Ok
i have this class in my model :
i want to get the agencys value which is a many to many on this class and store them in a list or array . Agency which store agency_id with the id of my class on a seprate table.
Agency has it's own tabel as well
class GPSpecial(BaseModel):
hotel = models.ForeignKey('Hotel')
rooms = models.ManyToManyField('Room')
agencys = models.ManyToManyField('Agency')
You can make it a bit more compact by using the flat=True parameter:
agencys_spe = list(GPSpecial.objects.values_list('agencys', flat=True))
The list(..) part is not necessary: without it, you have a QuerySet that contains the ids, and the query is postponed. By using list(..) we force the data into a list (and the query is executed).
It is possible that multiple GPSpecial objects have a common Agency, in that case it will be repeated. We can use the .distinct() function to prevent that:
agencys_spe = list(GPSpecial.objects.values_list('agencys', flat=True).distinct())
If you are however interested in the Agency objects, for example of GPSpecials that satisfy a certain predicate, you better query the Agency objects directly, like for example:
agencies = Agency.objects.filter(gpspecial__is_active=True).distinct()
will produce all Agency objects for which a GPSpecial object exists where is_active is set to True.
I think i found the answer to my question:
agencys_sp = GPSpecial.objects.filter(agencys=32,is_active=True).values_list('agencys')
agencys_spe = [i[0] for i in agencys_sp]
Related
class Country(Models.Model):
code = models.CharField(max_length=50)
name = models.CharField(max_length=500)
class Meta:
unique_together = (('code', 'name'),)
db_table = 'md_country'
class UserSettings(models.Model):
...
default_countries = models.ManyToManyField(Country, db_table='user_default_countries', related_name='default_countries')
I have two models inside django models, what im trying is when i add Country models to default_countries i want to preserve order. Currently when i append manytomany field django automatically sort by Country name (alphabetical order)
I have this code
# iterate one by one to preserve fetching order
country_models = [Country.objects.get(id=_id) for _id in request.data[default_countries]]
user_settings.default_countries.clear()
for c in country_models:
user_settings.default_countries.add(c)
After this when i inspect user_settings.default_countries i have ordered countries by name in alphabetical order.
I want to preserve when adding element. If i want to add France and Australia and i order the list like that i on the end when i pull data from db i want it to be ordered like that. Now on this example i have Australia then France.
EDIT:
I checked the database and when inserting the data, it insert in right order
For example if i want France(73) then Australia(13), France has smaller id so its inserted first. There is a problem with django when pulling the data from database.
So as I understand correct you want to sort by insert order:
someSetting = UserSettings.objects.first()
countries = someSetting.default_countries.order_by('id')
I found the workaround.
Firstly i defined new property inside model where default_countries is.
#property
def ordered_default_countries(self):
return self.default_countries.all().order_by('-id')
Then in serializer where i serialize this field i just pointed default_countries field to ordered_default_countries.
I have query that returns the following queryset:
results = <QuerySet [<Product: ItemA>, <Product: ItemA>, <Product: ItemB>, <Product: ItemB>, <Product: ItemB>, <Product: ItemC>, <Product: ItemC>]>
The __str__ representation of the model is name and each Product variation likely has a different value for the price field. After this query, I need to search my database for each Product in the queryset and return the lowest price for each unique name so like:
Lowest price for all in database where name is == to ItemA
Lowest price for all in database where name is == to ItemB
Lowest price for all in database where name is == to ItemC
I use the following block of code to accomplish this goal:
query_list = []
for each in results:
if each.name not in query_list: #Checks if the name of the object is not in in the query list
query_list.append(each.name) #Adds just the name of the objects so there is just one of each name in query_list
for each in query_list:
priced = results.filter(name=each).order_by('price').first() #Lowest price for each name in query_list
This feel very inefficient. Is there a way to make a similar computation without having to append the unique name of each Product to a separate list, and iterating over that list, and then making a query for each one? I feel like there is a way to use a type of complex lookup to accomplish my goals, maybe event use less Python, and make the db do more of the work, but the above is the best I've been able to figure out so far. There can be a lot of different hits in results so I need this block to be as efficient as possible
It is easy after reading docs Generating aggregates for each item in a QuerySet and also "Interaction with default ordering or order_by()".
from django.db.models import Min
prices = {x['name']: x['lowest_price']
for x in results.values('name').annotate(lowest_price=Min('price').order_by()}
for product in results:
if product.name in prices and product.price == prices[product.name]:
priced = row # output the row
del prices[product.name]
That runs by two database queries.
