I tried to translate SQL "NOT IN" expression to LINQ, and I found that I should use the "Contains" option.
I have 2 tables:
ProductsGroups Products
-------------- ---------
id product_id
product_id product_name
My queries looks like this:
var innerQuery = from pg in Session.Query<ProductsGroups>
select pg.product_id;
var Query = from p in Session.Query<Products>
where !innerQuery.Contains(p.product_id)
select new {p.product_id, p.product_name};
But the sql that nHibernate generates is wrong:
select p.product_id, p.product_name
from Products p
where not (exists (select product_id
from ProductsGroups pg
where p.product_id = pg.id))
The "where" clause is not on the right field, it compares product_id to progucts group id.
Does anybody knows how can I solve it?
The solution that I found for meanwhile is to convert first query to list, and then
use this list in second query:
var innerQuery = (from pg .....).ToList();
Then, the nHibernate translates the "Contains" expression to "NOT IN", as I want:
select p.product_id, p.product_name
from Products p
where not (p.product_id in (1,2,3,4))
I am not sure, but I think you're running into a problem b/c contains determines if an element is in the collection by "using the default equality comparer." (MS documentation) I assume your productgroup mapping specifies it's Id as the Id property. So from nHibernate's perspective that is the value to use to determine equality.
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 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 ?
I'm trying to figure out how to replicate the below query in SQLAlchemy
SELECT c.company_id AS company_id,
(SELECT policy_id FROM associative_table at WHERE at.company_id = c.company_id) AS policy_id_ref,
(SELECT `default` FROM policy p WHERE p.policy_id = policy_id_ref) AS `default`,
FROM company c;
Note that this is a stripped down, basic example of what I'm really dealing with. The actual schema supports data and relationship versioning that requires the subqueries to include additional conditions, sorting, and limiting, making it impractical (if not impossible) for them to be joins.
The crux of the problem is in how the second subquery relies on policy_id_ref -- the value obtained from the first subquery. In SQLAlchemy, this is effectively what I have now:
ct = aliased(classes.company)
at = aliased(classes.associative_table)
pt = aliased(classes.policy)
policy_id_ref = session.query(at.policy_id).\
filter(at.company_id == ct.company_id).\
label('policy_id_ref')
policy_default = session.query(pt.default).\
filter(pt.id == 'policy_id_ref').\
label('default')
query = session.query(ct.company_id,policy_id_ref,policy_default)
The pull from the "company" table works fine as does the first subquery that retrieves the "policy_id_ref" column. The problem is the second subquery that has to reference that "policy_id_ref" column. I don't know how to write its filter in such a way that it literally renders "policy_id_ref" in the resulting query, to match the label of the first subquery.
Suggestions?
Thanks in advance
You can write your query as
select(
Companies.company_id,
AssociativeTable.policy_id.label('policy_id_ref'),
Policy.default.label('policy_default'),
).select_from(
Companies,
).join(
AssociativeTable,
AssociativeTable.company_id == Companies.company_id,
).join(
Policy,
AssociativeTable.policy_id == Policy.id
)
but in case you need reference to label from subquery => use literal_column
from sqlalchemy import func, select, literal_column
session.query(
func.array_agg(
literal_column('batch_info'),
JSONB
).label('history')
).select_from(
select(
func.jsonb_build_object(
'batch_id', AccountingQueueBatch.id,
'batch_label', AccountingQueueBatch.label,
).label('batch_info')
).select_from(
AccountingQueueBatch,
)
)
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 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.