Well, i have the following function:
employees_birthday = Employees.objects.filter(EmployeeDataNasc__gte=first_day, EmployeeDataNasc__lte=last_day)
It serves to return employees born between the dates. She returns:
<QuerySet [<Employees: Alberto Santos>, <Employees: Josney Arman>]>
But, I would just like to display the number of employees in the QuerySet, i.e. make a Count function.
Can someone help me with the syntax?
If you are going to display the Employees anyway, then it is better to use len(…). This will fetch the Employees in memory, and return the number of Employees:
employees_birthday = Employees.objects.filter(
EmployeeDataNasc__range=(first_day, last_day)
)
number_of_birthdays = len(employee_birthdays)
if you however plan to only render the number of Employees, then you use .count() [Django-doc], since this will prevent fetching the items in memory.
Related
I show a model of sales that can be aggregated by different fields through a form. Products, clients, categories, etc.
view_by_choice = filter_opts.cleaned_data["view_by_choice"]
sales = sales.values(view_by_choice).annotate(........).order_by(......)
In the same form I have a string input where the user can filter the results. By "product code" for example.
input_code = filter_opts.cleaned_data["filter_code"]
sales = sales.filter(prod_code__icontains=input_code)
What I want to do is filter the queryset "sales" by the input_code, defining the field dynamically from the view_by_choice variable.
Something like:
sales = sales.filter(VARIABLE__icontains=input_code)
Is it possible to do this? Thanks in advance.
You can make use of dictionary unpacking [PEP-448] here:
sales = sales.filter(
**{'{}__icontains'.format(view_by_choice): input_code}
)
Given that view_by_choice for example contains 'foo', we thus first make a dictionary { 'foo__icontains': input_code }, and then we unpack that as named parameter with the two consecutive asterisks (**).
That being said, I strongly advice you to do some validation on the view_by_choice: ensure that the number of valid options is limited. Otherwise a user might inject malicious field names, lookups, etc. to exploit data from your database that should remain hidden.
For example if you model has a ForeignKey named owner to the User model, he/she could use owner__email, and thus start trying to find out what emails are in the database by generating a large number of queries and each time looking what values that query returned.
I want to update budget of Category model in Django.
class Category(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
name = models.CharField(max_length=128)
budget = models.DecimalField(default=0.0, decimal_places=2, max_digits=12, help_text="Amount in dollars ($)")
I would have a list of new budget like this which is equal to number of data in Category:
>>> new_category_budget
[Decimal('2700.000'), Decimal('750.000'), Decimal('1500.000')]
I am updating like this:
>>> for budget in new_category_budget:
... Category.objects.filter(user=2).update(budget=budget)
...
3L
3L
3L
But all of these return the same data. What's wrong with my update statement?
What you're doing is iterating over your budget values, and updating all records with user=2 to each one, overriding the previous value.
The return value of QuerySet.update is the number of updated records. Each time you call update(), you get the result that 3 records were updated.
I don't quite understand what you are actually trying to do, but it might be something like this (untested!):
for (budget, category) in zip(new_category_budget, list(Category.objects.filter(user=2)):
category.budget=budget
category.save()
Of course, this assumes that the number of filtered categories will exactly match the number of budgets in new_category_budget, and also the order of iteration over categories is not obvious. All in all, this seems weird :)
When you call update on a QuerySet, it will set all items in the QuerySet to that value. See the example here.
So through your for loop, you are updating all the Category objects with user=2 to each budget. At the end of the for loop, all the Category objects should be have budget == new_category_budget[-1] or the last budget item.
If you want different values for each Category object, you'll need to call save on them individually.
model:
class person(models.Model)
name = models.CharField()
...
If I use
persons = person.objects.order_by('name')[0:25]
in the code, is the slice executed on database level (converting to SELECT * FROM person ORDER BY name LIMIT 25) or on the "code" level?
This is made very clear in the documentation (and the answer is yes is does):
Use a subset of Python’s array-slicing syntax to limit your QuerySet to a certain number of results. This is the equivalent of SQL’s LIMIT and OFFSET clauses.
Yes, slicing gets translated to SQL's LIMIT.
I think it depends on when it's executed.
Django's ORM QuerySets are "lazy", in that they don't actually run until they are iterated over. This lets you do things like this:
persons = person.objects.filter(age__gte=25)
persons = persons.filter(age__lte=50)
persons = persons.exclude(age=30)
persons = persons.order_by('name')
persons = persons[:25]
for person in persons:
print person.name
Which translates to "Get everyone over the age of 25, under the age of 50, excluding anyone who is 30, order by their name, and give me the first 25 records.
