I am trying to sort my data by a layer 3 relationship but I can't see to get it to work. I have successfully use aliases to query for level 2 relationships. This is how I have my query setup
def query = Application.where {}
query.createAlias("applicationDegrees", "appDegrees");
query.createAlias("applicationDegrees.degree", "degree");
query.createAlias("applicationDegrees.applicationDegreeMajors", "appMajors");
query.createAlias("applicationDegrees.applicationDegreeMajors.major", "major");
return query.list([sort: "degree.code", order: "desc"]); //WORKS
return query.list([sort: "major.code", order: "desc"]); //DOES NOT WORK
As you can see from my example code above, I can sort by appDegrees and degree. When I try to take it a step further and sort based off appMajors or major which are relationships of appDegrees it does not sort properly. No sort is applied at all but no error messages are throw either.
This is my data model
class Application {
Set<ApplicationDegree> applicationDegrees = []
static hasMany = [applicationDegrees: ApplicationDegree]
}
class ApplicationDegree {
Application app
Degree degree
Set applicationDegreeMajors = []
static hasMany = [applicationDegreeMajors: ApplicationDegreeMajor]
static belongsTo = [Application, Degree]
}
class ApplicationDegreeMajor {
ApplicationDegree applicationDegree
Major major
static belongsTo = [ApplicationDegree, Major]
}
How do I create my aliases so that I can sort by Major?
Grails 3.1.4
I suppose that the answer (and a workaround) may be found here: https://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?t=947709
It seems that nested aliases are not supported so I suggest to replace their creation like that:
query.createAlias("applicationDegrees", "appDegrees");
query.createAlias("appDegrees.degree", "degree");
query.createAlias("appDegrees.applicationDegreeMajors", "appMajors");
query.createAlias("appMajors.major", "major");
Related
I know how to retrieve a bean from a service in a datafetcher:
public class MyDataFetcher implements DataFetcher {
...
#Override
public Object get(DataFetchingEnvironment environment) {
return myService.getData();
}
}
But schemas with nested lists should use a BatchedExecutionStrategy and create batched DataFetchers with get() methods annotated #Batched (see graphql-java doc).
But where do I put my getData() call then?
///// Where to put this code?
List list = myService.getData();
/////
public class MyDataFetcher implements DataFetcher {
#Batched
public Object get(DataFetchingEnvironment environment) {
return list.get(environment.getIndex()); // where to get the index?
}
}
WARNING: The original BatchedExecutionStrategy has been deprecated and will get removed. The current preferred solution is the Data Loader library. Also, the entire execution engine is getting replaced in the future, and the new one will again support batching "natively". You can already use the new engine and the new BatchedExecutionStrategy (both in nextgen packages) but they have limited support for instrumentations. The answer below applies equally to both the legacy and the nextgen execution engine.
Look at it like this. Normal DataFetcherss receive a single object as source (DataFetchingEnvironment#getSource) and return a single object as a result. For example, if you had a query like:
{
user (name: "John") {
company {
revenue
}
}
Your company resolver (fetcher) would get a User object as source, and would be expected to somehow return a Company based on that e.g.
User owner = (User) environment.getSource();
Company company = companyService.findByOwner(owner);
return company;
Now, in the exact same scenario, if your DataFetcher was batched, and you used BatchedExecutionStrategy, instead of receiving a User and returning a Company, you'd receive a List<User> and would return a List<Company> instead.
E.g.
List<User> owners = (List<User>) environment.getSource();
List<Company> companies = companyService.findByOwners(owners);
return companies;
Notice that this means your underlying logic must have a way to fetch multiple things at once, otherwise it wouldn't be batched. So your myService.getData call would need to change, unless it can already fetch data for multiple source object in one go.
Also notice that batched resolution makes sense in nested queries only, as the top level resolver can already fetch a list of object, without the need for batching.
