I have a complex query stored in an SQL file and I would like to reuse it for various routes but change up the WHERE clause depending on the route. This would be instead of having a large complex query in multiple files with the only difference being the WHERE statement.
Is it possible to dynamically add a WHERE when using QueryFile? Simplified example below:
SELECT "id", "userId", "locationId", "title", "body",
(
SELECT row_to_json(sqUser)
FROM (
SELECT "id", "firstname", "lastname"
FROM "users"
WHERE "users"."id" = "todos"."userId"
) sqUser
) as "user"
FROM "todos"
const queryIndex = new pgp.QueryFile('sql/todos/index.pgsql', queryOptions);
// 1. Use as is to get a list of all todos
// 2. OR Append WHERE "locationId" = $1 to get list filtered by location
// 3. OR Append WHERE "id" = $1 to get a specific item
// without having three separate SQL files?
It seems like (maybe?) you could get away with adding the below in the query file but that still feels limiting (would still need two files for = and LIKE and it still limits to only one WHERE condition). It also also feels weird to do something like WHERE 1 = 1 to get all records to return.
WHERE $1 = $2
I would be interested in hearing peoples' thoughts on this or if there is a better approach.
You can inject dynamic condition into a query-file as Raw Text:
SELECT "id", "userId", "locationId", "title", "body",
(
SELECT row_to_json(sqUser)
FROM (
SELECT "id", "firstname", "lastname"
FROM "users"
${condition:raw}
) sqUser
) as "user"
FROM "todos"
Pre-formatted parameters, based on the condition:
// Generate a condition, based on the business logic:
const condition = pgp.as.format('WHERE col_1 = $1 AND col_2 = $2', [111, 222]);
Executing your query-file:
await db.any(myQueryFile, {condition});
Advanced
Above is for the scenario when your have a simple dynamic condition that you want to generate in the code. But sometimes you may have complex static conditions that you want to alternate. In this case, you can have your master query file refer to the condition from a slave query file (nested query files are supported right out of the box). And in this case you do not even need to use :raw filter, because query files are injected as raw text by default:
Master query:
SELECT * FROM table ${condition}
Load your slave query files with complex conditions (when the app starts):
const conditionQueryFile1 = new QueryFile(...);
const conditionQueryFile2 = new QueryFile(...);
Selecting the right slave query, based on the business logic:
const condition = conditionQueryFile1; // some business logic here;
Executing master query with a slave as parameter:
await db.any(myQueryFile, {condition});
Related
I have two kind of record mention below in my table staudentdetail of cosmosDb.In below example previousSchooldetail is nullable filed and it can be present for student or not.
sample record below :-
{
"empid": "1234",
"empname": "ram",
"schoolname": "high school ,bankur",
"class": "10",
"previousSchooldetail": {
"prevSchoolName": "1763440",
"YearLeft": "2001"
} --(Nullable)
}
{
"empid": "12345",
"empname": "shyam",
"schoolname": "high school",
"class": "10"
}
I am trying to access the above record from azure databricks using pyspark or scala code .But when we are building the dataframe reading it from cosmos db it does not bring previousSchooldetail detail in the data frame.But when we change the query including id for which the previousSchooldetail show in the data frame .
Case 1:-
val Query = "SELECT * FROM c "
Result when query fired directly
empid
empname
schoolname
class
Case2:-
val Query = "SELECT * FROM c where c.empid=1234"
Result when query fired with where clause.
empid
empname
school name
class
previousSchooldetail
prevSchoolName
YearLeft
Could you please tell me why i am not able to get previousSchooldetail in case 1 and how should i proceed.
As #Jayendran, mentioned in the comments, the first query will give you the previouschooldetail document wherever they are available. Else, the column would not be present.
You can have this column present for all the scenarios by using the IS_DEFINED function. Try tweaking your query as below:
SELECT c.empid,
c.empname,
IS_DEFINED(c.previousSchooldetail) ? c.previousSchooldetail : null
as previousSchooldetail,
c.schoolname,
c.class
FROM c
If you are looking to get the result as a flat structure, it can be tricky and would need to use two separate queries such as:
Query 1
SELECT c.empid,
c.empname,
c.schoolname,
c.class,
p.prevSchoolName,
p.YearLeft
FROM c JOIN c.previousSchooldetail p
Query 2
SELECT c.empid,
c.empname,
c.schoolname,
c.class,
null as prevSchoolName,
null as YearLeft
FROM c
WHERE not IS_DEFINED (c.previousSchooldetail) or
c.previousSchooldetail = null
Unfortunately, Cosmos DB does not support LEFT JOIN or UNION. Hence, I'm not sure if you can achieve this in a single query.
