SQL query to Rails 4 - ruby

I'm having a hard time to convert this query in rails. I have two models Category and Product. Each category has many products. We can get the category of a particular product by product.category_id. Can someone help me to convert this query to rails 4? Thanks.
select * from category
where not exists
(
select from product
where product.category_id = category.id
and product.validity_time >= now() - interval '1 month'
)

Rails convenience query methods are great for a lot of use cases but they do not provide exposure to the full scope of what any given database can do. The Rails team has continued to improve this top level DSL to offer better visibility for the more used functionality (For example Rails 5 implemented where.not and Rails 6 added where.missing).
That being said for more complex queries you will need to dive a little deeper than the convenience methods provided by ActiveRecord::QueryMethods to achieve your goal.
To implement this type of query you are going to have to use a String or use Arel (The underlying query assembler for rails). I have a distaste for String SQL in rails so I will provide the Arel solution here.
If you would like the exact SQL:
product_table = Product.arel_table
category_table = Category.arel_table
Category.where(
Arel::Nodes::Not.new(
Arel::Nodes::Exists.new(
product_table.project(Arel.star).where(
product_table[:category_id].eq(category_table[:id]).and(
product_table[:validity_time].gteq(
Arel::Nodes::Subtraction.new(
Arel::Nodes::SqlLiteral.new('now()'),
Arel::Nodes::SqlLiteral.new("interval '1 month'")
)))
)))
)
OTHER OPTIONS: These options should produce the same result (with different SQL) and the implementation and assembly is a bit simpler and easier to comprehend.
WHERE NOT IN ()
product_table = Product.arel_table
category_table = Category.arel_table
Category.where(
category_table[:id].not_in(
product_table.project(product_table[:category_id])
.where(
product_table[:validity_time].gteq(Time.now - 1.month)
)
)
)
The SQL that is produced should be akin to:
SELECT categories.*
FROM categories
WHERE
categories.id NOT IN (
SELECT products.category_id
FROM products
WHERE
products.validity_time >= [RUN TIME - 1 MONTH]
)
Multi-conditional Join
product_table = Product.arel_table
category_table = Category.arel_table
join = category_table.join(product_table).on(
products_table[:category_id].eq(category_table[:id]).and(
product_table[:validity_time].gteq(
Arel::Nodes::Subtraction.new(Arel::Nodes::SqlLiteral.new('now()'),
Arel::Nodes::SqlLiteral.new("interval '1 month'")))))
Category.joins(join.join_sources).where(products: {id: nil }).distinct
SQL
SELECT DISTINCT categories.*
FROM
categories
LEFT OUTER JOIN products ON products.category_id = categories.id
AND products.validity_time >= now() - interval '1 month'
WHERE
products.id IS NULL