I am working on a MVC3 application with nhibernate and SQL server. Have written a normal method which is re-usable. Please find the below code and let me know a better way to handle it. I have observed to execute this piece of code it is taking a long time.
private void GetParentCompany(IEnumerable<Company> companiesList)
{
foreach (var company in companiesList)
{
long? dunsUltimateParent = company.DUNSUltimateParent;
Company ultimateParent = _companyService.GetCompanyByDUNS(Convert.ToInt64(dunsUltimateParent));
if (ultimateParent != null)
{
company.UltimateParentName = ultimateParent.CompanyName;
company.UltimateCompanyId = ultimateParent.CompanyId;
company.UltimateParentDuns = ultimateParent.DUNS;
}
}
}
Adding an index to your company.DUNS column might help. However consider to introduce a many-to-one relationship from company to (parent) company.
Place a UltimateParent property with type company in the company class. The fields UltimateParentName and UltimateParentDuns would then be redundant and you could simply get company.UltimateParent.Name for example. The mapping of UltimateParent can be done using 'References' in fluent-nhibernate.
References(x => x.UltimateParent);
I have the following code -
public void LoadAllContacts()
{
var db = new ContextDB();
var contacts = db.LocalContacts.ToList();
grdItems.DataSource = contacts.OrderBy(x => x.Areas.OrderBy(y => y.Name));
grdItems.DataBind();
}
I'm trying to sort the list of the contacts according to the area name that is contained within each contact. When I tried the above, I get "At least one object must implement IComparable.". Is there an easy way instead of writing a custom IComparer?
Thanks!
try this:
public void LoadAllContacts()
{
var db = new ContextDB();
var contacts = db.LocalContacts.ToList();
grdItems.DataSource = contacts.OrderBy(x => x.Areas.OrderBy(y => y.Name).First().Name);
grdItems.DataBind();
}
this will order the contacts by the first area name, after ordering the areas by name.
Hope this helps :)
Edit: fixed error in code. (.First().Name)
I was in a discussion with #AbdouMoumen but in the end I thought I'd provide my own answer :-)
His answer works, but there two performance issues in this code (both in the answer as in the original question).
First, the code loads ALL contacts in the db. This may or may not be a problem, but in general I would recommend NOT to do this. Many modern controls support paging/filtering out of the box, so you'd be better off supplying an not-yet-evaluated IQueryable<T> instead of List<T>. If however you need everything in memory, you should delay the ToList to the last possible moment.
Second, in AbdouMoumen's answer, there is a so-called 'SELECT N+1' problem. Entity Framework will by default use lazy loading to fetch additional properties. I.e. the Areas property will not be fetched from the database until it's accessed. In this case this will happen in the controls 'for loop', while it's ordering the result set by name.
Open up SQL Server Profiler to see what I mean: you will see a SELECT statement for all the contacts, and an additional SELECT statement for each contact that fetches the Areas for that contact.
A much better solution would be the following:
public void LoadAllContacts()
{
using (var db = new ContextDB())
{
// note: no ToList() yet, just defining the query
var contactsQuery = db.LocalContacts
.OrderBy(x => x.Areas
.OrderBy(y => y.Name)
.First().Name);
// fetch all the contacts, correctly ordered in the DB
grdItems.DataSource = contactsQuery.ToList();
grdItems.DataBind();
}
}
Is it one to one relation (Contact->Area)?
if yeah then try the following :
public partial class Contact
{
public string AreaName
{
get
{
if (this.Area != null)
return this.Area.Name;
return string.Empty;
}
}
}
then
grdItems.DataSource = contacts.OrderBy(x => x.AreaName);
I have a couple of DBML generated classes which are linked together by an id, e.g.
ClassA {
AID,
XID,
Name
}
ClassB {
AID,
ExtraInfo,
ExtraInfo2
}
In using something like db.ClassAs.Where(XID == x) and iterating through that result,
it ends up executing a query for each of the ClassAs and each of ClassBs, which is slow.