Because the QuerySet is lazy, all of that code only creates a single database call, when you actually enter the for loop.
So, yes, technically, order_by translates to a LIMIT, when the ORM enters the loop.
However, what the ORM does behind the scenes is a create a Python list of each record the database returns. So, let's say we continue on after the above:
for person in persons: # SQL command is compiled and run, with a list returned
print person.name
persons = persons[:10] # Django just slices the list we already have in memory.
It may seem trivial, or an edge case, but it's important to understand what's happening behind the scenes.
I have such model and query
class Employer(Models.model)
name = ...
class JobTitle(Models.model)
name = ...
employer = models.ForeignKey(Employer)
and query is
Employer.objects.select_related('jobtitle')
.filter(jtt__activatedate__range=[startdate,enddate])
.annotate(jtt_count=Count('jobtitle'))
.order_by('-jtt_count')[:5]
As you see it returns 5 employer list which has maximum number of jobtitles which are related to that employer and whose activation date is in some certain range.
However, I also want to get the total number of jobtitles of each employer in that query.
Of course I may loop over each employer and make such query JobTitle.objects.filter(employer = emp) and taking length of that query but it is bad solution.
How can I achive this in that query?
Although it may not be possible to get both total number and filtered number of job titles, I may get the jobttiles of each emplyoer such that len(emp.jobtitle) however it also didn't work.
Thanks
Try the extra lookup. So, in your case it may be like this:
.extra(
select={
'jobtitle_count': 'SELECT COUNT(*) FROM YOURAPP_jobtitle WHERE YOURAPP_jobtitle.employer_id = YOURAPP_employer.id'
},
)
Thank to this post I'm able to easily do count and group by queries in a Django view:
Django equivalent for count and group by
What I'm doing in my app is displaying a list of coin types and face values available in my database for a country, so coins from the UK might have a face value of "1 farthing" or "6 pence". The face_value is the 6, the currency_type is the "pence", stored in a related table.
I have the following code in my view that gets me 90% of the way there:
def coins_by_country(request, country_name):
country = Country.objects.get(name=country_name)
coin_values = Collectible.objects.filter(country=country.id, type=1).extra(select={'count': 'count(1)'},
order_by=['-count']).values('count', 'face_value', 'currency_type')
coin_values.query.group_by = ['currency_type_id', 'face_value']
return render_to_response('icollectit/coins_by_country.html', {'coin_values': coin_values, 'country': country } )
The currency_type_id comes across as the number stored in the foreign key field (i.e. 4). What I want to do is retrieve the actual object that it references as part of the query (the Currency model, so I can get the Currency.name field in my template).
What's the best way to do that?
You can't do it with values(). But there's no need to use that - you can just get the actual Collectible objects, and each one will have a currency_type attribute that will be the relevant linked object.
And as justinhamade suggests, using select_related() will help to cut down the number of database queries.
Putting it together, you get:
coin_values = Collectible.objects.filter(country=country.id,
type=1).extra(
select={'count': 'count(1)'},
order_by=['-count']
).select_related()
select_related() got me pretty close, but it wanted me to add every field that I've selected to the group_by clause.
So I tried appending values() after the select_related(). No go. Then I tried various permutations of each in different positions of the query. Close, but not quite.
I ended up "wimping out" and just using raw SQL, since I already knew how to write the SQL query.
def coins_by_country(request, country_name):
country = get_object_or_404(Country, name=country_name)
cursor = connection.cursor()
cursor.execute('SELECT count(*), face_value, collection_currency.name FROM collection_collectible, collection_currency WHERE collection_collectible.currency_type_id = collection_currency.id AND country_id=%s AND type=1 group by face_value, collection_currency.name', [country.id] )
coin_values = cursor.fetchall()
return render_to_response('icollectit/coins_by_country.html', {'coin_values': coin_values, 'country': country } )
If there's a way to phrase that exact query in the Django queryset language I'd be curious to know. I imagine that an SQL join with a count and grouping by two columns isn't super-rare, so I'd be surprised if there wasn't a clean way.
Have you tried select_related() http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/querysets/#id4
I use it a lot it seems to work well then you can go coin_values.currency.name.
Also I dont think you need to do country=country.id in your filter, just country=country but I am not sure what difference that makes other than less typing.