I have a model where basically i am Tracking users' activities. I want to know what is the page the user have accessed MOST.
Here are my modals.
class Visitor(models.Model):
session_key = models.CharField(max_length=40, primary_key=True)
user = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name='visit_history', null=True, editable=False)
....
class Pageview(models.Model):
visitor = models.ForeignKey(Visitor, related_name='pageviews')
url = models.CharField(max_length=500)
method = models.CharField(max_length=20, null=True)
view_time = models.DateTimeField()
Here is my query.
Pageview.objects.values('visitor__user__first_name', 'visitor__user__last_name', 'visitor__user').annotate(url_count=Count('url')).annotate(url_count_unique=Count('url', distinct=True))
Here i am getting users number of urls visited, and number of unique urls visited.
Here i also want to know which is the url user have visited the most?
EDIT
Translation of my query.
Goto PageViews and count the occurring of unique URLS.(how many times a url have occurred.) and give me the one that have most visited count against each user.
I hope the question is clear, if not let me know.
IMHO you're better off with a many-to-many relationship. You would have something like:
class VisitedURLs(models.Model):
page = models.ForeignKey(Visitor, ....)
user = models.ForeignKey(User, ....)
timestamp = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True)
and the original models become something like:
class Visitor(models.Model):
members = models.ManyToManyField(PageView, through='VisitedURLs')
class PageView(models.Model):
url = models.CharField(max_length=500)
method = models.CharField(max_length=20, null=True)
In this case, you can use the count/distinct on the visitedURLs model and when you get an object of that type you'll have a FK to a Visitor object (which would give you the user...) and a FK to the URL.
Another way is to explicitly count each unique visitor/url combination and store it somewhere. Depending on usage (e.g. if you want to compute/display this often) you may be better off with the dedicated storage.
Here is the solution that i have come up with.
Pageview.objects.filter(visitor__user_id=user['visitor__user_id']).values(
'url').annotate(page_count=Count('id')).order_by('-page_count')
if max_visited_node:
user['max_visited_node'] = max_visited_node[0]
by this way i can get the count of the all the pages the user have visited. then i order them by that count and then i get the top first element which contains the URL and page_count.
This is what i was looking for. the suggestion of Laur lvan is worth considerable.
Related
I have a standard Django blog with a Post model, only on the model I have added a ManyToManyField for approvers, the idea being that the backend passes the post to 2 or more approvers to confirm the content before it is published.
class Post(models.Model):
author = models.ForeignKey(
get_user_model(), null=True, on_delete=models.SET_NULL)
title = models.CharField(max_length=30)
content = models.CharField(max_length=30)
approvers = models.ManyToManyField(Approvers)
I will probably learn towards something like django-fsm to create a finite state machine for the Post model to govern whether it is draft/in approval/published, but I would like to be able to change the approvers field so that the number and order of approvers (users) can be changed dynamically by the user.
What is the best way to do this? I thought I could try and change the approvers field to a JSONField so that users can add / delete / change the order of approvers and then handle the interpretation in the frontend and write some function to interface with django-fsm, but this feels like it conflates things too much. Am I missing a simpler route?
Why not make another model to do so like
class PostApprover(models.Model):
post = models.ForeignKey(Post, on_delete=models.CASCADE, related_name='approvers')
user = models.ForeignKey(Approver, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
created_at = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True)
To access order in which post(let say with id 5) is approved (descending).you can do like
post = Post.objects.get(id=5)
post.approvers.order_by('-created_at')
you can change the value of created_at to change the order.
Or you can also make an integer field that determines your order
I'm currently working on a website (with Django), where people can write a story, which can be upvoted by themselves or by other people. Here are the classes for Profile, Story and Upvote:
class Profile(AbstractBaseUser, PermissionsMixin):
email = models.EmailField(unique=True)
first_name = models.CharField(max_length=30, null=True)
last_name = models.CharField(max_length=30, null=True)
class Story(models.Model):
author = models.ForeignKey('accounts.Profile', on_delete=models.CASCADE, related_name="author")
title = models.CharField(max_length=50)
content = models.TextField(max_length=10000)
class Upvote(models.Model):
profile = models.ForeignKey('accounts.Profile', on_delete=models.CASCADE, related_name="upvoter")
story = models.ForeignKey('Story', on_delete=models.CASCADE, related_name="upvoted_story")
upvote_time = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True)
As you can see, Upvote uses two foreign keys to store the upvoter and the related story. Now I want to make a query which gives me all the stories, sorted by the amount of upvotes they have. I've tried my best to come up with some queries myself, but it's not exactly what I'm searching for.