Related

Load only some elements of a nested collection efficiently with LINQ

I have the following LINQ query (using EF Core 6 and MS SQL Server):
var resultSet = dbContext.Systems
.Include(system => system.Project)
.Include(system => system.Template.Type)
.Select(system => new
{
System = system,
TemplateText = system.Template.TemplateTexts.FirstOrDefault(templateText => templateText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier),
TypeText = system.Template.Type.TypeTexts.FirstOrDefault(typeText => typeText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier)
})
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.System.Id == request.Id);
The requirement is to retrieve the system matching the requested ID and load its project, template and template's type info. The template has multiple TemplateTexts (one for each translated language) but I only want to load the one matching the requested locale, same deal with the TypeTexts elements of the template's type.
The LINQ query above does that in one query and it gets converted to the following SQL query (I edited the SELECT statements to use * instead of the long list of columns generated):
SELECT [t1].*, [t2].*, [t5].*
FROM (
SELECT TOP(1) [p].*, [t].*, [t0].*
FROM [ParkerSystems] AS [p]
LEFT JOIN [Templates] AS [t] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [t].[Id]
LEFT JOIN [Types] AS [t0] ON [t].[TypeId] = [t0].[Id]
LEFT JOIN [Projects] AS [p0] ON [p].[Project_ProjectId] = [p0].[ProjectId]
WHERE [p].[SystemId] = #__request_Id_1
) AS [t1]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [t3].*
FROM (
SELECT [t4].*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY [t4].[ReferenceId] ORDER BY [t4].[Id]) AS [row]
FROM [TemplateTexts] AS [t4]
WHERE [t4].[Language] = #__locale_LanguageIdentifier_0
) AS [t3]
WHERE [t3].[row] <= 1
) AS [t2] ON [t1].[Id] = [t2].[ReferenceId]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [t6].*
FROM (
SELECT [t7].*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY [t7].[ReferenceId] ORDER BY [t7].[Id]) AS [row]
FROM [TypeTexts] AS [t7]
WHERE [t7].[Language] = #__locale_LanguageIdentifier_0
) AS [t6]
WHERE [t6].[row] <= 1
) AS [t5] ON [t1].[Id0] = [t5].[ReferenceId]
which is not bad, it's not a super complicated query, but I feel like my requirement can be solved with a much simpler SQL query:
SELECT *
FROM [Systems] AS [p]
JOIN [Templates] AS [t] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [t].[Id]
JOIN [TemplateTexts] AS [tt] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [tt].[ReferenceId]
JOIN [Types] AS [ty] ON [t].[TypeId] = [ty].[Id]
JOIN [TemplateTexts] AS [tyt] ON [ty].[Id] = [tyt].[ReferenceId]
WHERE [p].[SystemId] = #systemId and tt.[Language] = 2 and tyt.[Language] = 2
My question is: is there a different/simpler LINQ expression (either in Method syntax or Query syntax) that produces the same result (get all info in one go) because ideally I'd like to not have to have an anonymous object where the filtered sub-collections are aggregated. For even more brownie points, it'd be great if the generated SQL would be simpler/closer to what I think would be a simple query.
Is there a different/simpler LINQ expression (...) that produces the same result
Yes (maybe) and no.
No, because you're querying dbContext.Systems, therefore EF will return all systems that match your filter, also when they don't have TemplateTexts etc. That's why it has to generate outer joins. EF is not aware of your apparent intention to skip systems without these nested data or of any guarantee that these systems don't occur in the database. (Which you seem to assume, seeing the second query).
That accounts for the left joins to subqueries.
These subqueries are generated because of FirstOrDefault. In SQL it always requires some sort of subquery to get "first" records of one-to-many relationships. This ROW_NUMBER() OVER construction is actually quite efficient. Your second query doesn't have any notion of "first" records. It'll probably return different data.
Yes (maybe) because you also Include data. I'm not sure why. Some people seem to think Include is necessary to make subsequent projections (.Select) work, but it isn't. If that's your reason to use Includes then you can remove them and thus remove the first couple of joins.
OTOH you also Include system.Project which is not in the projection, so you seem to have added the Includes deliberately. And in this case they have effect, because the entire entity system is in the projection, otherwise EF would ignore them.
If you need the Includes then again, EF has to generate outer joins for the reason mentioned above.
EF decides to handle the Includes and projections separately, while hand-crafted SQL, aided by prior knowledge of the data could do that more efficiently. There's no way to affect that behavior though.
This LINQ query is close to your SQL, but I'm afraid of correctness of the result:
var resultSet =
(from system in dbContext.Systems
from templateText in system.Template.TemplateTexts
where templateText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier
from typeText in system.Template.Type.TypeTexts
where typeText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier
select new
{
System = system,
TemplateText = templateText
TypeText = typeText
})
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.System.Id == request.Id);

