I have a checkbox with multiple values. For example, hobbies. When the user choose some hobbies, he wants to see the person who has all those hobbies.
I dont go into details for sake of clarity so here's how I read all the checked values and put them in my "big" query, which is, as you may guess: q:
hobbies2 = [int(l) for l in g.getlist('hobbies2')]
if len(hobbies2):
q = q & Q(personne__hobbies2__in=hobbies2)
The problem is that it returns all persons who have a hobby in common (i.e. it's like "or", not "and").
How to get all those many to many values with a and?
The __in operator is for filtering by a set. It is not meant for checking multiple values at once in a many-to-many relationship.
It literally translate to the following in SQL:
SELECT ... WHERE hobbies IN (1, 3, 4);
So you'd need to build your query using AND conditions. You can do this with consecutive filters:
queryset = Personne.objects.all()
# build up the queryset with multiple filters
for hobby in hobbies2:
queryset = queryset.filter(hobbies2=hobby)
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'm implementing search functionality with an option of looking for a record by matching multiple tables and multiple fields in these tables.
Say I want to find a Customer by his/her first or last name, or by ID of placed Order which is stored in different model than Customer.
The easy scenario which I already implemented is that a user only types single word into search field, I then use Django Q to query Order model using direct field reference or related_query_name reference like:
result = Order.objects.filter(
Q(customer__first_name__icontains=user_input)
|Q(customer__last_name__icontains=user_input)
|Q(order_id__icontains=user_input)
).distinct()
Piece of a cake, no problems at all.
But what if user wants to narrow the search and types multiple words into search field.
Example: user has typed Bruce and got a whole lot of records back as a result of search.
Now he/she wants to be more specific and adds customer's last name to search.So the search becomes Bruce Wayne, after splitting this into separate parts I'm having Bruce and Wayne. Obviously I don't want to search Orders model because order_id is a single-word instance and it's sufficient to find customer at once so for this case I'm dropping it out of query at all.
Now I'm trying to match customer by both first AND last name, I also want to handle the scenario where the order of provided data is random, to properly handle Bruce Wayne and Wayne Bruce, meaning I still have customers full name but the position of first and last name aren't fixed.
And this is the question I'm looking answer for: how to build query that will search multiple fields of model not knowing which of search words belongs to which table.
I'm guessing the solution is trivial and there's for sure an elegant way to create such a dynamic query, but I can't think of a way how.
You can dynamically OR a variable number of Q objects together to achieve your desired search. The approach below makes it trivial to add or remove fields you want to include in the search.
from functools import reduce
from operator import or_
fields = (
'customer__first_name__icontains',
'customer__last_name__icontains',
'order_id__icontains'
)
parts = []
terms = ["Bruce", "Wayne"] # produce this from your search input field
for term in terms:
for field in fields:
parts.append(Q(**{field: term}))
query = reduce(or_, parts)
result = Order.objects.filter(query).distinct()
The use of reduce combines the Q objects by ORing them together. Credit to that part of the answer goes to this answer.
The solution I came up with is rather complex, but it works exactly the way I wanted to handle this problem:
search_keys = user_input.split()
if len(search_keys) > 1:
first_name_set = set()
last_name_set = set()
for key in search_keys:
first_name_set.add(Q(customer__first_name__icontains=key))
last_name_set.add(Q(customer__last_name__icontains=key))
query = reduce(and_, [reduce(or_, first_name_set), reduce(or_, last_name_set)])
else:
search_fields = [
Q(customer__first_name__icontains=user_input),
Q(customer__last_name__icontains=user_input),
Q(order_id__icontains=user_input),
]
query = reduce(or_, search_fields)
result = Order.objects.filter(query).distinct()
I'm struggling getting my head around the Django's ORM. What I want to do is get a list of distinct values within a field on my table .... the equivalent of one of the following:
SELECT DISTINCT myfieldname FROM mytable
(or alternatively)
SELECT myfieldname FROM mytable GROUP BY myfieldname
I'd at least like to do it the Django way before resorting to raw sql.
For example, with a table:
id, street, city
1, Main Street, Hull
2, Other Street, Hull
3, Bibble Way, Leicester
4, Another Way, Leicester
5, High Street, Londidium
I'd like to get:
Hull, Leicester, Londidium.
Say your model is 'Shop'
class Shop(models.Model):
street = models.CharField(max_length=150)
city = models.CharField(max_length=150)
# some of your models may have explicit ordering
class Meta:
ordering = ('city',)
Since you may have the Meta class ordering attribute set (which is tuple or a list), you can use order_by() without parameters to clear any ordering when using distinct(). See the documentation under order_by()
If you don’t want any ordering to be applied to a query, not even the default ordering, call order_by() with no parameters.
and distinct() in the note where it discusses issues with using distinct() with ordering.
