I tried to convert an SQL query into Gosu Script ( Guidewire). My script is working only for limited number of records
This is the SQL query
select PolicyNumber,* from pc_policyperiod
where ID in ( Select ownerID from pc_PRActiveWorkflow
where ForeignEntityID in (Select id from pc_workflow where State=3))
This is my script
var workFlowIDQuery = Query.make(Workflow).compare(Workflow#State,Relop.Equals,WorkflowState.TC_COMPLETED).select({QuerySelectColumns.path(Paths.make(entity.Workflow#ID))}).transformQueryRow(\row ->row.getColumn(0)).toTypedArray()
var prActiveWorkFlowQuery = Query.make(PRActiveWorkflow).compareIn(PRActiveWorkflow#ForeignEntity, workFlowIDQuery).select({QuerySelectColumns.path(Paths.make(entity.PRActiveWorkflow#Owner))}).transformQueryRow(\row -> row.getColumn(0)).toTypedArray()
var periodQuery = Query.make(PolicyPeriod).compareIn(PolicyPeriod#ID,prActiveWorkFlowQuery).select()
for(period in periodQuery){
print(period.policynmber)
}
Can anyone find a cause; why the script results in limited records or suggest improvements?
I would suggest you to write a single Gosu Query to select policyPeriod and join 3 entities with a foreign key to other entity.
I am note sure if the PolicyPeriod ID is same as the PRActiveWorkflow ID. Can you elaborate the relation between PolicyPeriod and PRActiveWorkflow entity ?
Related
I have a list of items and would like to use each item as the pk (Primary Key) to query Dynamo DB, using Python.
I have tried using a for loop but I dont get any results, If I try the same query with the actual value from the group_id list it does work which means my query statement is correct.
group_name_query = []
for i in group_id:
group_name_query = config_table.query(
KeyConditionExpression=Key('pk').eq(i) & Key('sk').eq('GROUP')
)
Here is a sample group_ip = ['GROUP#6501e5ac-59b2-4d05-810a-ee63d2f4f826', 'GROUP#6501e5ac-59b2-4d05-810a-ee63d2sfdgd']
not answering your issue but got a suggestion, if you're querying base table with pk and sk instead of query gsi, i would suggest you Batch Get Item API to get multiple items in one shot
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/example_dynamodb_BatchGetItem_section.html
I have the following query trying to get count of a query:
var testQuery = Db
.From<Blog>()
.LeftJoin<BlogToBlogCategory>()
.Where(x => x.IsDeleted == false)
.OrderBy(x => x.ConvertedPrice);
var testCount = Db.Scalar<int>(testQuery.Select<Blog>(x => Sql.CountDistinct(x.Id)));
var results = Db.LoadSelect(testQuery.SelectDistinct());
It gives error:
42803: column "blog.converted_price" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
Issue seems to be the orderby statement. If I remove it then the error goes away. Why does this stop count distinct working?
I am having to clear orderby on all queries I do like this. Is it supposed to work this way?
Also I just realised count is wrong. Results is 501 unique records and testCount is 538.
What am I doing wrong?
Whenever in doubt with what an OrmLite query is generating, you can use the BeforeExecFilter to inspect the DB command before its executed or to just output the query to the Console you can use:
OrmLiteUtils.PrintSql();
You shouldn't be using OrderBy with aggregate scalar functions like COUNT which is meaningless and will fail in your case because it needs to included the GROUP BY clause for joined table queries.
Your specifically querying for COUNT(DISTINCT Id) if you wanted the row count for the query you can instead use:
var testCount = Db.RowCount(testQuery);
If you wanted to use COUNT(*) instead, you can use:
var testCount = Db.Count(testQuery);
I searched a lot about sorting elements by sum of votes (in another model), like I do in SQL here :
SELECT item.* FROM item
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT
vote.item,
SUM(vote.value) AS vote.rating
FROM vote
GROUP BY vote.item
) AS res ON item.id = vote.item
ORDER BY res.rating DESC
Is there a way to do it via waterline methods ?
I think you can't do the left join with simple waterline methods, but you can use the .query method to execute your raw SQL syntax.