Entity Framework Core + Count with Group By

I have a table which contains ~600k records and 33 columns. In my project I am using EF Core (2.0.1) to retrieve data from database. I am having issues with below code:
var theCounter = (from f in _context.tblData.Take(100000)
group f by f.TypeId into data
select new DataDto { ID = data.Key, Count = data.Count() }).ToList();
This code is a part of REST API and when I am testing it from SOAP UI, I am gettin timeout error. When I tested the code for
Take(1000)
There are around 300 unique TypeIds.
it works fine. Any ideas how I can make it work?
-- EDIT 1:
Here is what I see when debugging the code:
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: Query: '(from TblData <generated>_1 in DbSet<TblData> select [<generated>_1]).Take(__p_0)' uses a row limiting operation (Skip/Take) without OrderBy which may lead to unpredictable results.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: Query: '(from TblData <generated>_1 in DbSet<TblData> select [<generated>_1]).Take(__p_0)' uses a row limiting operation (Skip/Take) without OrderBy which may lead to unpredictable results.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: The LINQ expression 'GroupBy([f].TypeId, [f])' could not be translated and will be evaluated locally.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: The LINQ expression 'GroupBy([f].TypeId, [f])' could not be translated and will be evaluated locally.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: The LINQ expression 'Count()' could not be translated and will be evaluated locally.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Database.Command:Information: Executed DbCommand (131ms) [Parameters=[#__p_0='?'], CommandType='Text', CommandTimeout='30']
SELECT [t2].[Id], [t2].[at], [t2].[add], [t2].[AddDate], [t2].[aftc], [t2].[aftcd], [t2].[aid], [t2].[afl], [t2].[prdid], [t2].[cid], [t2].[TypeId], [t2].[env], [t2].[ext], [t2].[extddcode], [t2].[fn], [t2].[fn], [t2].[fic], [t2].[gid], [t2].[grp], [t2].[hnm], [t2].[IP], [t2].[icid], [t2].[ln], [t2].[lg], [t2].[pcid], [t2].[ret], [t2].[rts], [t2].[rnam], [t2].[sled], [t2].[seq], [t2].[sid], [t2].[styp]
FROM (
SELECT TOP(#__p_0) [t1].[Id], [t1].[at], [t1].[add], [t1].[AddDate], [t1].[aftc], [t1].[aftcd], [t1].[aid], [t1].[afl], [t1].[prdid], [t1].[cid], [t1].[TypeId], [t1].[env], [t1].[ext], [t1].[extddcode], [t1].[fn], [t1].[fn], [t1].[fic], [t1].[gid], [t1].[grp], [t1].[hnm], [t1].[IP], [t1].[icid], [t1].[ln], [t1].[lg], [t1].[pcid], [t1].[ret], [t1].[rts], [t1].[rnam], [t1].[sled], [t1].[seq], [t1].[sid], [t1].[styp]
FROM [TblData] AS [t1]
) AS [t2]
WHERE [t2].[TypeId] IS NOT NULL
ORDER BY [t2].[TypeId]
I think it is not translated properly. Any ideas why?
-- EDIT 2:
I have changed my queries to:
var query = _context.TblData
.Select(a => new {ID = a.Id, TypeId= a.TypeId})
.Distinct();
var q1 = query.GroupBy(p => p.TypeId)
.Select(g => new DataDto {TypeId= g.Key, Count = g.Count()});
return await q1.ToListAsync();
But it was translated to:
SELECT DISTINCT [a0].[Id], [a0].[TypeId] AS [TypeId]
FROM [tblData] AS [a0]
ORDER BY [a0].[TypeId]
When I checked directly in the database this query takes 14 seconds to execute. Any idea why it was not translated to something like:
SELECT DISTINCT [a0].[Id], COUNT([TypeId]) AS [TypeId]
FROM [tblData] AS [a0]
GROUP BY COUNT([a0].[Id])
ORDER BY [a0].[TypeId]
I had to upgrade EF Core version to 2.1 and LINQ is now translated properly into SQL.

Too many queries for each user to assets table in joomla

My site generate a lot of queries to database, for each user generates 6 queries. I tried to fine the source of that but my knowlegde was not enough to find. If anyone could help me how to fine the source of that queries?
I used:
Joomla 2.5.8
Main Components: CB, Kunena, SH404SEF, K2, Komento, UddeIM PMS
Main Modules: Gavick News PRO4
Block spam IP
Block bots
The queries which are generate for each user:
SELECT *
FROM `_users`
WHERE `id` = 15
SELECT `g`.`id`,`g`.`title`
FROM `_usergroups` AS g
INNER JOIN `_user_usergroup_map` AS m ON m.group_id = g.id
WHERE `m`.`user_id` = 15
SELECT b.id
FROM _user_usergroup_map AS map
LEFT JOIN _usergroups AS a ON a.id = map.group_id
LEFT JOIN _usergroups AS b ON b.lft <= a.lft
AND b.rgt >= a.rgt
WHERE map.user_id = 15
SELECT a.rules
FROM _assets AS a
WHERE (a.id = 1)
GROUP BY a.id, a.rules, a.lft
SELECT id
FROM _assets
WHERE parent_id = 0
SELECT b.rules
FROM _assets AS a
LEFT JOIN _assets AS b ON b.lft <= a.lft
AND b.rgt >= a.rgt
WHERE (a.id = 1 OR a.parent_id = 0)
GROUP BY b.id, b.rules, b.lft
ORDER BY b.lft
well of course there are going to be a fair amount of queries per use, as you are using extensions such as CB and Kunena, that include queries for each user. Unless you get a message from your host saying too much memory is being used or there is too much traffic, you should be fine.
Joomla is a CMS and therefore these sort of things need to be expected when there are a fair amount of users.
Actually we just fixed a bug in the rules field that was generating an excessive number of queries. It will be fixed in 3.0.4 which is due out next week and whenever another 2.5 release comes out. In the meantime you can fix it yourself.
https://github.com/joomla/joomla-platform/pull/1792
But that's not what you are asking about. The number of queries isn't really the issue (it's totally reasonable) the question is how fast are they.