An even more efficient solution with one query is probably possible with Window function, but it requires an advanced database backend and it can't work e.g. in tests with sqlite3.
I seem to be stuck on a classic ORM issue and don't know really how to handle it, so at this point any help is welcome.
Is there a way to get the pivot table on a hasManyThrough query? Better yet, apply some filter or sort to it. A typical example
Table products
id,title
Table categories
id,title
table products_categories
productsId, categoriesId, orderBy, main
So, in the above scenario, say you want to get all categories of product X that are (main = true) or you want to sort the the product categories by orderBy.
What happens now is a first SELECT on products to get the product data, a second SELECT on products_categories to get the categoriesId and a final SELECT on categories to get the actual categories. Ideally, filters and sort should be applied to the 2nd SELECT like
SELECT `id`,`productsId`,`categoriesId`,`orderBy`,`main` FROM `products_categories` WHERE `productsId` IN (180) WHERE main = 1 ORDER BY `orderBy` DESC
Another typical example would be wanting to order the product images based on the order the user wants them to
so you would have a products_images table
id,image,productsID,orderBy
and you would want to
SELECT from products_images WHERE productsId In (180) ORDER BY orderBy ASC
Is that even possible?
EDIT : Here is the relationship needed for an intermediate table to get what I need based on my schema.
Products.hasMany(Images,
{
as: "Images",
"foreignKey": "productsId",
"through": ProductsImagesItems,
scope: function (inst, filter) {
return {active: 1};
}
});
Thing is the scope function is giving me access to the final result and not to the intermediate table.
I am not sure to fully understand your problem(s), but for sure you need to move away from the table concept and express your problem in terms of Models and Relations.
The way I see it, you have two models Product(properties: title) and Category (properties: main).
Then, you can have relations between the two, potentially
Product belongsTo Category
Category hasMany Product
This means a product will belong to a single category, while a category may contain many products. There are other relations available
Then, using the generated REST API, you can filter GET requests to get items in function of their properties (like main in your case), or use custom GET requests (automatically generated when you add relations) to get for instance all products belonging to a specific category.
Does this helps ?
Based on what you have here I'd probably recommend using the scope option when defining the relationship. The LoopBack docs show a very similar example of the "product - category" scenario:
Product.hasMany(Category, {
as: 'categories',
scope: function(instance, filter) {
return { type: instance.type };
}
});
In the example above, instance is a category that is being matched, and each product would have a new categories property that would contain the matching Category entities for that Product. Note that this does not follow your exact data scheme, so you may need to play around with it. Also, I think your API query would have to specify that you want the categories related data loaded (those are not included by default):
/api/Products/13?filter{"include":["categories"]}
I suggest you define a custom / remote method in Product.js that does the work for you.
Product.getCategories(_productId){
// if you are taking product title as param instead of _productId,
// you will first need to find product ID
// then execute a find query on products_categories with
// 1. where filter to get only main categoris and productId = _productId
// 2. include filter to include product and category objects
// 3. orderBy filter to sort items based on orderBy column
// now you will get an array of products_categories.
// Each item / object in the array will have nested objects of Product and Category.
}
Say I have a stored procedure that returns dataSet from 2 different tables. Example:
SELECT Customers.FirstName, Customers.LastName, SUM(Sales.SaleAmount) AS SalesPerCustomer
FROM Customers LEFT JOIN Sales
ON Customers.CustomerID = Sales.CustomerID
GROUP BY Customers.FirstName, Customers.LastName
Is there any way to get a strongly typed list as a result from this stored procedure ? Something like this:
StoredProcedure sp = myDevDB.GetCustomerSales();
List<MyCustomType> resultSet = sp.ExecuteTypedList<MyCustomType>();
How and where do I define the MyCustomType class ? How do I map its properties to the actual table columns ?
thanks,mehul
I solved it by creating a class (in the same place as all my other classes, but I didn't extend IActiveRecord, it's just a vanilla class).
