This is too tough for me guys. It's for Jeremy!
I have two tables (although I can also envision needing to join a third table) and I want to sum one field and count rows, in the same, table while joining with another table and return the result in json format.
First of all, the data type field that needs to be summed, is numeric(10,2) and the data is inserted as params['amount'].to_f.
The tables are expense_projects which has the name of the project and the company id and expense_items which has the company_id, item and amount (to mention just the critical columns) - the "company_id" columns are disambiguated.
So, the following code:
expense_items = DB[:expense_projects].left_join(:expense_items, :expense_project_id => :project_id).where(:project_company_id => company_id).to_a.to_json
works fine but when I add
expense_total = expense_items.sum(:amount).to_f.to_json
I get an error message which says
TypeError - no implicit conversion of Symbol into Integer:
so, the first question is why and how can this be fixed?
Then I want to join the two tables and get all the project names form the left (first table) and sum amount and count items in the second table. I have tried
DB[:expense_projects].left_join(:expense_items, :expense_items_company_id => expense_projects_company_id).count(:item).sum(:amount).to_json
and variations of this, all of which fails.
I would like a result which gets all the project names (even if there are no expense entries and returns something like:
project item_count item_amount
pr 1 7 34.87
pr 2 0 0
and so on. How can this be achieved with one query returning the result in json format?
Many thanks, guys.
Figured it out, I hope this helps somebody else:
DB[:expense_projects___p].where(:project_company_id=>user_company_id).
left_join(:expense_items___i, :expense_project_id=>:project_id).
select_group(:p__project_name).
select_more{count(:i__item_id)}.
select_more{sum(:i__amount)}.to_a.to_json
Related
I can't seem to figure out how to combine the result of 2 Business Objects queries.
Both queries return a set of codes and a number of hours. Query 1 can have codes that do not appear in Query 2, and Query 2 can have codes that do not appear in Query 1.
The resulting report should contain all codes from both Query 1 and Query2, a column with the sum of hours from Q1 for that code, and a column with the sum of hours from Query 2 for that code. If one of the queries doesn't have a code in it, it would return a blank or 0 total.
Example:
Q1 results:
|Code|Value|
|:---|:----|
|A|15|
|A|17|
|B|12|
|D|22|
|D|35|
|E|16|
|E|9|
|E|11|
Q2 results:
|Code|Value|
|:---|:----|
|A|5|
|A|19|
|B|33|
|C|17|
|C|24|
|E|78|
|E|12|
Report:
|Code|Value1|Value2|
|----|------|------|
|A|32|24|
|B|12|33|
|C| |41|
|D|57| |
|E|36|90|
|Total|137|188|
When I create the Business Object report table as normal, only the values of Query 1 are used, and I miss the row for value C. If I flip the queries around, I miss the row for value D.
How do I set up my report to show all the code values?
Edit: Sorry for the formatting of the tables, in the preview it looks perfect. :(
I've been trying to do a report about the quantity of breakdonws of products in our company. The problem is that the QUERY function is operating as normal, but the sorting order is well - a bit strange.
The data I'm trying to sort are as follows (quantities are blacked out since I cannot share those informations):
Raw data
First column - name of the product, second, it's EAN code, third, breakdown rate for last year, last column - average breakdown rate. "b/d" means "brak danych" or no data.
What I want to achieve is to get the end table with values sorted by average breakdown rate.
My query is as follows:
=query(Robocze!A2:D;"select A where A is not null and NOT D contains 'b/d' order by D desc")
Final result
As You can see, we have descending order, but there are strange artifacts - like the 33.33% after 4,00% and before 3,92%.
Why is that!?
try:
=INDEX(LAMBDA(x; SORT(x; INDEX(x;; 4)*1; 0))
(QUERY(Robocze!A2:D; "where A is not null and NOT D contains 'b/d'"; 0));; 4)
I have two tables (models have the same name as the tables):
StatusNames: id|name
and
CurrentUserStatus: id|user_id|status_id
At the moment CurrentUserStatus is empty, and StatusNames have several records inserted (Active, Inactive, On Pause, Terminated...).
I need to get all data from CurrentUserStatus and show how much are there within each status (given the current tables, next to each status name there should be zero (0)).
Is this possible to do with one query?
So whatever I assumed you can do something like this:
$dataset = CurrentUserStatus::whereHas('status')
->with('status')
->withCount('status')
->orderBy('status_count', 'dsc')
->get();
Hope this helps.
I hope one can help me, I am new in linq,
I have 2 tables name tblcart and tblorderdetail:
I just show some fields in these two tables to show whats my problem:
tblCart:
ID,
CartID,
Barcode,
and tblOrderDetail:
ID,
CartID,
IsCompleted
Barcode
when someone save an order, before he confirms his request,one row temporarily enter into the tblCart,
then if he or she confirms his request another row will be inserted into the tblOrderDetail ,
Now I wanna not to show the rows that is inserted into tblOrderDetailed(showing just temporarily rows which there is in tblCart),
In another words, if there is rows in tblCart with cartID=1 and at the same time there is the same row with CartID= 1 in tblOrderDetail, then I dont want that Row.