To query your DB, you just have to call:
models.Shop.objects.order_by().values('city').distinct()
It returns a dictionary
or
models.Shop.objects.order_by().values_list('city').distinct()
This one returns a ValuesListQuerySet which you can cast to a list.
You can also add flat=True to values_list to flatten the results.
See also: Get distinct values of Queryset by field
In addition to the still very relevant answer of jujule, I find it quite important to also be aware of the implications of order_by() on distinct("field_name") queries. This is, however, a Postgres only feature!
If you are using Postgres and if you define a field name that the query should be distinct for, then order_by() needs to begin with the same field name (or field names) in the same sequence (there may be more fields afterward).
Note
When you specify field names, you must provide an order_by() in the
QuerySet, and the fields in order_by() must start with the fields in
distinct(), in the same order.
For example, SELECT DISTINCT ON (a) gives you the first row for each
value in column a. If you don’t specify an order, you’ll get some
arbitrary row.
If you want to e.g. extract a list of cities that you know shops in, the example of jujule would have to be adapted to this:
# returns an iterable Queryset of cities.
models.Shop.objects.order_by('city').values_list('city', flat=True).distinct('city')
By example:
# select distinct code from Platform where id in ( select platform__id from Build where product=p)
pl_ids = Build.objects.values('platform__id').filter(product=p)
platforms = Platform.objects.values_list('code', flat=True).filter(id__in=pl_ids).distinct('code')
platforms = list(platforms) if platforms else []
If you don't use PostgreSQL and you just want to get and distinct with only one specific field you can use
MyModel.objects.values('name').annotate(Count('id')).order_by()
this queryset return us rows that their 'name' field is unique with the count of the rows that have same name
<QuerySet [{'name': 'a', 'id__count': 2}, {'name': 'b', 'id__count': 2}, {'name': 'c', 'id__count': 3}>
I know the returned data is not complete and sometimes is not satisfying but sometimes it's useful
document reference
The SELECT DISTINCT statement is used to return only distinct (different) values. Inside a table, a column often contains many duplicate values; using distinct() we can get Unique data.
event = Event.objects.values('item_event_type').distinct()
serializer= ItemEventTypeSerializer(event,many=True)
return Response(serializer.data)
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.
I have a two models:
class Category(models.Model):
pass
class Item(models.Model):
cat = models.ForeignKey(Category)
I am trying to return all Categories for which all of that category's items belong to a given subset of item ids (fixed thanks). For example, all categories for which all of the items associated with that category have ids in the set [1,3,5].
How could this be done using Django's query syntax (as of 1.1 beta)? Ideally, all the work should be done in the database.
Category.objects.filter(item__id__in=[1, 3, 5])
Django creates the reverse relation ship on the model without the foreign key. You can filter on it by using its related name (usually just the model name lowercase but it can be manually overwritten), two underscores, and the field name you want to query on.
lets say you require all items to be in the following set:
allowable_items = set([1,3,4])
one bruteforce solution would be to check the item_set for every category as so:
categories_with_allowable_items = [
category for category in
Category.objects.all() if
set([item.id for item in category.item_set.all()]) <= allowable_items
]
but we don't really have to check all categories, as categories_with_allowable_items is always going to be a subset of the categories related to all items with ids in allowable_items... so that's all we have to check (and this should be faster):
categories_with_allowable_items = set([
item.category for item in
Item.objects.select_related('category').filter(pk__in=allowable_items) if
set([siblingitem.id for siblingitem in item.category.item_set.all()]) <= allowable_items
])
if performance isn't really an issue, then the latter of these two (if not the former) should be fine. if these are very large tables, you might have to come up with a more sophisticated solution. also if you're using a particularly old version of python remember that you'll have to import the sets module
I've played around with this a bit. If QuerySet.extra() accepted a "having" parameter I think it would be possible to do it in the ORM with a bit of raw SQL in the HAVING clause. But it doesn't, so I think you'd have to write the whole query in raw SQL if you want the database doing the work.
EDIT:
This is the query that gets you part way there:
from django.db.models import Count
Category.objects.annotate(num_items=Count('item')).filter(num_items=...)
The problem is that for the query to work, "..." needs to be a correlated subquery that looks up, for each category, the number of its items in allowed_items. If .extra had a "having" argument, you'd do it like this:
Category.objects.annotate(num_items=Count('item')).extra(having="num_items=(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM app_item WHERE app_item.id in % AND app_item.cat_id = app_category.id)", having_params=[allowed_item_ids])