My query is this:
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, :p__project_id).
select_more{count(:i__item_id)}.
select_more{sum(:i__amount)}.to_a.to_json
which works.
However, payment methods include cash, card and invoice. So I would like to sum each of those for summary purposes to achieve a discrete total for payments by cash, card, and invoice repsectively. I included the following line into the query
select_more{sum(:i__amount).where(:i__mop => 'card')}.
and the error message was
NoMethodError - undefined method `where' for #<Sequel::SQL::Function:0x007fddd88b5ed0>:
so I created the dataset separately with
ds1 = expense_items.where(:mop=>'card', :expense_company_id=>user_company_id).sum(:amount)
and appended it, at the end of the original query, with
select_append{ds1}
which achieved partial success as the returned json is now:
{"project_name":"project 2","project_id":2,"count":4,"sum":"0.40501E3","?column?":"0.2381E2"}
as can be seen there is no name for this element which I need in order to reference it in my getJSON call. I tried to add an identifier by adding ___a
to the ds1 query as below
ds1 = expense_items.where(:mop=>'card', :expense_company_id=>user_company_id).sum(:amount___a)
but that failed.
In summary, is this the right approach and, in any case, how can I provide an identifier when doing a sequel sum query? In other words sum(:a_column).as(a_name)
Many thanks.
Dataset#sum returns the sum, not a modified dataset. You probably want something like:
ds1 = expense_items.where(:mop=>'card', :expense_company_id=>user_company_id).select{sum(:amount)}
select_append{ds1.as(:sum)}
I am not sure for approach ( better ask Jeremy Evans ) but it work.
You just change: .sum(... to .select_more{:amount___a).as(:desired_name)}
ds1 = expense_items.where(:mop=>'card', :expense_company_id=>user_company_id).select_more{:amount___a).as(:desired_name)}
and actually get that desired_name in db response.
Related
Does anyone know if there's an easy way to negate a parse query? Something like this:
Parse.Query.not(query)
More specifically I want to do a relational query that gets everything except for the objects within the query. For example:
const relation = myParseObject.relation("myRelation");
const query = relation.query();
const negatedQuery = Parse.Query.not(query);
return await negatedQuery.find();
I know one solution would be to fetch the objects in the relation and then create a new query by looping through the objectIds using query.notEqualTo("objectId", fetchedObjectIds[i]), but this seems really circuitous...
Any help would be much appreciated!
doesNotMatchKeyInQuery is the solution as Davi Macedo pointed out in the comments.
For example, if I wanted to get all of the Comments that are not in an Article's relation, I would do the following:
const relationQuery = article.relation("comments").query();
const notInRelationQuery = new Parse.Query("Comment");
notInRelationQuery.doesNotMatchKeyInQuery("objectId", "objectId", relationQuery);
const notRelatedComments = await notInRelationQuery.find();
How I understand it is that the first argument is specifying the key in the objects that we are fetching. The second argument is specifying the key in the objects that are in the query that we're about to argue. And lastly we argue a query for the objects we don't want. So, it essentially finds the objects you don't want and then compares the values of the objects you do want to the values of the objects you don't want for the argued keys. It then returns all the objects you do want. I could probably write that more succinctly, but w/e.
There is a table, it is a poco entity generated by entity framework.
class Log
{
int DoneByEmpId;
string DoneByEmpName
}
I am retrieving a list from the data base. I want distinct values based on donebyempid and order by those values empname.
I have tried lot of ways to do it but it is not working
var lstLogUsers = (context.Logs.GroupBy(logList => logList.DoneByEmpId).Select(item => item.First())).ToList(); // it gives error
this one get all the user.
var lstLogUsers = context.Logs.ToList().OrderBy(logList => logList.DoneByEmpName).Distinct();
Can any one suggest how to achieve this.
Can I just point out that you probably have a problem with your data model here? I would imagine you should just have DoneByEmpId here, and a separate table Employee which has EmpId and Name.
I think this is why you are needing to use Distinct/GroupBy (which doesn't really work for this scenario, as you are finding).
I'm not near a compiler, so i can't test it, but...
Use the other version of Distinct(), the one that takes an IEqualityComparer<TSource> argument, and then use OrderBy().
See here for example.
Ok, I feel really stupid for asking this, but it's driving me nuts and I can't figure it out. The docs say I should be able to use select AS in a Rails/ActiveRecord query. So:
d = Dvd.where(id: 1).select("title AS my_title")
Is a valid query and if I do a to_sql on it, it produces the expected SQL:
SELECT title AS my_title FROM `dvd` WHERE `dvd`.`id` = 1
However, d.my_title will give an error:
NoMethodError: undefined method `my_title' for #<ActiveRecord::Relation
I need to be able to use AS since the columns I want to retrieve from different joins have the same name so I can't access them the "regular" way and have to resort to using AS.
I also don't want to resort to using find_by_sql for future compatibility and a possible switch form Mysql to PostGresql.
Just to clarify, what I'm really trying to do is write this SQL in a Railsy way:
SELECT tracks.name AS track_name, artists.name AS artist_name, composers.name AS composer_name, duration
FROM `tracks_cds`
INNER JOIN `tracks` ON `tracks`.`id` = `tracks_cds`.`track_id`
INNER JOIN `artists` ON `artists`.`id` = `tracks_cds`.`artist_id`
INNER JOIN `composers` ON `composers`.`id` = `tracks_cds`.`composer_id`
WHERE cd_id = cd.id
The top example was just a simplification of the fact that SELECT AS will not give you an easy way to refer to custom fields which I find hard to believe.
