I need to build (and run) a query based on different of conditions. When I was building a literal SQL to run, this would mean concatenating strings to build the SQL dynamically.
How would I do it with SubSonic? If for example I need to add a WHERE clause in some case and an ORDER BY in other cases. How would the code to build and run this query look?
Here's an example with v2.1+ and BaseClass set to RepositoryRecord:
var q = DB.Select().From<Product>();
if (someCondition)
q.Where(Product.ProductIdColumn).IsEqualTo(1);
if (order == "ASC")
q.OrderAsc(Product.Columns.ProductId)
else
q.OrderDesc(Product.Columns.ProductId)
var results = q.ExecuteAsCollection<ProductCollection>();
Related
So, the criteria are already quite powerful. Yet I came across a case I seem to not be able to replicate on the criteria object.
I needed to filter out all entries that were not timely relevant.
In a world, where you'd be able to mix SQL with the field definition, it would look like this:
...->addFilter(
new RangeFilter('DATEDIFF(NOW(), INTERVAL createdAt DAY)', [RangeFilter::LTE => 1])
)
Unfortunately that doesn't work in our world.
When i pass the criteria to a searchfunction, i only get:
"DATEDIFF(NOW(), INTERVAL createdAt DAY)" is not a field on xyz
I tried to do it with ->addExtensions and several other experiments, but i couldn't get it to work. I resorted to using the queryBuilder from Doctrine, using queryParts, but the data i'm getting is not very clean and not assigned to an ORMEntity like it should be.
Is it possible to write a criteria that incooperates native SQL filtering?
The DAL is designed in a way that should explicitly not accept SQL statements as it is a core concept of the abstraction. As the DAL offers extendibility for third party extensions it should be preferred to raw SQL in most cases. I would suggest writing a lightweight query that only fetches the IDs using your SQL query and then use these pre-filtered IDs to fetch complete data sets using the DAL.
$ids = (new QueryBuilder($connection))
->select(['LOWER(HEX(id))'])
->from('product')
->where('...')
->execute()
->fetchFirstColumn();
$criteria = new Criteria($ids);
This should offer the best of both worlds, the freedom of using raw SQL and the extendibility features of the DAL.
In your specific case you could also just take the current day, remove the amount of days that should have passed and use this threshold date to compare it to the creation date:
$now = new \DateTimeImmutable();
$dateInterval = new \DateInterval('P1D');
$thresholdDate = $now->sub($dateInterval);
// filter to get all with a creation date greater than now -1 day
$filter = new RangeFilter(
'createdAt',
[RangeFilter::GTE => $thresholdDate->format(Defaults::STORAGE_DATE_TIME_FORMAT)]
);
How do I get this to work?
$stuff = ORM::factory('mytable')
->with('user')
->with('other_stuff')
->find_all();
I've got all of my relationships set up and everything seems to be working when I do other queries. However, in the query above it is not joining table users to mytable. I think it may be because there can be many users for one mytable.
In the reference there is a method called join() which I think I might need to use here, but they don't give any information on it, and the stuff I've searched for on here does not work.
When I try to use join instead of with, it tries to join the table, but it doesn't include any "join on" information, just gives an empty ().
I know my ORM DB relationships are all set up correctly, so I'm a bit baffled.
Kohana has decent documentation, not looking in the right place is ... well, your problem.
ORM::with() is used for loading one-to-one (belongs to and has one) relations, though you have all the Database_Query_Builder methods to use with ORM on your disposal:
$stuff = ORM::factory('mytable')
->join('users','LEFT')
->on('users.mytable_id','=','mytables.id')
->find_all();
SELECT * from table1
LEFT JOIN table2
ON table1.id = table2.id
AND table2.flag = 'Y'
AND table2.siteid = '12'
WHERE table1.siteid = '12'
How the above query is written in ORM format of kohana? Is the below one is correct
$stuff = ORM::factory('table1')
->join('table2','LEFT')
->on('table1.id','=','table2.id')
->on('table2.flag','=','Y')
->on('table2.siteid', '=', '12')
->where('table1.id', '=', '12')
->find_all();
I have override a node.tpl and need some results from db using a query generated by views.
Here is the code which i used:
<?php $res = db_query("SELECT node.nid AS nid, node.title AS node_title FROM node node LEFT JOIN content_field_is_popular node_data_field_is_popular ON node.vid
= node_data_field_is_popular.vid WHERE (node.type in ('article_thisweekend')) AND (UPPER(node_data_field_is_popular.field_is_popular_value)
= UPPER('yes'));");
foreach($res as $reco){
print ($reco->nid);
}
?>
But I am not getting any results.
What I am missing?
Thanks
Matt V. has good advice in that you should try to separate the view templates from the sql query logic.
For this specific example though, you need to use db_fetch_object since $res just contains the
database query result resource
Instead of
foreach($res as $reco){
print ($reco->nid);
}
Do
while ($reco = db_fetch_object($res)){
print ($reco->nid);
}
It's generally best to avoid putting queries directly in your template files. It's best to separate logic and presentation.
Instead, use a module to generate the content you need and pass that along to the theme layer. In this case, if you're already using the Views module to generate the query, let Views run it for you and pass off the data to a page or block display.
Otherwise, to debug the query, try running the query independent of the code, through something like phpMyAdmin or "drush sqlq".
Does anyone know the proper way to query azure table storage for a null value. From what I've read, it's possible (although there is a bug which prevents it on development storage). However, I keep getting the following error when I do so on the live cloud storage:
One of the request inputs is not valid.
