I am trying to make one equation from the two below, but either I am missing something completely simple, or there is a trick to embedding a ranking function into the "AllPrevious" function in Spotfire
VAR_X = (Rank([D] / [A],"desc",[B],"ties.method=first"))
VAR_Y = Sum([A] * [C]) OVER (intersect([B],AllPrevious([VAR_X])))
I am trying to essentially do (bypassing the creation of VAR_X:
VAR_Y = Sum([A] * [C]) OVER (intersect([B],AllPrevious(((Rank([D] / [A],"desc",[B],"ties.method=first"))))))
I keep getting an error message anytime I put something after "AllPrevious(" and I cannot figure it out. Any help would be appreciated!
Related
I am building an API with node/express and using PG and Postgres along with them.
At some point, I am trying to build a query that looks like this :
SELECT * FROM user_dog_view
WHERE dog_name = X AND dog_gender = Y AND dog_race = Z;
(The X, Y, Z represent info coming from the request.body or the query string)
Thing is: I would like my query to ignore one of the CONDITIONS in the WHERE clause lwhere the X, Y or Z is undefined or null (meaning the request.body or query string is incomplete).
E.g, if Y is undefined, I would like the query be like :
SELECT * FROM user_dog_view
WHERE dog_name = X AND dog_race = Z;
I tried looking into the coalesce ffunction but it does not seem to answer my needs.
Now I am wondering if I should try to put some complicated conditions to handle that thanks to JavaScript, but I am not sure that's the best idea?
Any Psql (or JS) insight on this is appreciated. Thanks !
The Solr "qf" parameter works as follows:
Let's say I have: query = "sid" and qf = [field1, field1_edge, field2, field2_edge].
The Solr score is calculated as follows:
max(f1, f1_e, f2, f2_e) + tie * (sum of other 3 fields) where: "tie" lies in [0,1]
Let's call: winner1 = field with max(f1, f1_e) and
winner2 = field with max(f2, f2_e)
I would like to score a given query in Solr as follows:
score1 = winner1_score + tie_1 * loser1_score
score2 = winner2_score + tie_1 * loser2_score
final score = score1 + tie_2 * score2
Effectively, I want to apply qf in two layers (taking tie_1 = 0 and tie_2 = 1). What are my options to implement this idea of relevance? I think neither "qf" parameter nor function boosts support this.
Thanks!
It seems to me that's the way to do it is to use the query function which allows you to apply functions to queries.
You combine this with nested query parsers which allows you to run multiple dismax queries.
You can do something like this (where you set tie1 and tie2 according to what you want):
q=_val_:"add(query($qq1),product(query($qq2),${tie2}))"
qq1={!edismax qf='field1 field1_edge' v='sid' tie=${tie1}}
qq2={!edismax qf='field2 field2_edge' v='sid' tie=${tie1}}
tie1=0.5
tie2=0.3
If you used Solr 7.2 (or higher) you also need to set uf=_query_ * in order for the _val_ hook to work.
P.S: it should be possible (though I haven't tested it) to move the content of q into the qf parameter and that way you don't have to use the _val_ hook:
qf=add(query($qq1),product(query($qq2),${tie2}))
With Django/Haystack/SOLR, I'd like to be able to restrict the result of a search to those records within a particular range of django_ids. Getting these IDs is not a problem, but trying to filter by them produces some unexpected effects. The code looks like this (extraneous code trimmed for clarity):
def view_results(request,arg):
# django_ids list is first calculated using arg...
sqs = SearchQuerySet().facet('example_facet') # STEP_1
sqs = sqs.filter(django_id__in=django_ids) # STEP_2
view = search_view_factory(
view_class=SearchView,
template='search/search-results.html',
searchqueryset=sqs,
form_class=FacetedSearchForm
)
return view(request)
At the point marked STEP_1 I get all the database records. At STEP_2 the records are successfully narrowed down to the number I'd expect for that list of django_ids. The problem comes when the search results are displayed in cases where the user has specified a search term in the form. Rather than returning all records from STEP_2 which match the term, I get all records from STEP_2 plus all from STEP_1 which match the term.
Presumably, therefore, I need to override one/some of the methods in for SearchView in haystack/views.py, but what? Can anyone suggest a means of achieving what is required here?
After a bit more thought, I found a way around this. In the code above, the problem was occurring in the view = search_view_factory... line, so I needed to create my own SearchView class and override the get_results(self) method in order to apply the filtering after the search has been run with the user's search terms. The result is code along these lines:
class MySearchView(SearchView):
def get_results(self):
search = self.form.search()
# The ID I need for the database search is at the end of the URL,
# but this may have some search parameters on and need cleaning up.
view_id = self.request.path.split("/")[-1]
view_query = MyView.objects.filter(id=view_id.split("&")[0])
# At this point the django_ids of the required objects can be found.
if len(view_query) > 0:
view_item = view_query.__getitem__(0)
django_ids = []
for thing in view_item.things.all():
django_ids.append(thing.id)
search = search.filter_and(django_id__in=django_ids)
return search
Using search.filter_and rather than search.filter at the end was another thing which turned out to be essential, but which didn't do what I needed when the filtering was being performed before getting to the SearchView.
I was wondering if this concept is doable:
Scenario:
4 areas on 1 stage which are quite similar (eg webcamconference, each area has the same functions)
Buttonobjects are numbered(eg area 1 has playbutton1,mutebutton1,namebutton1,namelabel1, etc)
every area gets a close-Button which closes/shuts down the area.(close1,close2,close3...)
i want to archive the following:
if(close1.isPressed){
function invisall(1);
}
/*
* instead of writing
* if(close1.isPressed){
* playbutton1._visible=false;
* mutebutton1._visible=false;
* }else if(close2.isPressed){
* playbutton2._visible=false;
* mutebutton2._visible=false;
* etc. resulting in an enormous block.
* the interesting part. buttonNr gets added via String to become a real buttonname(eg
* playbutton1 as mentioned above).*/
function invisall(int buttonNr){
String newPlayButtonObjectName="playbutton"+buttonNr;
newPlayButtonObjectName._visible=false;
String newMuteButton="mutebutton"+buttonNr;
newMuteButton._visible=false;
}
this should do the trick via dynamic Nr at the end of each default button(eg
playbutton)
but ofc
"playbutton1"._visible=false;
doesnt work because playbutton1 is still a String.
how can i take the String as a Buttonname/ButtonObject?
do i need to write an new function? this would destroy the purpose of less code.
maybe u like this idea. for now i will split the area into frames that i put on the stage. that should help.
cheers
function invisall(int buttonNr){
this["playbutton"+buttonNr]._visible=false;
this["mutebutton"+buttonNr]._visible=false;
}
I hope this is what you want.
Is it possible to define a brand new operator in Groovy? I would like to express a trade where someone buys 200 items for the price of 10 like this:
def trade = 200 # 10
Is this achievable?
Thanks
EDIT: I want to make it clearer that I am interested in defining an operator not adding a method. Cheers.
We always wanted the ability to define an operator through the user in Groovy, but so far we haven't gotten around the problems that come along with that. So the current state is that Groovy does not support custom operators, only the ones that are already in use.
I am not quite sure how you can make this work for the # sign but you could certainly add the operation like this which I actually find more expressive:
Number.metaClass.buyFor { Integer price ->
delegate * price
}
def result = 200.buyFor(10)
println result
Number.metaClass."#" {Integer x -> delegate * x}
assert (2.'#' (2)) == 4
The official documentation has a section on Operator Overloading: https://groovy-lang.org/operators.html#Operator-Overloading
Here is a list from the docs: