I'm trying to do conditional statement inside Laravel query, is it possible?
In PLSQL I would do the following to do IF ELSE, can I do it in Laravel Eloquent ?
select *
from x
where x.id = 1
and ( (varName = 'all') OR (x.name = 'red') )
What's happening up there is user is picking from a drop downbox (varName), and is either picking all colors as 'all', or picking individual colors.
I know it would be easy to write two IF Else statements and duplicate the SQL with each condition, but I have a really big SQL, and don't want to duplicate the whole SQL twice just for something simple. Is it possible to do this in Laravel? Or are there other ways to achieve it?
You may use whereRaw for this, for example
...
->where('x.id','=',1)
->whereRaw('(varName = "all" or x.name="red")')
...
Please note that the raw query isn't escaped by default, so make sure to do this if your handling user input.
Related
I'm fairly new to Laravel having come over from Codeigniter and for the most part I really like it, but I really can't get my head around Eloquent.
If I want to do a simple query like this:
SELECT * FROM site INNER JOIN tweeter ON tweeter.id = site.tweeter_id
I try doing something like this (with a "belongs to"):
$site = Site::with('tweeter')->find($site_id);
But now I have two queries and an IN() which isn't really needed, like so:
SELECT * FROM `site` WHERE `id` = '12' LIMIT 1
SELECT * FROM `tweeter` WHERE `id` IN ('3')
So I try and force a join like so:
$site = Site::join('tweeter', 'tweeter.id', '=', 'site.tweeter_id')->find($site_id);
And now I get an error like so:
SQLSTATE[23000]: Integrity constraint violation: 1052 Column 'id' in where clause is ambiguous
SQL: SELECT * FROM `site` INNER JOIN `tweeter` ON `tweeter`.`id` = `site.tweeter_id` WHERE `id` = ? LIMIT 1
Bindings: array (
0 => 12,
)
It's obvious where the error is, the where needs to use something like "site.id = ?". But I can't see anyway to make this happen?
So i'm just stuck going back to fluent and using:
DB::table('site')->join('tweeter', 'tweeter.id', '=', 'site.tweeter_id')->where('site.id','=',$site_id)->first()
I guess it's not a massive problem. I would just really like to understand eloquent. I can't help but feel that i'm getting it massively wrong and misunderstanding how it works. Am I missing something? Or does it really have to be used in a very specific way?
I guess my real question is: Is there anyway to make the query I want to make using Eloquent?
I actually find this behaviour advantageous. Consider this (I'll modify your example). So we have many sites and each has many tweeters. Each site has a lot of info in the DB: many columns, some of them text columns with lots of text / data.
You do the query your way:
SELECT * FROM site INNER JOIN tweeter ON tweeter.id = site.tweeter_id
There are two downsides:
You get lots of redundant data. Each row you get for a tweeter of the same site will have the same site data that you only need once so the communication between PHP and your DB takes longer.
How do you do foreach (tweeter_of_this_site)? I'm guessing you display all the sites in some kind of list and then inside each site you display all of it's tweeters. You'll have to program some custom logic to do that.
Using the ORM approach solves both these issues: it only gets the site data once and it allows you to do this:
foreach ($sites as $site) {
foreach($site->tweeters as $tweeter) {}
}
What I'm also saying is: don't fight it! I used to be the one that said: why would I ever use an ORM, I can code my own SQL, thank you. Now I'm using it in Laravel and it's great!
You can always think of Eloquent as an extension of Fluent.
The problem you're running into is caused by the find() command. It uses id without a table name, which becomes ambiguous.
It's a documented issue: https://github.com/laravel/laravel/issues/1050
To create the command you are seeking, you can do this:
$site = Site::join('tweeter', 'tweeter.id', '=', 'site.tweeter_id')->where('site.id', '=', $site_id)->first($fields);
Of course, your syntax with join()->find() is correct once that issue fix is adopted.
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.
Is there a way to do
"UPDATE Item SET start_date = CURRENT_TIMESTAMP" ?
in Nhibernate without using hql/sql.
I am trying to avoid hql/sql because the rest of my code is in criteria. I want to do something like :
var item = session.get<Item>(id)
item.start_date = current_timestamp
There are two ways and sql is correct one.
Either you will
load all entities, change, update and commit, or
write sql query and let dbms handle most of the work
I am trying to avoid hql/sql because the rest of my code is in criteria
That is not a valid argument. Criteria is an API intended for relational search, and it does not support mass updates.
Different tasks, different APIs.
In this case, you can use either HQL or SQL, as the syntax is the same. I recommend the former, because you'll be using your entity/property names instead of table/column ones.
I'm tasked with adding an option to our search, which will return results where a given field doesn't begin with a letter of the alphabet. (The .StartsWith(letter) part wasn't so hard).
But I'm rather unsure about how to get the results that don't fall within the A-Z set, and equally hoping it generates some moderately efficient SQL underneath.
Any help appreciated - thanks.
In C# use the following construct, assuming db as a data context:
var query = from row in db.SomeTable
where !System.Data.Linq.SqlClient.SqlMethods.Like(row.SomeField, "[A-Z]%")
select row;
This is only supported in LINQ to SQL queries. All rules of the T-SQL LIKE operator apply.
You could also use less effective solution:
var query = from row in db.SomeTable
where row.SomeField[0] < 'A' || row.SomeField[0] > 'Z'
select row;
This gets translated into SUBSTRING, CAST, and UNICODE constructs.
Finally, you could use VB, where there appears to be a native support for the Like method.
Though SQL provides the ability to check a range of characters in a LIKE statement using bracket notation ([a-f]% for example), I haven't seen a linq to sql construct that supports this directly.
A couple thoughts:
First, if the result set is relatively small, you could do a .ToList() and filter in memory after the fact.
Alternatively, if you have the ability to change the data model, you could set up additional fields or tables to help index the data and improve the search.
--EDIT--
Made changes per Ruslan's comment below.
Well, I have no idea if this will work because I have never tried it and don't have a compiler nearby to try it, but the first thing I would try is
var query = from x in db.SomeTable
where x.SomeField != null &&
x.SomeField.Length >= 1 &&
x.SomeField.Substring(0, 1).All(c => !Char.IsLetter(c))
select x;
The possiblility exists that LINQ to SQL fails to convert this to SQL.
I'm building a poll widget. I've 2 tables, call them Polls and PollsCompleted. I need to do a linq query to get all the Polls that do not exist for a given user in PollsCompleted.
I have the following sets:
For Polls
Where Active == True
For PollsCompleted
Where UserId == ThisUserId
Where PollId = Polls.Id
Now I need to get all Polls that do not exist in PollsCompleted. I need an example for this using either a single or multiple queries. I've tried to break it down into 2 queries.
Basically, I've 2 IQueryables of type T and T1. I want to take all T's where T.ID does not exist in T1.ParentId.
T.Where(x => ! T1.Select(y => y.ParentID).Contains(x.ID))
In Linq you often work from the bottom up. Here we first get a collection of all the parentIDs in T1 -- the T1.Select(...) part. Then we create a where clause that selects all of the Ts whose IDs are not contained in that set.
Note that the result is a query. To materialize it, use ToList() or similar on the statement above.
Use Except. That will work in this case.
For your reference Enumerable.Except Method