All in all, Just the rows that there isnt in tblOrderDetail, and the field to realize this is CartID,
I should mention that I make Iscompleted=true, and with that either we can exclude the rows we do not want,
I did this:
var cartItems = context.tblCarts
.Join(context.tblSiteOrderDetails,
w => w.CartID,
orderDetail => orderDetail.cartID,
(w,orderDetail) => new{w,orderDetail})
.Where(a=>a.orderDetail.cartID !=a.w.CartID)
.ToList()
however it doesn't work.
one example:
tblCart:
ID=1
CartID=1213
Barcode=4567
ID=2
CartID=1214
Barcode=4567
ID=3
CartID=1215
Barcode=6576
tblOrderDetail:
ID=2
CartID=1213
Barcode=4567
IsCompleted=true
with these data it should just show the last two Row in tblCart, I mean
ID=2
CartID=1214
Barcode=4567
ID=3
CartID=1215
Barcode=6576
This sounds like a case for WHERE NOT EXISTS in sql.
roughly translated this should be something like this in LINQ:
var cartItems = context.tblCarts.Where(crt => !context.tblSiteOrderDetails.Any(od => od.CartID == crt.cartID));
If you have a navigation property on cart to reference details (I'll assume it's called Details), then:
var results=context.tblCarts.Where(c=>!c.Details.Any(d=>d.IsCompleted));
I'm attempting to make a linq where contains query quicker.
The data set contains 256,999 clients. The Ids is just a simple list of GUID'S and this would could only contain 3 records.
The below query can take up to a min to return the 3 records. This is because the logic will go through the 256,999 record to see if any of the 256,999 records are within the List of 3 records.
returnItems = context.ExecuteQuery<DataClass.SelectClientsGridView>(sql).Where(x => ids.Contains(x.ClientId)).ToList();
I would like to and get the query to check if the three records are within the pot of 256,999. So in a way this should be much quicker.
I don't want to do a loop as the 3 records could be far more (thousands). The more loops the more hits to the db.
I don't want to grap all the db records (256,999) and then do the query as it would take nearly the same amount of time.
If I grap just the Ids for all the 256,999 from the DB it would take a second. This is where the Ids come from. (A filtered, small and simple list)
Any Ideas?
Thanks
You've said "I don't want to grab all the db records (256,999) and then do the query as it would take nearly the same amount of time," but also "If I grab just the Ids for all the 256,999 from the DB it would take a second." So does this really take "just as long"?
returnItems = context.ExecuteQuery<DataClass.SelectClientsGridView>(sql).Select(x => x.ClientId).ToList().Where(x => ids.Contains(x)).ToList();
Unfortunately, even if this is fast, it's not an answer, as you'll still need effectively the original query to actually extract the full records for the Ids matched :-(
So, adding an index is likely your best option.
The reason the Id query is quicker is due to one field being returned and its only a single table query.
The main query contains sub queries (below). So I get the Ids from a quick and easy query, then use the Ids to get the more details information.
SELECT Clients.Id as ClientId, Clients.ClientRef as ClientRef, Clients.Title + ' ' + Clients.Forename + ' ' + Clients.Surname as FullName,
[Address1] ,[Address2],[Address3],[Town],[County],[Postcode],
Clients.Consent AS Consent,
CONVERT(nvarchar(10), Clients.Dob, 103) as FormatedDOB,
CASE WHEN Clients.IsMale = 1 THEN 'Male' WHEN Clients.IsMale = 0 THEN 'Female' END As Gender,
Convert(nvarchar(10), Max(Assessments.TestDate),103) as LastVisit, ";
CASE WHEN Max(Convert(integer,Assessments.Submitted)) = 1 Then 'true' ELSE 'false' END AS Submitted,
CASE WHEN Max(Convert(integer,Assessments.GPSubmit)) = 1 Then 'true' ELSE 'false' END AS GPSubmit,
CASE WHEN Max(Convert(integer,Assessments.QualForPay)) = 1 Then 'true' ELSE 'false' END AS QualForPay,
Clients.UserIds AS LinkedUsers
FROM Clients
Left JOIN Assessments ON Clients.Id = Assessments.ClientId
Left JOIN Layouts ON Layouts.Id = Assessments.LayoutId
GROUP BY Clients.Id, Clients.ClientRef, Clients.Title, Clients.Forename, Clients.Surname, [Address1] ,[Address2],[Address3],[Town],[County],[Postcode],Clients.Consent, Clients.Dob, Clients.IsMale,Clients.UserIds";//,Layouts.LayoutName, Layouts.SubmissionProcess
ORDER BY ClientRef
I was hoping there was an easier way to do the Contain element. As the pool of Ids would be smaller than the main pool.
A way I've speeded it up for now is. I've done a Stinrg.Join to the list of Ids and added them as a WHERE within the main SQL. This has reduced the time down to a seconds or so now.