Make sure the property names have exactly the same name and data type as the ones in the procedure, then call db.sproc(params).ExecuteTypedList().AsQueryable(); and it populated fine.
[UPDATE] Chosen approach is below, as a response to this question
Hi,
I' ve been looking around in this subject but I can't really find what I'm looking for...
With Code tables I mean: stuff like 'maritial status', gender, specific legal or social states... More specifically, these types have only set properties and the items are not about to change soon (but could). Properties being an Id, a name and a description.
I'm wondering how to handle these best in the following technologies:
in the database (multiple tables, one table with different code-keys...?)
creating the classes (probably something like inheriting ICode with ICode.Name and ICode.Description)
creating the view/presenter for this: there should be a screen containing all of them, so a list of the types (gender, maritial status ...), and then a list of values for that type with a name & description for each item in the value-list.
These are things that appear in every single project, so there must be some best practice on how to handle these...
For the record, I'm not really fond of using enums for these situations... Any arguments on using them here are welcome too.
[FOLLOW UP]
Ok, I've gotten a nice answer by CodeToGlory and Ahsteele. Let's refine this question.
Say we're not talking about gender or maritial status, wich values will definately not change, but about "stuff" that have a Name and a Description, but nothing more. For example: Social statuses, Legal statuses.
UI:
I want only one screen for this. Listbox with possibe NameAndDescription Types (I'll just call them that), listbox with possible values for the selected NameAndDescription Type, and then a Name and Description field for the selected NameAndDescription Type Item.
How could this be handled in View & Presenters? I find the difficulty here that the NameAndDescription Types would then need to be extracted from the Class Name?
DB:
What are pro/cons for multiple vs single lookup tables?
Using database driven code tables can very useful. You can do things like define the life of the data (using begin and end dates), add data to the table in real time so you don't have to deploy code, and you can allow users (with the right privileges of course) add data through admin screens.
I would recommend always using an autonumber primary key rather than the code or description. This allows for you to use multiple codes (of the same name but different descriptions) over different periods of time. Plus most DBAs (in my experience) rather use the autonumber over text based primary keys.
I would use a single table per coded list. You can put multiple codes all into one table that don't relate (using a matrix of sorts) but that gets messy and I have only found a couple situations where it was even useful.
Couple of things here:
Use Enumerations that are explicitly clear and will not change. For example, MaritalStatus, Gender etc.
Use lookup tables for items that are not fixed as above and may change, increase/decrease over time.
It is very typical to have lookup tables in the database. Define a key/value object in your business tier that can work with your view/presentation.
I have decided to go with this approach:
CodeKeyManager mgr = new CodeKeyManager();
CodeKey maritalStatuses = mgr.ReadByCodeName(Code.MaritalStatus);
Where:
CodeKeyManager can retrieve CodeKeys from DB (CodeKey=MaritalStatus)
Code is a class filled with constants, returning strings so Code.MaritalStatus = "maritalStatus". These constants map to to the CodeKey table > CodeKeyName
In the database, I have 2 tables:
CodeKey with Id, CodeKeyName
CodeValue with CodeKeyId, ValueName, ValueDescription
DB:
alt text http://lh3.ggpht.com/_cNmigBr3EkA/SeZnmHcgHZI/AAAAAAAAAFU/2OTzmtMNqFw/codetables_1.JPG
Class Code:
public class Code
{
public const string Gender = "gender";
public const string MaritalStatus = "maritalStatus";
}
Class CodeKey:
public class CodeKey
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string CodeName { get; set; }
public IList<CodeValue> CodeValues { get; set; }
}
Class CodeValue:
public class CodeValue
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public CodeKey Code { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
I find by far the easiest and most efficent way:
All code-data can be displayed in a identical manner (in the same view/presenter)
I don't need to create tables and classes for every code table that's to come
But I can still get them out of the database easily and use them easily with the CodeKey constants...
NHibernate can handle this easily too
The only thing I'm still considering is throwing out the GUID Id's and using string (nchar) codes for usability in the business logic.
Thanks for the answers! If there are any remarks on this approach, please do!
