I have made a previous post related to this problem here but because this is a related but new problem I thought it would be best to make another post for it.
I'm using Django 1.8
I have a User model and a UserAction model. A user has a type. UserAction has a time, which indicates how long the action took as well as a start_time which indicates when the action began. They look like this:
class User(models.Model):
user_type = models.IntegerField()
class UserAction:
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
time = models.IntegerField()
start_time = models.DateTimeField()
Now what I want to do is get all users of a given type and the sum of time of their actions, optionally filtered by the start_time.
What I am doing is something like this:
# stubbing in a start time to filter by
start_time = datetime.now() - datetime.timedelta(days=2)
# stubbing in a type
type = 2
# this gives me the users and the sum of the time of their actions, or 0 if no
# actions exist
q = User.objects.filter(user_type=type).values('id').annotate(total_time=Coalesce(Sum(useraction__time), 0)
# now I try to add the filter for start_time of the actions to be greater than or # equal to start_time
q = q.filter(useraction__start_time__gte=start_time)
Now what this does is of course is an INNER JOIN on UserAction, thus removing all the users without actions. What I really want to do is the equivalent of my LEFT JOIN with a WHERE clause, but for the life of me I can't find how to do that. I've looked at the docs, looked at the source but am not finding an answer. I'm (pretty) sure this is something that can be done, I'm just not seeing how. Could anyone point me in the right direction? Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks much!
I'm having the same kind of problem as you. I haven't found any proper way of solving the problem yet, but I've found a few fixes.
One way would be looping through all the users:
q = User.objects.filter(user_type=type)
for (u in q):
u.time_sum = UserAction.filter(user=u, start_time__gte=start_time).aggregate(time_sum=Sum('time'))['time_sum']
This method does however a query at the database for each user. It might do the trick if you don't have many users, but might get very time-consuming if you have a large database.
Another way of solving the problem would be using the extra method of the QuerySet API. This is a method that is detailed in this blog post by Timmy O'Mahony.
valid_actions = UserAction.objects.filter(start_time__gte=start_time)
q = User.objects.filter(user_type=type).extra(select={
"time_sum": """
SELECT SUM(time)
FROM userAction
WHERE userAction.user_id = user.id
AND userAction.id IN %s
""" % (%s) % ",".join([str(uAction.id) for uAction in valid_actions.all()])
})
This method however relies on calling the database with the SQL table names, which is very un-Django - if you change the db_table of one of your databases or the db_column of one of their columns, this code will no longer work. It though only requires 2 queries, the first one to get the list of valid userAction and the other one to sum them to the matching user.
Related
I have a database schema similar to this:
class User(models.Model):
… (Some fields irrelevant for this query)
class UserNotifiy(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
target = models.ForeignKey(<Some other Model>)
notification_level = models.SmallPositivIntegerField(choices=(1,2,3))
Now I want to query for all Users that have a UserNotify object for a specific target and at least a specific notification level (e.g. 2).
If I do something like this:
User.objects.filter(usernotify__target=desired_target,
usernotify__notification_level__gte=2)
I get all Users that have a UserNotify object for the specified target and at least one UserNotify object with a notification_level greater or equal to 2. These two UserNotify objects, however, do not have to be identical.
I am aware that I can do something like this:
user_ids = UserNotify.objects.filter(target=desired_target,
notification_level__gte=2).values_list('user_id', flat=True)
users = User.objects.filter(id__in=user_ids).distinct()
But this seems a step too much for me and I believe it executes two queries.
Is there a way to solve my problem with a single query?
Actually I don't see how you can run the first query, given that usernotify is not a valid field name for User.
You should start from UserNotify as you did in your second example:
UserNotify.objects.filter(
target=desired_target,
notification_level__gte=2
).select_related('user').values('user').distinct()
I've been looking for this behaviour but I've never found a better way than the one you describe (creating a query for user ids and inject it in a User query). Note this is not bad since if your database support subqueries, your code should fire only one request composed by a query and a subquery.
However, if you just need a particular field from the User objects (for example first_name), you may try
qs = (UserNotify.objects
.filter(target=desired_target, notification_level__gte=2)
.values_list('user_id', 'user__first_name')
.order_by('user_id')
.distinct('user_id')
)
I am not sure if I understood your question, but:
class User(models.Model):
… (Some fields irrelevant for this query)
class UserNotifiy(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name="notifications")
target = models.ForeignKey(<Some other Model>)
notification_level = models.SmallPositivIntegerField(choices=(1,2,3))
Then
users = User.objects.select_related('notifications').filter(notifications__target=desired_target,
notifications__notification_level__gte=2).distinct('id')
for user in users:
notifications = [x for x in user.notifications.all()]
I don't have my vagrant box handy now, but I believe this should work.