converting sql to linq woes

At my job our main application was written long ago before n-tier was really a thing, ergo - it has tons and tons of business logic begin handled in stored procs and such.
So we have finally decided to bite the bullet and make it not suck so bad. I have been tasked with converting a 900+ line sql script to a .NET exe, which I am doing in C#/Linq. Problem is...for the last 5-6 years at another job, I had been doing Linq exclusively, so my SQL has gotten somewhat rusty, and some of thing I am converting I have never tried to do before in Linq, so I'm hitting some roadblocks.
Anyway, enough whining.
I'm having trouble with the following sql statement, I think due to the fact that he is joining on a temp table and a derived table. Here's the SQL:
insert into #processedBatchesPurgeList
select d.pricebatchdetailid
from pricebatchheader h (nolock)
join pricebatchstatus pbs (nolock) on h.pricebatchstatusid = pbs.pricebatchstatusid
join pricebatchdetail d (nolock) on h.pricebatchheaderid = d.pricebatchheaderid
join
( -- Grab most recent REG.
select
item_key
,store_no
,pricebatchdetailid = max(pricebatchdetailid)
from pricebatchdetail _pbd (nolock)
join pricechgtype pct (nolock) on _pbd.pricechgtypeid = pct.pricechgtypeid
where
lower(rtrim(ltrim(pct.pricechgtypedesc))) = 'reg'
and expired = 0
group by item_key, store_no
) dreg
on d.item_key = dreg.item_key
and d.store_no = dreg.store_no
where
d.pricebatchdetailid < dreg.pricebatchdetailid -- Make sure PBD is not most recent REG.
and h.processeddate < #processedBatchesPurgeDateLimit
and lower(rtrim(ltrim(pbs.pricebatchstatusdesc))) = 'processed' -- Pushed/processed batches only.
So that's raising an overall question first: how to handle temp tables in Linq? This script uses about 10 of them. I currently have them as List. The problem is, if I try to .Join() on one in a query, I get the "Local sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL implementations of query operators except the Contains operator." error.
I was able to get the join to the derived table to work using 2 queries, just so a single one wouldn't get nightmarishly long:
var dreg = (from _pbd in db.PriceBatchDetails.Where(pbd => pbd.Expired == false && pbd.PriceChgType.PriceChgTypeDesc.ToLower().Trim() == "reg")
group _pbd by new { _pbd.Item_Key, _pbd.Store_No } into _pbds
select new
{
Item_Key = _pbds.Key.Item_Key,
Store_No = _pbds.Key.Store_No,
PriceBatchDetailID = _pbds.Max(pbdet => pbdet.PriceBatchDetailID)
});
var query = (from h in db.PriceBatchHeaders.Where(pbh => pbh.ProcessedDate < processedBatchesPurgeDateLimit)
join pbs in db.PriceBatchStatus on h.PriceBatchStatusID equals pbs.PriceBatchStatusID
join d in db.PriceBatchDetails on h.PriceBatchHeaderID equals d.PriceBatchHeaderID
join dr in dreg on new { d.Item_Key, d.Store_No } equals new { dr.Item_Key, dr.Store_No }
where d.PriceBatchDetailID < dr.PriceBatchDetailID
&& pbs.PriceBatchStatusDesc.ToLower().Trim() == "processed"
select d.PriceBatchDetailID);
So that query gives the expected results, which I am holding in a List, but then I need to join the results of that query to another one selected from the database, which is leading me back to the aforementioned "Local sequence cannot be used..." error.
That query is this:
insert into #pbhArchiveFullListSaved
select h.pricebatchheaderid
from pricebatchheader h (nolock)
join pricebatchdetail d (nolock)
on h.pricebatchheaderid = d.pricebatchheaderid
join #processedBatchesPurgeList dlist
on d.pricebatchdetailid = dlist.pricebatchdetailid -- PBH list is restricted to PBD purge list rows that have PBH references.
group by h.pricebatchheaderid
The join there on #processedBatchesPurgeList is the problem I am running into.
So uh...help? I have never written SQL like this, and certainly never tried to convert it to Linq.
As pointed out by the comments above, this is no longer being rewritten as Linq.
Was hoping to get a performance improvement along with achieving better SOX compliance, which was the whole reason for the rewrite in the first place.
I'm happy with just satisfying the SOX compliance issues.
Thanks, everyone.

Optimizing LINQ Any() call in Entity Framework

After profiling my Entity Framework 4.0 based database layer I have found the major performance sinner to be a simple LINQ Any() I use to check if an entity is already existing in the database. The Any() check performs orders of magnitude slower than saving the entity.
There are relatively few rows in the database and the columns being checked are indexed.
I use the following LINQ to check for the existence of a setting group:
from sg in context.SettingGroups
where sg.Group.Equals(settingGroup) && sg.Category.Equals(settingCategory)
select sg).Any()
This generates the following SQL (additionally my SQL profiler claims the query is executed twice):
exec sp_executesql N'SELECT
CASE WHEN ( EXISTS (SELECT
1 AS [C1]
FROM [dbo].[SettingGroups] AS [Extent1]
WHERE ([Extent1].[Group] = #p__linq__0) AND ([Extent1].[Category] = #p__linq__1)
)) THEN cast(1 as bit) WHEN ( NOT EXISTS (SELECT
1 AS [C1]
FROM [dbo].[SettingGroups] AS [Extent2]
WHERE ([Extent2].[Group] = #p__linq__0) AND ([Extent2].[Category] = #p__linq__1)
)) THEN cast(0 as bit) END AS [C1]
FROM ( SELECT 1 AS X ) AS [SingleRowTable1]',N'#p__linq__0 nvarchar(4000),#p__linq__1 nvarchar(4000)',#p__linq__0=N'Cleanup',#p__linq__1=N'Mediator'
Right now I can only think of creating stored procedures to solve this problem, but I would of course prefer to keep the code in LINQ.
Is there a way to make such an "Exist" check run faster with EF?
I should probably mention that I also use self-tracking-entities in an n-tier architecture. In some scenarios the ChangeTracker state for some entities is set to "Added" even though they already exist in the database. This is why I use a check to change the ChangeTracker state accordingly if updating the database caused an insert failure exception.
Try adding index to the database table "SettingGroups", by Group & Category.
BTW, does this produce similar sql?
var ok = context.SettingGroups.Any(sg => sg.Group==settingGroup && sg.Category==settingCategory);
The problem is Entity Framework (at least EF4) is generating stupid SQL. The following code seems to generate decent SQL with minimal pain.
public static class LinqExt
{
public static bool BetterAny<T>( this IQueryable<T> queryable, Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate)
{
return queryable.Where(predicate).Select(x => (int?)1).FirstOrDefault().HasValue;
}
public static bool BetterAny<T>( this IQueryable<T> queryable)
{
return queryable.Select(x => (int?)1).FirstOrDefault().HasValue;
}
}
Then you can do:
(from sg in context.SettingGroups
where sg.Group.Equals(settingGroup) && sg.Category.Equals(settingCategory)
select sg).BetterAny()
or even:
context.SettingGroups.BetterAny(sg => sg.Group.Equals(settingGroup) && sg.Category.Equals(settingCategory));
I know it sounds a miserable solution, but what happens if you use Count instead of Any?
Have you profiled the time to execute the generated select statement against the time to execute the select what you would expect/like to be produced ? It is possible that it is not as bad as it looks.
The section
SELECT
1 AS [C1]
FROM [dbo].[SettingGroups] AS [Extent1]
WHERE ([Extent1].[Group] = #p__linq__0) AND ([Extent1].[Category] = #p__linq__1)
is probably close to what you would expect to be produced. It is quite possible that the query optimiser will realise the second query is the same as the first and hence it may add very little time to the overall query.

Resources