I'm new to graphQL and Hasura. I'm trying(in Hasura) to let me users provide custom aggregation (ideally in the form of a normal graphQL query) and have then each item the results compared against the aggreation.
Here's a example. Assume I have this schema:
USERTABLE:
userID
Name
Age
City
Country
Gender
HairColor
INCOMETABLE:
userID
Income
I created a relationship in hasura and I can query the data but my users want to do custom scoring of users' income level. For example, one user may want to query the data broken down by country and gender.
For the first example the result maybe:
{Country : Canada
{ gender : female
{ userID: 1,
Name: Nancy Smith,..
#data below is on aggregated results
rank: 1
%fromAverage: 35%
}...
Where I'm struggling is the data showing the users info relative to the aggregated data.
for Rank, I get the order by sorting but I'm not sure how to display the relative ranking and for the %fromAverage, I'm not sure how to do it at all.
Is there a way to do this in Hasura? I suspected that actions might be able to do this but I'm not sure.
You can use track a Postgres view. Your view would have as many fields as you'd like calculated in SQL and tracked as a separate "table" on your graphql api.
I am giving examples below based on a simplification where you have just table called contacts with just a single field called: id which is an auto-integer. I am just adding the id of the current contact to the avg(id) (a useless endeavor to be sure; just to illustrate...). Obviously you can customize the logic to your liking.
A simple implementation of a view would look like this (make sure to hit 'track this' in hasura:
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW contact_with_custom AS
SELECT id, (SELECT AVG(ID) FROM contacts) + id as custom FROM contacts;
See Extend with views
Another option is to use a computed field. This is just a postgres function that takes a row as an argument and returns some data and it just adds a new field to your existing 'table' in the Graphql API that is the return value of said function. (you don't 'track this' function; once created in the SQL section of Hasura, you add it as a 'computed field' under 'Modify' for the relevant table) Important to note that this option does not allow you to filter by this computed function, whereas in a view, all fields are filterable.
In the same schema mentioned above, a function for a computed field would look like this:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION custom(contact contacts)
RETURNS Numeric AS $$
SELECT (SELECT AVG(ID) from contacts ) + contact.id
$$ LANGUAGE sql STABLE;
Then you select this function for your computed field, naming it whatever you'd like...
See Computed fields
Related
Say I have a user table with a property called favoriteUsers which is an embedded array. i.e.
users
{
name:'bob'
favoriteUsers:['jim', 'tim'] //can you have an index on an embedded array?
}
user_presence
{
name:'jim', //index on name
online_since:14440000
}
Can I do an inner or eqJoin against say a 2nd table using the embedded property, or would I have to pull favoriteUsers out of the users table and into a join table like in traditional sql?
r.table('users')
.getAll('bob', {index:'name'})
// inner join user_presence on user_presence.name in users.highlights
.eqJoin("name", r.table('user_presence'), {index:'name'})
Eventually, I'd like to call changes() on the query so that I can get a realtime update of the users favorite users presence changes
eqJoin can works on embedded document, but it works by compare a value which we transform/pick from the embedded document to mark secondary index on right table.
In any other complicated join, I would rather use concatMap together with getAll.
Let's say we can fetch user and user_presence of their favoriteUsers
r.table('users')
.getAll('bob', {index: 'name'})
.concatMap(function(user) {
return r.table('user_presence').filter(function(presence) {
return user("favoriteUsers").contains(presence("name"))
})
)
So ideally, now you get the data and do the join yourself by querying extra data that you need. My query may have some syntax/error but I hope it gives you the idea
In our RethinkDB database, we have a table for orders, and a separate table that stores all the order items. Each entry in the OrderItems table has the orderId of the corresponding order.
I want to write a query that gets all SHIPPED order items (just the items from the OrderItems table ... I don't want the whole order). But whether the order is "shipped" is stored in the Order table.
So, is it possible to write a query that filters the OrderItems table based on the "shipped" value for the corresponding order in the Orders table?
If you're wondering, we're using the JS version of Rethinkdb.