Sails MySQL adapter makes sum('field') conflict with sort('field'). It will generate SQL query like:
SELECT SUM(table.field) AS field FROM table ORDER BY table.field;
But I want:
SELECT SUM(table.field) AS field FROM table ORDER BY field;
It same as:
SELECT SUM(table.field) AS f FROM table ORDER BY f;
My solution is using lodash.sortBy() to process results. https://lodash.com/docs/4.16.4#sortBy
I've a problem with LINQ. Basically a third party database that I need to connect to is using the now depreciated text field (I can't change this) and I need to execute a distinct clause in my linq on results that contain this field.
I don't want to do a ToList() before executing the Distinct() as that will result in thousands of records coming back from the database that I don't require and will annoy the client as they get charged for bandwidth usage. I only need the first 15 distinct records.
Anyway query is below:
var query = (from s in db.tSearches
join sc in db.tSearchIndexes on s.GUID equals sc.CPSGUID
join a in db.tAttributes on sc.AttributeGUID equals a.GUID
where s.Notes != null && a.Attribute == "Featured"
select new FeaturedVacancy
{
Id = s.GUID,
DateOpened = s.DateOpened,
Notes = s.Notes
});
return query.Distinct().OrderByDescending(x => x.DateOpened);
I know I can do a subquery to do the same thing as above (tSearches contains unique records) but I'd rather a more straightfoward solution if available as I need to change a number of similar queries throughout the code to get this working.
No answers on how to do this so I went with my first suggestion and retrieved the unique records first from tSearch then constructed a subquery with the non unique records and filtered the search results by this subquery. Answer below:
var query = (from s in db.tSearches
where s.DateClosed == null && s.ConfidentialNotes != null
orderby s.DateOpened descending
select new FeaturedVacancy
{
Id = s.GUID,
Notes = s.ConfidentialNotes
});
/* Now filter by our 'Featured' attribute */
var subQuery = from sc in db.tSearchIndexes
join a in db.tAttributes on sc.AttributeGUID equals a.GUID
where a.Attribute == "Featured"
select sc.CPSGUID;
query = query.Where(x => subQuery.Contains(x.Id));
return query;
I want to perform a simple join on two tables (BusinessUnit and UserBusinessUnit), so I can get a list of all BusinessUnits allocated to a given user.
The first attempt works, but there's no override of Select which allows me to restrict the columns returned (I get all columns from both tables):
var db = new KensDB();
SqlQuery query = db.Select
.From<BusinessUnit>()
.InnerJoin<UserBusinessUnit>( BusinessUnitTable.IdColumn, UserBusinessUnitTable.BusinessUnitIdColumn )
.Where( BusinessUnitTable.RecordStatusColumn ).IsEqualTo( 1 )
.And( UserBusinessUnitTable.UserIdColumn ).IsEqualTo( userId );
The second attept allows the column name restriction, but the generated sql contains pluralised table names (?)
SqlQuery query = new Select( new string[] { BusinessUnitTable.IdColumn, BusinessUnitTable.NameColumn } )
.From<BusinessUnit>()
.InnerJoin<UserBusinessUnit>( BusinessUnitTable.IdColumn, UserBusinessUnitTable.BusinessUnitIdColumn )
.Where( BusinessUnitTable.RecordStatusColumn ).IsEqualTo( 1 )
.And( UserBusinessUnitTable.UserIdColumn ).IsEqualTo( userId );
Produces...
SELECT [BusinessUnits].[Id], [BusinessUnits].[Name]
FROM [BusinessUnits]
INNER JOIN [UserBusinessUnits]
ON [BusinessUnits].[Id] = [UserBusinessUnits].[BusinessUnitId]
WHERE [BusinessUnits].[RecordStatus] = #0
AND [UserBusinessUnits].[UserId] = #1
So, two questions:
- How do I restrict the columns returned in method 1?
- Why does method 2 pluralise the column names in the generated SQL (and can I get round this?)
I'm using 3.0.0.3...
So far my experience with 3.0.0.3 suggests that this is not possible yet with the query tool, although it is with version 2.
I think the preferred method (so far) with version 3 is to use a linq query with something like:
var busUnits = from b in BusinessUnit.All()
join u in UserBusinessUnit.All() on b.Id equals u.BusinessUnitId
select b;
I ran into the pluralized table names myself, but it was because I'd only re-run one template after making schema changes.
Once I re-ran all the templates, the plural table names went away.
Try re-running all 4 templates and see if that solves it for you.