ActiveRecord automatically creates getter and setter methods for attributes based on the column names in the database, so there will be none defined for my_title.
Regarding the same common names, why not just do this:
d = Dvd.where(id: 1).select("dvds.title")
You can write your sql query and then just pass into ActiveRecord's execute method
query = "SELECT title AS my_title FROM `dvd` WHERE `dvd`.`id` = 1"
result = ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute(query)
I've the following Entity Model : Employee has a Company and a Company has Employees.
When using the Include statement like below:
var query = context.Employees.Include(e => e.Company);
query.Dump();
All related data is retrieved from the database correctly. (Using LEFT OUTER JOIN on Company table)
The problem is hat when I use the GroupBy() from System.Linq.Dynamic to group by Company.Name, the Employees are missing the Company data because the Include is lost.
Example:
var groupByQuery = query.GroupBy("new (Company.Name as CompanyName)", "it");
groupByQuery.Dump();
Is there a way to easily retrieve the applied Includes on the 'query' as a string collection, so that I can include them in the dynamic GroupBy like this:
var groupByQuery2 = query.GroupBy("new (Company, Company.Name as CompanyName)", "it");
groupByQuery2.Dump();
I thought about using the ToString() functionality to get the SQL Command like this:
string sql = query.ToString();
And then use RegEx to extract all LEFT OUTER JOINS, but probably there is a better solution ?
if you're creating the query in the first place - I'd always opt to save the includes (and add to them if you're making a composite query/filtering).
e.g. instead of returning just 'query' return new QueryContext {Query = query, Includes = ...}
I'd like to see a more elegant solution - but I think that's your best bet.
Otherwise you're looking at expression trees, visitors and all those nice things.
SQL parsing isn't that straight either - as queries are not always that simple (often a combo of things etc.).
e.g. there is a `span' inside the query object (if you traverse a bit) which seems to be holding the 'Includes' but it's not much help.
Why do I get the error:
Unable to create a constant value of type 'Closure type'. Only
primitive types (for instance Int32, String and Guid) are supported in
this context.
When I try to enumerate the following Linq query?
IEnumerable<string> searchList = GetSearchList();
using (HREntities entities = new HREntities())
{
var myList = from person in entities.vSearchPeople
where upperSearchList.All( (person.FirstName + person.LastName) .Contains).ToList();
}
Update:
If I try the following just to try to isolate the problem, I get the same error:
where upperSearchList.All(arg => arg == arg)
So it looks like the problem is with the All method, right? Any suggestions?
It looks like you're trying to do the equivalent of a "WHERE...IN" condition. Check out How to write 'WHERE IN' style queries using LINQ to Entities for an example of how to do that type of query with LINQ to Entities.
Also, I think the error message is particularly unhelpful in this case because .Contains is not followed by parentheses, which causes the compiler to recognize the whole predicate as a lambda expression.
I've spent the last 6 months battling this limitation with EF 3.5 and while I'm not the smartest person in the world, I'm pretty sure I have something useful to offer on this topic.
The SQL generated by growing a 50 mile high tree of "OR style" expressions will result in a poor query execution plan. I'm dealing with a few million rows and the impact is substantial.
There is a little hack I found to do a SQL 'in' that helps if you are just looking for a bunch of entities by id:
private IEnumerable<Entity1> getByIds(IEnumerable<int> ids)
{
string idList = string.Join(",", ids.ToList().ConvertAll<string>(id => id.ToString()).ToArray());
return dbContext.Entity1.Where("it.pkIDColumn IN {" + idList + "}");
}
where pkIDColumn is your primary key id column name of your Entity1 table.
BUT KEEP READING!
This is fine, but it requires that I already have the ids of what I need to find. Sometimes I just want my expressions to reach into other relations and what I do have is criteria for those connected relations.
If I had more time I would try to represent this visually, but I don't so just study this sentence a moment: Consider a schema with a Person, GovernmentId, and GovernmentIdType tables. Andrew Tappert (Person) has two id cards (GovernmentId), one from Oregon (GovernmentIdType) and one from Washington (GovernmentIdType).
Now generate an edmx from it.
Now imagine you want to find all the people having a certain ID value, say 1234567.
This can be accomplished with a single database hit with this:
dbContext context = new dbContext();
string idValue = "1234567";
Expression<Func<Person,bool>> expr =
person => person.GovernmentID.Any(gid => gid.gi_value.Contains(idValue));
IEnumerable<Person> people = context.Person.AsQueryable().Where(expr);
Do you see the subquery here? The generated sql will use 'joins' instead of sub-queries, but the effect is the same. These days SQL server optimizes subqueries into joins under the covers anyway, but anyway...
The key to this working is the .Any inside the expression.
I have found the cause of the error (I am using Framework 4.5). The problem is, that EF a complex type, that is passed in the "Contains"-parameter, can not translate into an SQL query. EF can use in a SQL query only simple types such as int, string...
this.GetAll().Where(p => !assignedFunctions.Contains(p))
GetAll provides a list of objects with a complex type (for example: "Function"). So therefore, I would try here to receive an instance of this complex type in my SQL query, which naturally can not work!
If I can extract from my list, parameters which are suited to my search, I can use:
var idList = assignedFunctions.Select(f => f.FunctionId);
this.GetAll().Where(p => !idList.Contains(p.FunktionId))
Now EF no longer has the complex type "Function" to work, but eg with a simple type (long). And that works fine!
I got this error message when my array object used in the .All function is null
After I initialized the array object, (upperSearchList in your case), the error is gone
The error message was misleading in this case
where upperSearchList.All(arg => person.someproperty.StartsWith(arg)))