UPDATE:
OK, I figured it out on my own! Here is my solution. I'm not positive that it is the best way (and certainly isn't super efficient), so if anyone else has ideas I'd still love to hear them.
I did it by running a .merge() to create a new field based on the Order table, then did a filter based on that value.
A semi-generalized query with filter from another table for my problem looks like this:
r.table('orderItems')
.merge(function(orderItem){
return {
orderShipped: r.table('orders').get(orderItem('orderId')).pluck('shipped') // I am plucking just the "shipped" value, since I don't want the entire order
}
})
.filter(function(orderItem){
return orderItem('orderShipped')('shipped').gt(0) // Filtering based on that new "shipped" value
})
it will be much easier.
r.table('orderItems').filter(function(orderItem){
return r.table('orders').get(orderItem('orderId'))('shipped').default(0).gt(0)
})
And it should be better to avoid result NULL, add '.default(0)'
It's probably better to create proper index before any finding. Without index, you cannot find document in a table with more than 100,000 element.
Also, filter is limit for only primary index.
A propery way is to using getAll and map
First, create index:
r.table("orderItems").indexCreate("orderId")
r.table("orders").indexCreate("shipStatus", r.row("shipped").default(0).gt(0))
With that index, we can find all of shipper order
r.table("orders").getAll(true, {index: "shipStatus"})
Now, we will use concatMap to transform the order into its equivalent orderItem
r.table("orders")
.getAll(true, {index: "shipStatus"})
.concatMap(function(order) {
return r.table("orderItems").getAll(order("id"), {index: "orderId"}).coerceTo("array")
})
I have too classes and two non-TYPO3-tables. I defined a non-TYPO3-table as a table without uid, pid, etc. columns.
My two classes:
class Tx_Abc_Domain_Model_Location extends Tx_Extbase_DomainObject_AbstractEntity
class Tx_Abc_Domain_Model_Facility extends Tx_Extbase_DomainObject_AbstractEntity
My two tables (with columns):
locations
zipcode
city
facility_id
facilities
facility_id
name
I've mapped the attributes like this:
config.tx_extbase.persistence.classes {
Tx_Abc_Domain_Model_Location.mapping {
tableName = locations
columns {
zipcode.mapOnProperty = zipcode
city.mapOnProperty = city
facility_id.mapOnProperty = facility
}
}
Tx_Abc_Domain_Model_Facility.mapping {
tableName = facilities
columns {
facility_id.mapOnProperty = uid
name.mapOnProperty = name
}
}
}
My problem:
The facility attribute of my location model got the type Tx_Abc_Domain_Model_Facility and when I'm looking for a location via the LocationRepository it builds me a location model which contains a facility model.
The problem appears, when I the search I am doing returns several results. i.e. the location with the zipcode 12345 has two different facilities (and the table locations got two rows with different facility_ids), then I would expect to get two location models and each of it got the right facility model.
But instead I get the two location models, which have all same facility model inside. They've got all the facility of the first found location.
Even if I change the type of the facility attribute to integer, there are the wrong ids. But if I enable raw query result in repository I get the correct ids.
I get also the correct ids or models, when I add to both tables an uid-column.
Is there no possibility to map tables without uid column with Extbase models?
Thanks.
Okay, the answer to my last question is: Yes, there is no possibility to map tables without uid column with Extbase models.
There is an existing ticket on forge: http://forge.typo3.org/issues/25984
The reason seems to be the hardcoded $row['uid'] in mapSingleRow() method in Tx_Extbase_Persistence_Mapper_DataMapper class.
If it's not alot of tables you have to map, a work-around could be to create views for those tables to just map the uid.
I.e.:
CREATE VIEW tx_abc_domain_model_facility AS
SELECT facility_id AS uid, facilities.* FROM facilities;
I am using C# and LINQ and trying to combine two sets of data. The first is a List of a specific type, lets call this Status (List) which is just a class with a bunch of properties one of which includes a comma separated value list of accounts. This is queried from the application database using a stored procedure so I have some flexability as to what is displayed here
For example:
class Status
{
...
public string Accounts {get; set;} (ie. "abcde, qwerty, asdfg")
public string Managers {get; set;}
...
