I have gone through the docs and also Googled. I see little mention of returning multiple queries on the same sheet from Maat's Laravel Excel. I presume therefore it is 1 query for 1 downloaded spreadsheet. I also presume that if you do have multiple queries that you will need to place each query on an additional sheet.
Have got this right ?
Many thanks
In a perfect world, every query would get its own sheet. But in reality, it will export whatever you give it so long as it receives a single array or collection for the output, depending on your configuration. It would be up to you to determine how to combine your queries into a format that could be interpreted as rows and columns.
Basic example with two queries:
class ExportSample implements FromCollection
{
// ...
public function collection()
{
// query 1
$a = User::where('id',2)->get();
// query 2
$b = User::where('id',4)->get();
// merge collections
return $a->merge($b);
}
}
Of course, if your queries result in different column structures, there may be additional obstacles.
Related
I am trying to build a custom sorting for the product listings in shopware 6.
I want to include a foreign table (entity is: leasingPlanEntity), get the min of one of the fields of that table (period_price) and then order the search result by that value.
I have already built a Subscriber, and try it like that, what seems to work.
public static function getSubscribedEvents(): array
{
return [
//ProductListingCollectFilterEvent::class => 'addFilter'
ProductListingCriteriaEvent::class => ['addCriteria', 5000]
];
}
public function addCriteria(ProductListingCriteriaEvent $event): void
{
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->addAggregation(new MinAggregation('min_period_price', 'leasingPlan.periodPrice'));
// Sortierung hinzufügen.
$availableSortings = $event->getCriteria()->getExtension('sortings') ?? new ProductSortingCollection();
$myCustomSorting = new ProductSortingEntity();
$myCustomSorting->setId(Uuid::randomHex());
$myCustomSorting->setActive(true);
$myCustomSorting->setTranslated(['label' => 'My Custom Sorting at runtime']);
$myCustomSorting->setKey('my-custom-runtime-sort');
$myCustomSorting->setPriority(5);
$myCustomSorting->setFields([
[
'field' => 'leasingPlan.periodPrice',
'order' => 'asc',
'priority' => 1,
'naturalSorting' => 0,
],
]);
$availableSortings->add($myCustomSorting);
$event->getCriteria()->addExtension('sortings', $availableSortings);
}
Is this already the right way to get the min(periodPrice)? Or is it taking just a random value out of the leasingPlan table to define the sort-order?
I didn't find a way, to define the min_period_price aggregate value in the $myCustomSorting->setFields Methods.
Update 1
Some days later, I asked a less complex question in the shopware community on slack:
Is it possible to use the DAL to define a subquery for an association in the product-listing?
It should generate something like:
FROM
JOIN (
SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE ... GROUP BY ... ORDER BY ...
) AS ...
The answer there was:
Don't think so
Update 2
I also did an in-deep anlysis of the DAL-Query-Builder, and it really seems to be not possible, to perform a subquery with the current version.
Update 3 - Different approach
A different approach might be, to define custom fields in the main entity. Every time a change is made on the main entity, the values of this custom fields should be recalculated.
It is a lot of overhead work, to realize this. Especially when the fields you are adding, are dependend on other data like the availability of a product in the store, for example.
So check, if it is worth the extra work. Would be better, to have a solution for building subqueries.
Unfortunately it seems that in your case there is no easy way to achieve this, if I understand the issue correctly.
Consider the following: for each product you can have multiple leasingPlan entities, and I assume that for a given context (like a specific sales channel or listing) that still holds. This means that you would have to sort the leasingPlan entities by price, then take the one with the lowest price, and then sort the products by their lowest-price leasingPlan's price.
There seems to be no other way to achieve that, and unfortunately for you, sorting is applied at the end, even if it is sort of a subquery.
So, for example, if you have the following snippet
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->getAssociation('leasingPlan')
->addSorting(new FieldSorting('price', FieldSorting::ASCENDING))
->setLimit(1)
;
The actual price-sorting would be applied AFTER the leasingPlan entities are fetched - essentially the results would be sorted, meaning that you would not get the cheapest leasing plan per product, instead getting the first one.