This is a dumbed down version of the LINQ query that I've put together.
var query = from fooBar in fooBarSVC.CreateQuery<FooBar>("FooBars")
where fooBar.PartitionKey == kPartitionID
&& fooBar.Code == kfooBarCode
&& fooBar.Effective_Date <= kFooBarDate.ToUniversalTime()
&& (fooBar.Termination_Date > kFooBarDate.ToUniversalTime() || fooBar.Termination_Date == null)
select fooBar;
If I run the query without checking for null, it works fine. I know a possible solution would be to run a second query on the collection that this query brings back. I don't mind doing that if I need to, but would like to know if I can get this approach to work first.
Anyone see anything obvious I'm doing wrong?
The problem is that because azure table storage does not have a schema, the null column actually doesn't exist. This is why your query is not valid. there is no such thing as a null column in table storage. You could do something like store an empty string if you really have to. Really though the fundamental issue here is that Azure table storage really is not built to be queried by any columns other than partition key and row key. Every time you make a query on one of these non-standard columns you are doing a table scan. If you start to get lots of data you are going to have a very high rate of query time outs. I would suggest setting up a manual index for these types of queries. For example, you could store the same data in the same table but with different values for the Row key. Ultimately, if your are app is not getting crazy high usage I would just use SQL Azure as it will be much more flexible for the types of queries you are doing.
Update: Azure has a great guide on table storage design that I would recommend reading. http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/storage-table-design-guide/
I just had this problem and found a nice little ninja-trick to actually test for nulls. Although I'm using the Azure Storage interface directly, I'm 90% sure it will work for LINQ too if you do the same.
Here's what I did to check if Price (Int32?) is null:
not (Price lt 0 or Price gt 0)
I'm guessing in your case you can do the same in LINQ by testing if fooBar.Termination_Date is less or greater than DateTime.UtcNow for example. Something like this:
where fooBar.PartitionKey == kPartitionID
&& fooBar.Code == kfooBarCode
&& fooBar.Effective_Date <= kFooBarDate.ToUniversalTime()
&& (fooBar.Termination_Date > kFooBarDate.ToUniversalTime()
|| (not (fooBar.Termination_Date < DateTime.UtcNow
or fooBar.Termination_Date > DateTime.UtcNow))
select fooBar;
For a string column called MyColumn I was able to type: not(MyColumn gt '')
Mike S answer above put me on the right path.
For strings, we can compare to empty string.
IsNotBlank(value)
Can be:
(Value gt '')
Using the Azure Tables client library for .NET. to query for null Guid values.
In the sample code, the property's name is MyColumn.
var filter = Azure.Data.Tables.TableClient
.CreateQueryFilter($"not(MyColumn gt {Guid.Empty})");
The TableClient.CreateQueryFilter method will create the filter:
not(MyColumn gt guid'00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000')
I have a query where I need to do a "Where" clause for two different columns in two different tables but subsonic creates the same parametrized parameter name for both which is causing an issue. How can I fix this?
string _RawSql = new Select()
.From(Tables.Table1)
.InnerJoin(Tables.Table2)
.InnerJoin(Table3.SidColumn, Table2.Table3SidColumn)
.Where(Table1.SidColumn).IsEqualTo(2)
.And(Table3.SidColumn).IsEqualTo(1)
.BuildSqlStatement();
The query this is creating is
SELECT ....
FROM [dbo].[Table1]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[Table2] ON [dbo].[Table1].[Table2Sid] = [dbo].[Table2].[Sid]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[Table3] ON [dbo].[Table2].[Table3Sid] = [dbo].[Table3].[Sid]
WHERE [dbo].[Table1].[Sid] = #Sid
AND [dbo].[Table3].[Sid] = #Sid
Note that in the last two lines its using #Sid for both Table1 and Table3. How go I do it so it uses #Sid0 and #Sid1?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Thanks for the response, I really appreciate it. I am using 2.1
I am already using TableColumn. Below is the c# subsonic code...
.Where(Table1.SidColumn).IsEqualTo(2)
.And(Table3.SidColumn).IsEqualTo(1)
which creates the following sql when viewed in sql profiler
WHERE [dbo].[Table1].[Sid] = #Sid
AND [dbo].[Table3].[Sid] = #Sid
Could you please show me how can I replace these lines with the way you are suggesting? I would really rather not use literal "Table2.Sid = 2"
ranmore, the issue is same with variables or with constants.
I have even tried
.Where("Table1.Sid").IsEqualTo(2)
.And("Table3.Sid").IsEqualTo(1)
This creates the query as
WHERE Table1.Sid = #Table1.Sid0
AND Table3.Sid = #Table3.Sid1
I finally get different parametrized vars in this case but now SQL Server complains because it does not like . in the parametrized var names.
I have no clue how to perform a join with 2 where clauses for 2 different tables!
What version are you using? In 2.2 You can use the TableColumn object to get around this (it may be the same for 2.1 as well. So instead of using the struct, as you're doing, you can use the object (Table2.SidColumn).
If push comes to shove - you can override everything with a string - so in your case you could use "Table1.Sid" and "Table2.Sid" right in the Where() method.
I haven't been able to confirm this, but perhaps the problem only happens with literals? (not sure if your sample code is like that for brevity's sake)
int table1SidColumnValue = 2;
int table3SidColumnValue = 1;
.Where(Table1.SidColumn).IsEqualTo(table1SidColumnValue)
.And(Table3.SidColumn).IsEqualTo(table2SidColumnValue)
I remember seeing a problem with this when using multiple .In() clauses with literal values, not sure if that applies to your problem though.
I'm not sure what version of the code I have but your query produces numbered parameters for me.
If you look at Line 255 of ANSISqlGenerator.cs
https://github.com/subsonic/SubSonic-2.0/blob/master/SubSonic/SqlQuery/SqlGenerators/ANSISqlGenerator.cs
c.ParameterName = String.Concat(col.ParameterName, query.Constraints.IndexOf(c));
The where parameters really should have numbers appended to them... maybe pull the latest version?