I have two models
class Subject(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=100,choices=COURSE_CHOICES)
created = models.DateTimeField('created', auto_now_add=True)
modified = models.DateTimeField('modified', auto_now=True)
syllabus = models.FileField(upload_to='syllabus')
def __unicode__(self):
return self.name
and
class Pastquestion(models.Model):
subject=models.ForeignKey(Subject)
year =models.PositiveIntegerField()
questions = models.FileField(upload_to='pastquestions')
def __unicode__(self):
return str(self.year)
Each Subject can have one or more past questions but a past question can have only one subject. I want to get a subject, and get its related past questions of a particular year. I was thinking of fetching a subject and getting its related past question.
Currently am implementing my code such that I rather get the past question whose subject and year correspond to any specified subject like
this_subject=Subject.objects.get(name=the_subject)
thepastQ=Pastquestion.objects.get(year=2000,subject=this_subject)
I was thinking there is a better way to do this. Or is this already a better way? Please Do tell ?
I think what you want is the related_name property of the ForeignKey field. This creates a link back to the Subject object and provides a manager you can use to query the set.
So to use this functionality, change the foreignkey line to:
subject=models.ForeignKey(Subject, related_name='questions')
Then with an instance of Subject we'll call subj, you can:
subj.questions.filter(year=2000)
I don't think this performs much differently to the technique you have used. Roughly speaking, SQL performance boils down a) whether there's an index and b) how many queries you're issuing. So you need to think about both. One way to find out what SQL your model usage is generating is to use SqlLogMiddleware - and alternatively play with the options in How to show the SQL Django is running It can be tempting when you get going to start issuing queries across relationships - e.g. q = Question.objects.get(year=2000, subject__name=SUBJ_MATHS) but unless you keep a close eye on these types of queries, you can and will kill your app's performance, badly.
Django's query syntax allows you to 'reach into' related objects.
past_questions = Pastquestion.objects.filter(year=2000, subject__name=subject_name)
I have such a Book model:
class Book(models.Model):
authors = models.ManyToManyField(Author, ...)
...
In short:
I'd like to retrieve the books whose authors are strictly equal to a given set of authors. I'm not sure if there is a single query that does it, but any suggestions will be helpful.
In long:
Here is what I tried, (that failed to run getting an AttributeError)
# A sample set of authors
target_authors = set((author_1, author_2))
# To reduce the search space,
# first retrieve those books with just 2 authors.
candidate_books = Book.objects.annotate(c=Count('authors')).filter(c=len(target_authors))
final_books = QuerySet()
for author in target_authors:
temp_books = candidate_books.filter(authors__in=[author])
final_books = final_books and temp_books
... and here is what I got:
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute '_meta'
In general, how should I query a model with the constraint that its ManyToMany field contains a set of given objects as in my case?
ps: I found some relevant SO questions but couldn't get a clear answer. Any good pointer will be helpful as well. Thanks.
Similar to #goliney's approach, I found a solution. However, I think the efficiency could be improved.
# A sample set of authors
target_authors = set((author_1, author_2))
# To reduce the search space, first retrieve those books with just 2 authors.
candidate_books = Book.objects.annotate(c=Count('authors')).filter(c=len(target_authors))
# In each iteration, we filter out those books which don't contain one of the
# required authors - the instance on the iteration.
for author in target_authors:
candidate_books = candidate_books.filter(authors=author)
final_books = candidate_books
You can use complex lookups with Q objects
from django.db.models import Q
...
target_authors = set((author_1, author_2))
q = Q()
for author in target_authors:
q &= Q(authors=author)
Books.objects.annotate(c=Count('authors')).filter(c=len(target_authors)).filter(q)
Q() & Q() is not equal to .filter().filter(). Their raw SQLs are different where by using Q with &, its SQL just add a condition like WHERE "book"."author" = "author_1" and "book"."author" = "author_2". it should return empty result.
The only solution is just by chaining filter to form a SQL with inner join on same table: ... ON ("author"."id" = "author_book"."author_id") INNER JOIN "author_book" T4 ON ("author"."id" = T4."author_id") WHERE ("author_book"."author_id" = "author_1" AND T4."author_id" = "author_1")
I came across the same problem and came to the same conclusion as iuysal,
untill i had to do a medium sized search (with 1000 records with 150 filters my request would time out).
In my particular case the search would result in no records since the chance that a single record will align with ALL 150 filters is very rare, you can get around the performance issues by verifying that there are records in the QuerySet before applying more filters to save time.