You can only do something like that with filters, but in this case there is nothing to filter by - I assume you don't have one leasingPlan per SalesChannel or per language, so that you could limit that list to just one entry that could be used for sorting
That is not to mention that this could not be included in a ProductSortingEntity, but you could always work around that by plugging into the appropriate events and modifying the criteria during runtime
I see two ways to resolve your issue
Making another table which would store the cheapest leasingPlan per product and just using that as your association
Storing the information about the cheapest leasingPlans in e.g. cache and using that for filtering (caution: a mistake here would probably break the sorting, for example if you end up with too few or too many leasingPlans per product)
public function applyCustomSorting(ProductListingCriteriaEvent $event): void
{
// One leasingPlan per one product
$cheapestLeasingPlans = $this->myCustomService->getCheapestLeasingPlanIds();
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->getAssociation('leasingPlan')
->addSorting(new FieldSorting('price', FieldSorting::ASCENDING))
->addFilter(new EqualsAnyFilter('id', $cheapestLeasingPlans))
;
}
And then you could sort by
$criteria->addSorting(new FieldSorting('leasingPlan.periodPrice', FieldSorting::ASCENDING));
There should be no need to add the association manually and to add the aggregation to the criteria, that should happen automatically behind the scenes if your custom sorting is selected in the storefront.
For more information refer to the official docs.
I'm using EF Core but I'm not really an expert with it, especially when it comes to details like querying tables in a performant manner...
So what I try to do is simply get the max-value of one column from a table with filtered data.
What I have so far is this:
protected override void ReadExistingDBEntry()
{
using Model.ResultContext db = new();
// Filter Tabledata to the Rows relevant to us. the whole Table may contain 0 rows or millions of them
IQueryable<Measurement> dbMeasuringsExisting = db.Measurements
.Where(meas => meas.MeasuringInstanceGuid == Globals.MeasProgInstance.Guid
&& meas.MachineId == DBMatchingItem.Id);
if (dbMeasuringsExisting.Any())
{
// the max value we're interested in. Still dbMeasuringsExisting could contain millions of rows
iMaxMessID = dbMeasuringsExisting.Max(meas => meas.MessID);
}
}
The equivalent SQL to what I want would be something like this.
select max(MessID)
from Measurement
where MeasuringInstanceGuid = Globals.MeasProgInstance.Guid
and MachineId = DBMatchingItem.Id;
While the above code works (it returns the correct value), I think it has a performance issue when the database table is getting larger, because the max filtering is done at the client-side after all rows are transferred, or am I wrong here?
How to do it better? I want the database server to filter my data. Of course I don't want any SQL script ;-)
This can be addressed by typing the return as nullable so that you do not get a returned error and then applying a default value for the int. Alternatively, you can just assign it to a nullable int. Note, the assumption here of an integer return type of the ID. The same principal would apply to a Guid as well.
int MaxMessID = dbMeasuringsExisting.Max(p => (int?)p.MessID) ?? 0;
There is no need for the Any() statement as that causes an additional trip to the database which is not desirable in this case.
Are there any best practices or ReQL features that that help with composing complex ReQL queries?
In order to illustrate this, imagine a fruits table. Each document has the following structure.
{
"id": 123,
"name": "name",
"colour": "colour",
"weight": 5
}
If we wanted to retrieve all green fruits, we might use the following query.
r
.db('db')
.table('fruits')
.filter({colour: 'green'})
However, in more complex cases, we might wish to use a variety of complex command combinations. In such cases, bespoke queries could be written for each case, but this could be difficult to maintain and could violate the Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle. Instead, we might wish to write bespoke queries which could chain custom commands, thus allowing complex queries to be composed in a modular fashion. This might take the following form.
r
.db('db')
.table('fruits')
.custom(component)
The component could be a function which accepts the last entity in the command chain as its argument and returns something, as follows.
function component(chain)
{
return chain
.filter({colour: 'green'});
};
This is not so much a feature proposal as an illustration of the problem of complex queries, although such a feature does seem intuitively useful.