This one doesn't work at all, since it just gives me all the stories in the order they were created, for some reason. Also it contains duplicates, although I want them to be grouped by story.
hot_feed = Upvote.objects.annotate(upvote_count=Count('story')).order_by('-upvote_count')
This one kind of works. But if I'm trying to access a partical story in my template, it just gives me back the id. So I'm not able to fetch the title, author and content from that id, since it's just an integer, and not an object.
hot_feed = Upvote.objects.values('story').annotate(upvote_count=Count('story')).order_by('-upvote_count')
Could someone help me out with finding the query I'm searching for?
You are querying from the wrong model, you here basically fetch Upvotes ordered by the number of stories, or something similar.
But your probaby want to retrieve Storys by the number of upvotes, so you need to use Story as "queryset root", and annotate it with the number of upvotes:
Story.objects.annotate(
upvote_count=Count('upvoted_story')
).order_by('-upvote_count')
I think the related_name of your story is however a bit "misleading". The related_name is the name of the relation "in reverse", so probably a better name is upvotes:
class Upvote(models.Model):
profile = models.ForeignKey(
'accounts.Profile',
on_delete=models.CASCADE,
related_name='upvotes'
)
story = models.ForeignKey(
'Story',
on_delete=models.CASCADE,
related_name='upvotes'
)
upvote_time = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True)
In that case the query is:
Story.objects.annotate(
upvote_count=Count('upvotes')
).order_by('-upvote_count')
I have user profiles that are each assigned a manager. I thought using recursion would be a good way to query every employee at every level under a particular manager. The goal is, if the CEO were to sign in, he should be able to query everyone at the company - but If I sign on I can only see people in my immediate team and the people below them, etc. until you get to the low level employees.
However when I run the following:
def team_training_list(request):
# pulls all training documents from training document model
user = request.user
manager_direct_team = Profile.objects.filter(manager=user)
query = Profile.objects.filter(first_name='fake')
trickle_team = manager_loop(manager_direct_team, query)
# manager_trickle_team = manager_direct_team | trickle_team
print(trickle_team)
def manager_loop(list, query):
for member in list:
user_instance = User.objects.get(username=member)
has_team = Profile.objects.filter(manager=user_instance)
if has_team:
query = query | has_team
manager_loop(has_team, query)
else:
continue
return query
It only returns the last query that was run instead of the compiled queryset that I am trying to grow. I've tried placing 'return' before 'manager_loop(has_team, query) in order save the values but it also kills the loop at the first non-manager employee instead of continuing to the next employee.
I'm new to django so if there is an better way than recursion to pull the information that I need, I'd appreciate suggestions on that too.
EDIT:
As requested, here is the profile model.
class Profile(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
first_name = models.CharField(max_length=30, blank=False)
last_name = models.CharField(max_length=30, blank=False)
email = models.EmailField( blank=True, help_text='Optional',)
receive_email_notifications = models.BooleanField(default=False)
mobile_number = models.CharField(
max_length=15,
blank=True,
help_text='Optional'
)
carrier_options = (
(None, ''),
('#txt.att.net', 'AT&T'),
('#messaging.sprintpcs.com', 'Sprint'),
('#tmomail.net', 'T-Mobile'),
('#vtext.com', 'Verizon'),
)
mobile_carrier = models.CharField(max_length=25, choices=carrier_options, blank=True,
help_text='Optional')
receive_sms_notifications = models.BooleanField(default=False)
job_title = models.ForeignKey(JobTitle, unique=False, null=True)
manager = models.ForeignKey(User, unique=False, blank=True, related_name='+', null=True)
Ok, so it's a hierarchical model.
The problem with your current approach is this line:
query = query | has_team
This reassigns the local name query to a new queryset, but does not reassign the name in the caller. (Well, that's what I think it's trying to do - I am a little rusty but I don't think you can just | together querysets like that.) You'd also need something like:
query = manager_loop(has_team, query)
to propagate the changes via the returned object.
That said, while Django doesn't have built-in support for recursive queries, there are some third party packages that do. Old answers eg (Django self-recursive foreignkey filter query for all childs and Creating efficient database queries for hierarchical models (django)) recommend django-mptt. Your tag mentions postgres, so this post might be relevant:
https://two-wrongs.com/fast-sql-for-inheritance-in-a-django-hierarchy
If you don't use a third-party approach, it should be possible to clean up the evolution of the queryset - cast it to a set and use update or something, since you're accumulating profiles. But the key error is not using the returned modified object.
