In my eloquent model, I have a location row. It holds 5 potential answers such as:
Hotel
Accommodation
Library
rest of the values
I want to perform an orderBy and want them to be listed as this order. Is there a way to achieve it with orderBy? Something like:
People::orderBy('location', ['Hotel, 'Library', 'Accommodation']);
What is the best way to achieve this?
So, you can achieve that by using:
People::orderByRaw("FIELD(location , 'Hotel, 'Library', 'Accommodation') ASC")
Of course, you may choose ASC or DESC.
Related
I want to get all rows that have one unique column. The problem with my code is that it works only when I select just that one column, but in the end I need to have multiple columns.
$values= Model::select('id','value_first','gender_first','value_second','gender_second')->groupBy('value_first')->get();
Here is Solution of Your Problem
$values= Model::select('id','value_first','gender_first','value_second','gender_second')->distinct('value_first')->get();
As per Laravel Documentation you can use distinct method for the same
The distinct method allows you to force the query to return distinct
results for e.g
$values= Model::select('id','value_first','gender_first','value_second','gender_second')->distinct('value_first')->get();
Reference: Laravel-> Database: Query Builder -> Selects
First time poster and a Freemarker novice. I'm hoping someone can assist on this. I am currently referencing data from a 1-to-many table using the <#data> directive. I want to sort the results in a particular field order, but I think that can only be done by the <#list> directive. Here's what I have so far:
There's a CART_ABANDONMENT table with the following fields:
CUSTOMER_ID_
PRODUCT_ID
PRODUCT_NAME
PRODUCT_PRICE
ABANDONED_DATE
<#data CART_ABANDONMENT as abandonment><br>
<#filter CUST_ID="${CONTACTS_LIST.CUSTOMER_ID_}"><br>
<#fields PRODUCT_ID PRODUCT_NAME PRODUCT_PRICE ABANDONED_DATE><br>
${abandonment.PRODUCT_NAME} ${abandonment.PRODUCT_PRICE}<br>
</#data>
What I want to do is to list all related results (by CUSTOMER_ID_) and sort them by PRODUCT_PRICE, descending.
It may be something simple, but I haven't been able to find the answer.
Any guidance would be appreciated.
Freemarker is powerful tool tool but it's just template engine.
It has the sort directive for list, but it can be applied only to built-in types: String, Number and Date.
You may convert list of you complex type to one or more lists of built-in types and use ?sort in template.
Another way is to pass already sorted(as you want) list to template before processing.
What you want sounds like something that should be solved on the database (SQL) level, especially where you say "list all related results (by CUSTOMER_ID_)". FreeMarker is only the V (for View) in MVC.
I'm having a problem joining two LINQ queries.
Currently, my (original) code looks like this
s.AnimalTypes.Sort((x, y) => string.Compare(x.Type, y.Type));
What I'm needing to do is change this based on a date, then select all data past that date, so I have
s.AnimalTypes.Select(t=>t.DateChanged > dateIn).ToList()
s.AnimalTypes.Sort((…
This doesn't look right as it's not sorting the data selected, rather sorting everything in s.AnimalTypes.
Is there a way to concatenate the two LINQ lines? I've tried
s.AnimalTypes.Select(t=>t.DateChanged > dateIn).ToList().Sort((…
but this gives me an error on the Sort section.
Is there a simple way to do this? I've looked around and Grouo and OrderBy keep cropping up, but I'm not sure these are what I need here.
Thanks
From your description, I believe you want something like:
var results = s.AnimalTypes.Where(t => t.DateChanged > dateIn).OrderBy(t => t.Type);
You can call ToList() to convert to a List<T> at the end if required.
There are a couple of fundamental concepts I believe you are missing here -
First, unlike List<T>.Sort, the LINQ extension methods don't change the original collections, but rather return a new IEnumerable<T> with the filtered or sorted results. This means you always need to assign something to the return value (hence my var results = above).
Second, Select performs a mapping operation - transforming the data from one form to another. For example, you could use it to extract out the DateChanged (Select(t => t.DateChanged)), but this would give you an enumeration of dates, not the original animal types. In order to filter or restrict the list with a predicate (criteria), you'd use Where instead.
Finally, you can use OrderBy to reorder the resulting enumerable.
You are using Select when you actually want to use Where.
Select is a projection from one a collection of one type into another type - you won't increase or reduce the number of items in a collection using Select, but you can instead select each object's name or some other property.
Where is what you would use to filter a collection based on a boolean predicate.
im trying to run an hql query which aggragets (sum) number of transactions made on a specific account, i dont need a group by since my where clause has a specific account filter (where account = :account)
i do, however, want to return the aggregated value only if it is smaller/bigger than some given value.
when im adding 'having' after the where clause without 'group by' im getting an error -
unexpected token: having
in native sql i succeeded adding 'having' without group by
any ideas on how to make it work with hql?
thanks alot
The reason why databases don't let you mix grouped columns with non-grouped and non-aggregated ones is, that for non-grouped/non-aggregated columns it would have to choose one row's value per group, but doesn't know how to pick one.
If you don't care, then you could just leave it away and if it doesn't matter because they're all the same, you could group by them, too.
It is not hql, but if you have native query, then run it like:
Query query = session.createSQLQuery("select, *** ,... blah blah")
//set If you need
query.setParameter("myparam", "val");
List result = query.list();
In my eyes this is nonsense. 'having' is done for conditions on a 'group by' result. If you don't group, then it does not make much sense.
I would say HQL can't do it. Probably the Hibernate programmers didn't think of this case because they considered it as not important.
And anyway, you don't need it.
If it is a simple query, then you can decide in your java code if you want the result or if you don't need it.
If it is in a subselect, then you can solve the problem with a where condition in the main select.
If you think it is really necessary then your invited to give a more concrete example.
The problem seems trivial, but I can't find any reasonable solution. I have list of countries with translations stored in Globalize3 translation tables. How can I fetch the list of countries sorted by name?
Country name isn't stored directly in the model, but in separate table. Is there any reasonable way to sort the result other than manual sql query, or manualy sorting result table after AR query is complete?
Country.with_translations(I18n.locale).order('name') for current locale.
Edit:
You can also use fallbacks:
Country.with_translations(I18n.fallbacks[I18n.locale]).order('name')
Country.with_translations.order('name')