# In each iteration, we filter out those books which don't contain one of the
# required authors - the instance on the iteration.
for author in target_authors:
if candidate_books.count() > 0:
candidate_books = candidate_books.filter(authors=author)
For some reason Django applies filters to empty QuerySets.
But if optimization is to be applied correctly however, using a prepared QuerySet and correctly applied indexes are necessary.
I have two models such that
class Employer(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=1000,null=False,blank=False)
eminence = models.IntegerField(null=False,default=4)
class JobTitle(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=1000,null=False,blank=False)
employer= models.ForeignKey(JobTitle,unique=False,null=False)
class People(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=1000,null=False,blank=False)
jobtitle = models.ForeignKey(JobTitle,unique=False,null=False)
I would like to list random 5 employers and one job title for each employer. However, job title should be picked up from first 10 jobtitles of the employer whose number of people is maximum.
One approach could be
employers = Employer.objects.filter(isActive=True).filter(eminence__lt=4 ).order_by('?')[:5]
for emp in employers:
jobtitle = JobTitle.objects.filter(employer=emp)... and so on.
However, loop through selected employers may be ineffiecent. Is there any way to do it in one query ?
Thanks
There is! Check out: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/querysets/#select-related
select_related() tells Django to follow all the foreign key relationships using JOINs. This will result in one large query as opposed to many small queries, which in most cases is what you want. The QuerySet you get will be pre-populated and Django won't have to lazy-load anything from the database.
I've used select_related() in the past to solve almost this exact problem.
I have written such code block and it works. Although I loop over employers because I have used select_related('jobtitle'), I consider it doesn't hit database and works faster.
employers = random.sample(Employer.objects.select_related('jobtitle').filter(eminence__lt=4,status=EmployerStatus.ACTIVE).annotate(jtt_count=Count('jobtitle')).filter(jtt_count__gt=0),3)
jtList = []
for emp in employers:
jt = random.choice(emp.jobtitle_set.filter(isActive=True).annotate(people_count=Count('people')).filter(people_count__gt=0)[:10])
jtList.append(jt)
Say I have a model:
class Foo(models.Model):
...
and another model that basically gives per-user information about Foo:
class UserFoo(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
foo = models.ForeignKey(Foo)
...
class Meta:
unique_together = ("user", "foo")
I'd like to generate a queryset of Foos but annotated with the (optional) related UserFoo based on user=request.user.
So it's effectively a LEFT OUTER JOIN on (foo.id = userfoo.foo_id AND userfoo.user_id = ...)
A solution with raw might look like
foos = Foo.objects.raw("SELECT foo.* FROM foo LEFT OUTER JOIN userfoo ON (foo.id = userfoo.foo_id AND foo.user_id = %s)", [request.user.id])
You'll need to modify the SELECT to include extra fields from userfoo which will be annotated to the resulting Foo instances in the queryset.
This answer might not be exactly what you are looking for but since its the first result in google when searching for "django annotate outer join" so I will post it here.
Note: tested on Djang 1.7
Suppose you have the following models
class User(models.Model):
name = models.CharField()
class EarnedPoints(models.Model):
points = models.PositiveIntegerField()
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
To get total user points you might do something like that
User.objects.annotate(points=Sum("earned_points__points"))
this will work but it will not return users who have no points, here we need outer join without any direct hacks or raw sql
You can achieve that by doing this
users_with_points = User.objects.annotate(points=Sum("earned_points__points"))
result = users_with_points | User.objects.exclude(pk__in=users_with_points)
This will be translated into OUTER LEFT JOIN and all users will be returned. users who has no points will have None value in their points attribute.
Hope that helps
Notice: This method does not work in Django 1.6+. As explained in tcarobruce's comment below, the promote argument was removed as part of ticket #19849: ORM Cleanup.
Django doesn't provide an entirely built-in way to do this, but it's not neccessary to construct an entirely raw query. (This method doesn't work for selecting * from UserFoo, so I'm using .comment as an example field to include from UserFoo.)
The QuerySet.extra() method allows us to add terms to the SELECT and WHERE clauses of our query. We use this to include the fields from UserFoo table in our results, and limit our UserFoo matches to the current user.
results = Foo.objects.extra(
select={"user_comment": "UserFoo.comment"},
where=["(UserFoo.user_id IS NULL OR UserFoo.user_id = %s)"],
params=[request.user.id]
)
This query still needs the UserFoo table. It would be possible to use .extras(tables=...) to get an implicit INNER JOIN, but for an OUTER JOIN we need to modify the internal query object ourself.
connection = (
UserFoo._meta.db_table, User._meta.db_table, # JOIN these tables
"user_id", "id", # on these fields
)
results.query.join( # modify the query
connection, # with this table connection
promote=True, # as LEFT OUTER JOIN
)
We can now evaluate the results. Each instance will have a .user_comment property containing the value from UserFoo, or None if it doesn't exist.
print results[0].user_comment
(Credit to this blog post by Colin Copeland for showing me how to do OUTER JOINs.)
