisteredCustomers. This would result in a query that looked like this:
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay =
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
where
custProd.ProductID == reqProdId
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.CreditCardNumber != null
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
Finally, for optimum speed, have LINQ compile your query at compile time, rather than run time by using a compiled query:
Func<MyDataContext, SearchParameters, IQueryable<CustomerDisplay>>
GetCustWithProd =
System.Data.Linq.CompiledQuery.Compile(
(MyDataContext db, SearchParameters myParams) =>
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
where
custProd.ProductID == myParams.reqProdId
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.CreditCardNumber != null
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
);
You can call the compiled query like this:
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay = GetCustWithProd(db, myParams);
I'd suggest starting your query from the product in question, e.g. something like:
from cp in db.CustomerProducts
join .....
where cp.ProductID == reqdProdID
As you have found, using a property defined as an extension function or in a partial class will require that the entire object is hydrated first and then the select projection is done on the client side because the server has no knowledge of these additional properties. Be glad that your code ran at all. If you were to use the non-mapped value elsewhere in your query (other than in the projection), you would likely see a run-time exception. You can see this if you try to use the Customer.Person.DisplayName property in a Where clause. As you have found, the fix is to do the string concatenation in the projection clause directly.
Lame Duck, I think there is a bug in your code as the cust variable used in your select clause isn't declared elsewhere as a source local variable (in the from clauses).