Personally, my own efforts in resolving this problem have involved the creation of a compose utility function. It takes an array of functions as its main argument. Each function is called, passed a part of the query chain, and is expected to return an amended version of the query chain. Once the iteration is complete, a composition of the query components is returned. This can be viewed below.
function compose(queries, parameters)
{
if (queries.length > 1)
{
let composition = queries[0](parameters);
for (let index = 1; index < queries.length; index++)
{
let query = queries[index];
composition = query(composition, parameters);
};
return composition;
}
else
{
throw 'Must be two or more queries.';
};
};
function startQuery()
{
return RethinkDB;
};
function filterQuery1(query)
{
return query.filter({name: 'Grape'});
};
function filterQuery2(query)
{
return query.filter({colour: 'Green'});
};
function filterQuery3(query)
{
return query.orderBy(RethinkDB.desc('created'));
};
let composition = compose([startQuery, filterQuery1, filterQuery2, filterQuery3]);
composition.run(connection);
It would be great to know whether something like this exists, whether there are best practises to handle such cases, or whether this is an area where ReQL could benefit from improvements.
In RethinkDB doc, they state it clearly: All ReQL queries are chainable
Queries are constructed by making function calls in the programming
language you already know. You don’t have to concatenate strings or
construct specialized JSON objects to query the database. All ReQL
queries are chainable. You begin with a table and incrementally chain
transformers to the end of the query using the . operator
You do not have to compose another thing which just implicit your code, which gets it more difficult to read and be unnecessary eventually.
The simple way is assign the rethinkdb query and filter into the variables, anytime you need to add more complex logic, add directly to these variables, then run() it when your query is completed
Supposing I have to search a list of products with different filter inputs and getting pagination. The following code is exposed in javascript (This is simple code for illustration only)
let sorterDirection = 'asc';
let sorterColumnName = 'created_date';
var buildFilter = r.row('app_id').eq(appId).and(r.row('status').eq('public'))
// if there is no condition to start up, you could use r.expr(true)
// append every filter into the buildFilter var if they are positive
if (escapedKeyword != "") {
buildFilter = buildFilter.and(r.row('name').default('').downcase().match(escapedKeyword))
}
// you may have different filter to add, do the same to append them into buildFilter.
// start to make query
let query = r.table('yourTableName').filter(buildFilter);
query.orderBy(r[sorterDirection](sorterColumnName))
.slice(pageIndex * pageSize, (pageIndex * pageSize) + pageSize).run();
I'm working on mongo with spring data and using the query "findBy" based on property fields.
My goal will be find same value across multiple properties by OR clause like this:
List<Event> findByCreatorOrOrganizersOrGuests(User user);
this query involves 3 properties: "creator", "organizers" and "guests" that are a single value (creator) and 2 lists (organizers and guests) that contains the same class type (User)
at compile time I receive this error:
org.springframework.data.repository.query.ParameterOutOfBoundsException: Invalid parameter index! You seem to have declare too little query method parameters!
Do I need to repeat the same parameter 3 times? There's no workaround?
thanks
The using of Mongo queries for lists are not so efficient even if you define it with an index.
Another important thing is that the query:
List<Event> findByCreatorOrOrganizersOrGuests(User user);
includes some syntax errors (The MongoDB expects to get 3 parameters as variables int the ( ) relatively to the findBy keys, the return value should be inserted into a list object, and I am not sure that the Or in the find query is legal syntax.
As a concept the DB documents should have a good ability to be searched, cause it is the most expensive action.
When find using OR in MongoDB the direct query should looks like that:
def events = find({ $or: [ { user.username: { $lt: 20 } }, { price: 10 } ] } )
While searching in a list this is should be different, so please follow the links I attached.
When I try to think of the use you are looking for, I would suggest a different aspect. If the events is what interest you please read about the AbstractPersistenceEventListener. By define the appropriate
void onPostInsert(entity) {}
void onPostUpdate(entity) {}
void onPostDelete(entity) {}
You get all the events for each of the objects you want to listen to.
Here are 2 a great examples:
Example 1
Example 2
One of my models contains the following:
public function from()
{
return $this->belongsTo(Station::class, 'from_station_id');
}
public function to()
{
return $this->belongsTo(Station::class, 'to_station_id');
}
In order to use this I'm using the with('to', 'from') method. Which results in the following:
select * from "stations" where "stations"."id" in ('1')
select * from "stations" where "stations"."id" in ('2')
Two cached queries one for "to's" and one for "from's". At the moment with 1 record they are "useful". But in the future they will have a lot of duplicate IDs..
Does Laravel offer an option to combine these?
Assuming you'll need to access them from the model by the relation, like $model->from->first() or $model->to->count(), your best option would be to stick with 2 queries. A query with where in clause is not that heavy and you can additionally cache them to speed up.