I lean towards using a table representation for this type of data. Ultimately if you have a need to capture the data you'll have a need to store it. For reporting purposes it is better to have a place you can draw that data from via a key. For normalization purposes I find single purpose lookup tables to be easier than a multi-purpose lookup tables.
That said enumerations work pretty well for things that will not change like gender etc.
Why does everyone want to complicate code tables? Yes there are lots of them, but they are simple, so keep them that way. Just treat them like ever other object. Thy are part of the domain, so model them as part of the domain, nothing special. If you don't when they inevitibly need more attributes or functionality, you will have to undo all your code that currently uses it and rework it.
One table per of course (for referential integrity and so that they are available for reporting).
For the classes, again one per of course because if I write a method to recieve a "Gender" object, I don't want to be able to accidentally pass it a "MarritalStatus"! Let the compile help you weed out runtime error, that's why its there. Each class can simply inherit or contain a CodeTable class or whatever but that's simply an implementation helper.
For the UI, if it does in fact use the inherited CodeTable, I suppose you could use that to help you out and just maintain it in one UI.
As a rule, don't mess up the database model, don't mess up the business model, but it you wnt to screw around a bit in the UI model, that's not so bad.
I'd like to consider simplifying this approach even more. Instead of 3 tables defining codes (Code, CodeKey and CodeValue) how about just one table which contains both the code types and the code values? After all the code types are just another list of codes.
Perhaps a table definition like this:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Code](
[CodeType] [int] NOT NULL,
[Code] [int] NOT NULL,
[CodeDescription] [nvarchar](40) NOT NULL,
[CodeAbreviation] [nvarchar](10) NULL,
[DateEffective] [datetime] NULL,
[DateExpired] [datetime] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Code] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[CodeType] ASC,
[Code] ASC
)
GO
There could be a root record with CodeType=0, Code=0 which represents the type for CodeType. All of the CodeType records will have a CodeType=0 and a Code>=1. Here is some sample data that might help clarify things:
SELECT CodeType, Code, Description FROM Code
Results:
CodeType Code Description
-------- ---- -----------
0 0 Type
0 1 Gender
0 2 Hair Color
1 1 Male
1 2 Female
2 1 Blonde
2 2 Brunette
2 3 Redhead
A check constraint could be added to the Code table to ensure that a valid CodeType is entered into the table:
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Code] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_Code_CodeType]
CHECK (([dbo].[IsValidCodeType]([CodeType])=(1)))
GO
The function IsValidCodeType could be defined like this:
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[IsValidCodeType]
(
#Code INT
)
RETURNS BIT
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #Result BIT
IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.Code WHERE CodeType = 0 AND Code = #Code)
SET #Result = 1
ELSE
SET #Result = 0
RETURN #Result
END
GO
One issue that has been raised is how to ensure that a table with a code column has a proper value for that code type. This too could be enforced by a check constraint using a function.
Here is a Person table which has a gender column. It could be a best practice to name all code columns with the description of the code type (Gender in this example) followed by the word Code:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Person](
[PersonID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[LastName] [nvarchar](40) NULL,
[FirstName] [nvarchar](40) NULL,
[GenderCode] [int] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Person] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([PersonID] ASC)
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Person] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_Person_GenderCode]
CHECK (([dbo].[IsValidCode]('Gender',[Gendercode])=(1)))
GO
IsValidCode could be defined this way:
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[IsValidCode]
(
#CodeTypeDescription NVARCHAR(40),
#Code INT
)
RETURNS BIT
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #CodeType INT
DECLARE #Result BIT
SELECT #CodeType = Code
FROM dbo.Code
WHERE CodeType = 0 AND CodeDescription = #CodeTypeDescription
IF (#CodeType IS NULL)
BEGIN
SET #Result = 0
END
ELSE
BEGiN
IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.Code WHERE CodeType = #CodeType AND Code = #Code)
SET #Result = 1
ELSE
SET #Result = 0
END
RETURN #Result
END
GO
Another function could be created to provide the code description when querying a table that has a code column. Here is an
example of querying the Person table:
SELECT PersonID,
LastName,
FirstName,
GetCodeDescription('Gender',GenderCode) AS Gender
FROM Person
This was all conceived from the perspective of preventing the proliferation of lookup tables in the database and providing one lookup table. I have no idea whether this design would perform well in practice.