Alternatively, you can create a stored procedure to return the desired result.
I have a query (Update statement) wrapped in a function and will need to perform the same statement on multiple columns during the course of my script
async function update_percentage_value(value, id){
(async () => {
const client = await pool.connect();
try {
const res = await client.query('UPDATE fixtures SET column_1_percentage = ($1) WHERE id = ($2) RETURNING *', [value, id]);
} finally {
client.release();
}
})().catch(e => console.log(e.stack))
}
I then call this function
update_percentage_value(50, 2);
I have many columns to update at various points of my script, each one needs to be done at the time. I would like to be able to just call the one function, passing the column name, value and id.
My table looks like below
CREATE TABLE fixtures (
ID SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
home_team VARCHAR,
away_team VARCHAR,
column_1_percentage INTEGER,
column_2_percentage INTEGER,
column_3_percentage INTEGER,
column_4_percentage INTEGER
);
Is it at all possible to do this?
I'm going to post the solution that was advised by Sehrope Sarkuni via the node-postgres GitHub repo. This helped me a lot and works for what I require:
No column names are identifiers and they can't be specified as parameters. They have to be included in the text of the SQL command.
It is possible but you have to build the SQL text with the column names. If you're going to dynamically build SQL you should make sure to escape the components using something like pg-format or use an ORM that handles this type of thing.
So something like:
const format = require('pg-format');
async function updateFixtures(id, column, value) {
const sql = format('UPDATE fixtures SET %I = $1 WHERE id = $2', column);
await pool.query(sql, [value, id]);
}
Also if you're doing multiple updates to the same row back-to-back then you're likely better off with a single UPDATE statement that modifies all the columns rather than separate statements as they'd be both slower and generate more WAL on the server.
To get the column names of the table, you can query the information_schema.columns table which stores the details of column structure of your table, this would help you in framing a dynamic query for updating a specific column based on a specific result.
You can get the column names of the table with the help of following query:
select column_name from information_schema.columns where table_name='fixtures' and table_schema='public';
The above query would give you the list of columns in the table.
Now to update each one for a specific purpose, You can store the result set of column name to a variable and pass that variable to the function to perform the required action.
I am trying to query my cassandra database to return data from a list of names held on an array server side. This is held as an array.
I know the data I am accessing is stored as a string in my database and so I have appended single quotes around it (I have tried with and without this but no luck).
Here is my query.
const arr = ["ukcust1","ukcust2","ukcust5"];
//Here I append single quotes before and after to each string if needed
const query = "SELECT * FROM table_name WHERE name = ?";
client.execute(query, arr, { prepare:true }, function (err, result) {
..//Code
};
What am I missing here? I want the query to be:
SELECT * FROM table_name WHERE name = each of the names in the array 'arr';
If name were a clustering key, then you could query with "in" and "allow filtering" like this:
select * from table_name where name in ('ukcust1','ukcust2','ukcust3') allow filtering
Assuming name is not a clustering key, you could use a clustering key (e.g., date_of_birth) if it made logical sense -- that is, if filtering by date made sense in relation to the name -- like this:
select * from table_name where date_of_birth in (1969, 1972) name in ('ukcust1','ukcust2','ukcust3') allow filtering
If you can't do either of those things, you will need to loop through the array with Javascript (e.g., foreach).
The correct input of the query parameters is an array of values. In this case, it would be an array of parameters containing a single item, that is an array of names.
const arr = ["ukcust1","ukcust2","ukcust5"];
const query = "SELECT * FROM table_name WHERE name = ?";
// Note the array containing a single item
const parameters = [ arr ];
client.execute(query, parameters, { prepare: true }, callback);
See more info in the documentation: https://docs.datastax.com/en/developer/nodejs-driver/3.5/faq/#how-can-i-use-a-list-of-values-with-the-in-operator-in-a-where-clause
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.