I stumbled upon this problem I was unable to solve without resorting to raw SQL, but I did not want to rewrite the entire query.
Following is a description on how you can augment a queryset with an external raw sql, without having to care about the actual query that generates the queryset.
Here's a typical scenario: You have a reddit like site with a LinkPost model and a UserPostVote mode, like this:
class LinkPost(models.Model):
some fields....
class UserPostVote(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User,related_name="post_votes")
post = models.ForeignKey(LinkPost,related_name="user_votes")
value = models.IntegerField(null=False, default=0)
where the userpostvote table collect's the votes of users on posts.
Now you're trying to display the front page for a user with a pagination app, but you want the arrows to be red for posts the user has voted on.
First you get the posts for the page:
post_list = LinkPost.objects.all()
paginator = Paginator(post_list,25)
posts_page = paginator.page(request.GET.get('page'))
so now you have a QuerySet posts_page generated by the django paginator that selects the posts to display. How do we now add the annotation of the user's vote on each post before rendering it in a template?
Here's where it get's tricky and I was unable to find a clean ORM solution. select_related won't allow you to only get votes corresponding to the logged in user and looping over the posts would do bunch queries instead of one and doing it all raw mean's we can't use the queryset from the pagination app.
So here's how I do it:
q1 = posts_page.object_list.query # The query object of the queryset
q1_alias = q1.get_initial_alias() # This forces the query object to generate it's sql
(q1str, q1param) = q1.sql_with_params() #This gets the sql for the query along with
#parameters, which are none in this example
we now have the query for the queryset, and just wrap it, alias and left outer join to it:
q2_augment = "SELECT B.value as uservote, A.*
from ("+q1str+") A LEFT OUTER JOIN reddit_userpostvote B
ON A.id = B.post_id AND B.user_id = %s"
q2param = (request.user.id,)
posts_augmented = LinkPost.objects.raw(q2_augment,q1param+q2param)
voila! Now we can access post.uservote for a post in the augmented queryset.
And we just hit the database with a single query.
The two queries you suggest are as good as you're going to get (without using raw()), this type of query isn't representable in the ORM at present time.
You could do this using simonw's django-queryset-transform to avoid hard-coding a raw SQL query - the code would look something like this:
def userfoo_retriever(qs):
userfoos = dict((i.pk, i) for i in UserFoo.objects.filter(foo__in=qs))
for i in qs:
i.userfoo = userfoos.get(i.pk, None)
for foo in Foo.objects.filter(…).tranform(userfoo_retriever):
print foo.userfoo
This approach has been quite successful for this need and to efficiently retrieve M2M values; your query count won't be quite as low but on certain databases (cough MySQL cough) doing two simpler queries can often be faster than one with complex JOINs and many of the cases where I've most needed it had additional complexity which would have been even harder to hack into an ORM expression.
As for outerjoins:
Once you have a queryset qs from foo that includes a reference to columns from userfoo, you can promote the inner join to an outer join with
qs.query.promote_joins(["userfoo"])
You shouldn't have to resort to extra or raw for this.
The following should work.
Foo.objects.filter(
Q(userfoo_set__user=request.user) |
Q(userfoo_set=None) # This forces the use of LOUTER JOIN.
).annotate(
comment=F('userfoo_set__comment'),
# ... annotate all the fields you'd like to see added here.
)
The only way I see to do this without using raw etc. is something like this:
Foo.objects.filter(
Q(userfoo_set__isnull=True)|Q(userfoo_set__isnull=False)
).annotate(bar=Case(
When(userfoo_set__user_id=request.user, then='userfoo_set__bar')
))
The double Q trick ensures that you get your left outer join.
Unfortunately you can't set your request.user condition in the filter() since it may filter out successful joins on UserFoo instances with the wrong user, hence filtering out rows of Foo that you wanted to keep (which is why you ideally want the condition in the ON join clause instead of in the WHERE clause).
Because you can't filter out the rows that have an unwanted user value, you have to select rows from UserFoo with a CASE.
Note also that one Foo may join to many UserFoo records, so you may want to consider some way to retrieve distinct Foos from the output.
maparent's comment put me on the right way:
from django.db.models.sql.datastructures import Join
for alias in qs.query.alias_map.values():
if isinstance(alias, Join):
alias.nullable = True
qs.query.promote_joins(qs.query.tables)