Alternatively, I've tried to use ExecuteQuery to fetch all the info I care about and have that return a ClassA. In iterating over that I end up with it doing the same, i.e. doing alot of individual fetches vs. just 1. If I store it in a ClassC (that is not associated with a DB entity) which has the fields of interest of both ClassA and ClassB, this query is much faster, but it's annoying b/c I just created IMO an unnecessary ClassC.
How can I still use ClassA, which associates to ClassB, and still use ExecuteQuery to run 1 query vs. A*B number of queries?
If you have associations you shouldn't need to use ExecuteQuery().
Here's an example using some imaginary Book Library context and anonymous types for the result:
var results =
Books
.Where(book => book.BookId == 1)
.Select(book =>
new
{
book.Name,
AuthorName = book.Author.Name, //Is a field in an associated table.
book.Publisher, //Is an associtated table.
});
EDIT: without anon types
var results =
Books
.Where(book => book.BookId == 1)
.Select(book =>
new BookResult()
{
BookName = book.Name,
AuthorName = book.Author.Name, //Is a field in an associated table.
Publisher = book.Publisher, //Is an associtated table.
});
I have an entity that I'd like to compare with a subset and determine to select all except the subset.
So, my query looks like this:
Products.Except(ProductsToRemove(), new ProductComparer())
The ProductsToRemove() method returns a List<Product> after it performs a few tasks. So in it's simplest form it's the above.
The ProductComparer() class looks like this:
public class ProductComparer : IEqualityComparer<Product>
{
public bool Equals(Product a, Product b)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(a, b)) return true;
if (ReferenceEquals(a, null) || ReferenceEquals(b, null))
return false;
return a.Id == b.Id;
}
public int GetHashCode(Product product)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(product, null)) return 0;
var hashProductId = product.Id.GetHashCode();
return hashProductId;
}
}
However, I continually receive the following exception:
LINQ to Entities does not recognize
the method
'System.Linq.IQueryable1[UnitedOne.Data.Sql.Product]
Except[Product](System.Linq.IQueryable1[UnitedOne.Data.Sql.Product],
System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable1[UnitedOne.Data.Sql.Product],
System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer1[UnitedOne.Data.Sql.Product])'
method, and this method cannot be
translated into a store expression.
Linq to Entities isn't actually executing your query, it is interpreting your code, converting it to TSQL, then executing that on the server.
Under the covers, it is coded with the knowledge of how operators and common functions operate and how those relate to TSQL. The problem is that the developers of L2E have no idea how exactly you are implementing IEqualityComparer. Therefore they cannot figure out that when you say Class A == Class B you mean (for example) "Where Person.FirstName == FirstName AND Person.LastName == LastName".
So, when the L2E interpreter hits a method it doesn't recognize, it throws this exception.
There are two ways you can work around this. First, develop a Where() that satisfies your equality requirements but that doesn't rely on any custom method. In other words, test for equality of properties of the instance rather than an Equals method defined on the class.
Second, you can trigger the execution of the query and then do your comparisons in memory. For instance:
var notThisItem = new Item{Id = "HurrDurr"};
var items = Db.Items.ToArray(); // Sql query executed here
var except = items.Except(notThisItem); // performed in memory
Obviously this will bring much more data across the wire and be more memory intensive. The first option is usually the best.
You're trying to convert the Except call with your custom IEqualityComparer into Entity SQL.
Obviously, your class cannot be converted into SQL.
You need to write Products.AsEnumerable().Except(ProductsToRemove(), new ProductComparer()) to force it to execute on the client. Note that this will download all of the products from the server.
By the way, your ProductComparer class should be a singleton, like this:
public class ProductComparer : IEqualityComparer<Product> {
private ProductComparer() { }
public static ProductComparer Instance = new ProductComparer();
...
}
The IEqualityComparer<T> can only be executed locally, it can't be translated to a SQL command, hence the error