}
The rest of the properties are irrelevant as this is the only field I am joining on.
The second "Accounts" data set is from a web service which I am calling to get a list of "Accounts" and the people associated with each account.
For example:
Account Manager SomeData MoreFields ...
------- ------------------- -------- ---------- ---
abcde Bob Marley Data MoreData ...
qwerty Fred Flinstone Data MoreData ...
So bascially I need to Create a list of Status objects with a CSV list of Manager(s) from the Accounts dataset in the Managers property of Status. Problem is I have no control over what is retruend in this dataset as it is a third party application. So I need to find some way to do this without modifying the "Accounts" data. Unless I do something in memory after getting the dataset from the web service.
I hope this makes sense and I thank you in advance!
What is this "dataset" of which you speak? I don't care where it come from -- I just care what kind of object it is in C#.
I'm going to assume that it's an ICollection, called "accounts"
Next, I'm going to assume that Managers is a CVS list much like Accounts.
Further, I'm only going to create one status object instead of a "list" of them, since you never say what separates one status from another.
var status = new Status();
status.Accounts = string.Join( ", ", from k in accounts select k.Account);
status.Managers = string.Join( ", ", from k in accounts select k.Manager);
how can I build a table of "orders" containing "IdOrder", "Description" and "User"?... the "User" field is a reference to the table "Users", which has "IdUser" and "Name". I'm using repositories.
I have this repository:
Repository<Orders> ordersRepo = new OrderRepo<Orders>(unitOfWork.Session);
to return all Orders to View, I just do:
return View(ordersRepo.All());
But this will result in something like:
IdOrder:1 -- Description: SomeTest -- User: UserProxy123ih12i3123ih12i3uh123
-
When the expected result was:
IdOrder:1 -- Description: SomeTest -- User: Thiago.
PS: I don't know why it returns this "UserProxy123ih12i3123ih12i3uh123". In Db there is a valid value.
The View:
It is showed in a foreach (var item in Model).
#item.Description
#item.User //--> If it is #item.User.Name doesn't work.
What I have to do to put the Name on this list? May I have to do a query using LINQ - NHibernate?
Tks.
What type of ORM are you using? You mention "repositories" but does that mean LinqToSql, Entity Framework, NHibernate, or other?
It looks like you are getting an error because the User field is not loaded as part of the original query. This is likely done to reduce the size of the result set by excluding the related fields from the original query for Orders.
There are a couple of options to work around this:
Set up the repository (or context, depending on the ORM) to include the User property in the result set.
Explicitly load the User property before you access it. Note that this would be an additional round-trip to the database and should not be done in a loop.
In cases where you know that you need the User information it would make sense to ensure that this data in returned from the original query. If you are using LinqToSql take a look at the DataLoadOptions type. You can use this type to specify which relationships you want to retrieve with the query:
var options = new DataLoadOptions();
options.LoadWith<Orders>(o => o.User);
DataContext context = ...;
context.LoadOptions = options;
var query = from o in context.Orders
select o;
There should be similar methods to achive the same thing whatever ORM you are using.
In NHibernate you can do the following:
using (ISession session = SessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
var orders = session.Get<Order>(someId);
NHibernateUtil.Initialize(orders.User);
}
This will result in only two database trips (regardless of the number of orders returned). More information on this can be found here.
In asp.net MVC the foreign key doesn't work the way you are using it. I believe you have to set the user to a variable like this:
User user = #item.User;
Or you have to load the reference sometimes. I don't know why this is but in my experience if I put this line before doing something with a foreign key it works
#item.UserReference.load();
Maybe when you access item.User.Name the session is already closed so NHib cannot load appropriate user from the DB.
You can create some model and initialize it with proper values at the controller. Also you can disable lazy loading for Orders.User in your mapping.
But maybe it is an other problem. What do you have when accessing "#item.User.Name" from your View?