I have a Django app where users upload photos, and leave comments under them. The data models to reflect these objects are Photo and PhotoComment respectively.
There's a third data model called PhotoThreadSubscription. Whenever a user comments under a photo, the user is subscribed to that particular thread via creating an object in PhotoThreadSubscription. This way, he/she can be apprised of comments left in the same thread by other users subsequently.
class PhotoThreadSubscription(models.Model):
viewer = models.ForeignKey(User)
viewed_at = models.DateTimeField(db_index=True)
which_photo = models.ForeignKey(Photo)
Every time a user comments under a photo, I update the viewed_at attribute of the user's PhotoThreadSubscription object for that particular photo. Any comments by other users that have a submission time of greater than viewed_at for that particular thread are therefore new.
Suppose I have a queryset of comments, all belonging to unique photos that never repeat. I want to traverse through this queryset and find the latest unseen comment.
Currently, I'm trying this in a very DB heavy way:
latest_unseen_comment = PhotoComment(id=1) #i.e. a very old comment
for comment in comments:
if comment.submitted_on > PhotoThreadSubscription.objects.get(viewer=user, which_photo_id=comment.which_photo_id).viewed_at and comment.submitted_on > latest_unseen_comment.submitted_on:
latest_unseen_comment = comment
This is obviously not a good way to do it. For one, I don't want to do DB calls in a for loop. How do I manage the above in one call? Specifically, how do I get the relevant PhotoThreadSubscription queryset in one call, and next, how do I use that to calculate the max_unseen_comment? I'm highly confused right now.
class Photo(models.Model):
owner = models.ForeignKey(User)
image_file = models.ImageField(upload_to=upload_photo_to_location, storage=OverwriteStorage())
upload_time = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True, db_index=True)
latest_comment = models.ForeignKey(blank=True, null=True, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
class PhotoComment(models.Model):
which_photo = models.ForeignKey(Photo)
text = models.TextField(validators=[MaxLengthValidator(250)])
submitted_by = models.ForeignKey(User)
submitted_on = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True)
Please ask for clarification if the question seemed hazy.
I think this will do it in a single query:
latest_unseen_comment = (
comments.filter(which_photo__photothreadsubscription__viewer=user,
which_photo__photothreadsubscription__viewed_at__lt=F("submitted_on"))
.order_by("-submitted_on")
.first()
)
The key here is using F expressions so that the comparison can be done with each comment's individual date, rather than using a single date hardcoded in the query. After filtering the queryset to only include the comments that are unseen, we then order_by the date of the comment and take the first one.
I am confused to take a decision whether to use ForeignKey or ManyToManyField.
Suppose I am building an application for an event which demands tickets to get access the event and delegates may get some coupon based on the category of the ticket they have taken. I might have the following classes:
class Coupon(models.Model):
name = models.CharField()
event = models.ForeignKey(Event)
created_by = models.ForeignKey(User)
expired_time = models.DateTimeField()
description = models.TextField()
created_at = models.DateTimeField()
class CouponTicketMap(models.Model):
coupon = models.ForeignKey(Coupon)
tickets = models.ManyToManyField(Ticket)
class CouponUserMap(models.Model):
coupon = models.ForeignKey(Coupon)
users = models.ManyToManyField(User)
Organizer can map coupons to one or more tickets.
Or/And he can map to some selected or random users.
(I do not need an extra field in the intermediate table that is why I did not use through here.)
I can redesign the 2nd and 3rd model as
class CouponTicketMap(models.Model):
coupon = models.ForeignKey(Coupon)
tickets = models.ForeignKey(Ticket)
class CouponUserMap(models.Model):
coupon = models.ForeignKey(Coupon)
users = models.ForeignKey(User)
I think I can achieve what I need from both design, but want get know about the consequences of both design. So which design will get more votes when considering aspects such as performance, storage, conventional style etc. Can anybody shed some light on making a decision.
Thanks
I´ll say this model due to what you say:
class CouponTicketMap(models.Model):
coupon = models.ForeignKey(Coupon)
tickets = models.ForeignKey(Ticket)
class CouponUserMap(models.Model):
coupon = models.ForeignKey(Coupon)
users = models.ManyToManyField(User)
Cuz, one coupone can have many tickets, and many users can have a related same coupon. Dont see neccesary to stick just to one parameter, when you can use them both depending of the designed needed. Hope my opinion helps.