What is the proper way to use PXDATABASE to delete records in a table that specifically contain nulls?
I’ll show the wrong way and the right way to work with NULLs using PXDatabase method.
This is an example of the wrong way.
PXDatabase.Delete<CWPAYINT>(
new PXDataFieldRestrict<CWPAYINT.linePmtAmt>(PXDbType.Decimal, 0),
new PXDataFieldRestrict<CWPAYINT.status>(PXDbType.VarChar, null)
);
This will produce the following SQL script, which is not what we want:
exec sp_executesql N'DELETE FROM CWPAYINT WHERE [linePmtAmt] = #P0 AND [status] = #P1 AND CompanyID = 2',N'#P0 decimal(1,0),#P1 varchar(8000)',#P0=0,#P1=NULL
This is the proper way to address NULLs:
PXDatabase.Delete<CWPAYINT>(
new PXDataFieldRestrict("linePmtAmt", 0),
new PXDataFieldRestrict("status", PXDbType.VarChar, 1, null, PXComp.ISNULL)
);
This is the desired SQL script:
exec sp_executesql N'DELETE FROM CWPAYINT WHERE [linePmtAmt] = #P0 AND [status] IS NULL AND CompanyID = 2',N'#P0 int',#P0=0
Related
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 want to join 2 tables where user.id = photo.userId but the problem here is that the userId on photo table is varchar and that can't change. So I did a queryBuilder to join and the problem is here:
....
.where(user.id = photo.userId)
....
this query throw an error: operator does not exists: uuid = character varying
Is there any way to make this work?
Note: My project is a NestJS API, using TypeORM and Postgresql.
EDIT
I already have the Photo result and use it on a subQuery:
query = query
.where(qb => {
const subQuery = qb.subQuery()
.select('user.id')
.from(User, 'user')
.where('user.id = photo.userId)
.getQuery();
return 'EXISTS' + subQuery;
});
https://www.postgresqltutorial.com/postgresql-cast/
where (user.id::VARCHAR = photo.userId)
Thank you for the help, finally the best solution I found was to create a postgres function as indicated here and then call it in the code like this:
query = query
.where(qb => {
const subQuery = qb.subQuery()
.select('user.id')
.from(User, 'user')
.where('user.id = uuid_or_null(photo.userId)) // here
.getQuery();
return 'EXISTS' + subQuery;
});
First off the conversion of 'I' to "i" (upper to lower) in userId is exactly what would be expected, as identifiers are all lower cased unless double quoted. Avoid that if possible as when used you must double quote every time the identifier is used.
Secondly the type uuid has some strange and unexpected formatting rules. You can compare a string::uuid to a uuid as expected, but uuid::text may not compare to a srting. As uuid::text will format as hhhhhhhh-hhhh-hhhh-hhhh-hhhhhhhhhhhh (where h is a hexdigit). The dashes are often removed if storing as a a string. So reverse the typical order; cast the string as uuid. See the following example:
create table id_uuid (id uuid, col1 text);
create table id_str (id text, col1 text
insert into id_uuid(id, col1) values(gen_random_uuid(),'Id defined as uuid');
insert into id_str (id, col1)
select replace(id::text,'-',''),'Id defined as string'
from id_uuid;
select * from id_uuid;
select * from id_str;
select *
from id_uuid u
join id_str s
on (u.id::text = s.id);
select *
from id_uuid u
join id_str s
on (u.id = s.id::uuid);
Is it possible to use .QueryMultiple (or some other method) in Dapper, and use the results of each former query to be used in the where clause of the next query, without having to do each query individually, get the id, and then .Query again, get the id and so on.
For example,
string sqlString = #"select tableA_id from tableA where tableA_lastname = #lastname;
select tableB_id from tableB WHERE tableB_id = tableA_id";
db.QueryMultiple.(sqlString, new {lastname = "smith"});
Is something like this possible with Dapper or do I need a view or stored procedure to accomplish this? I can use multiple joins for one SQL statement, but in my real query there are 7 joins, and I didn't think I should return 7 objects.
Right now I'm just using object.
You can store every previous query in table parameter and then first perform select from the parameter and query for next, for example:
DECLARE #TableA AS Table(
tableA_id INT
-- ... all other columns you need..
)
INSERT #TableA
SELECT tableA_id
FROM tableA
WHERE tableA_lastname = #lastname
SELECT *
FROM #TableA
SELECT tableB_id
FROM tableB
JOIN tableA ON tableB_id = tableA_id
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.