Which one would be better for performance?
We take a slice of products. which make us impossible to bulk update.
products = Product.objects.filter(featured=True).order_by("-modified_on")[3:]
for product in products:
product.featured = False
product.save()
or (invalid)
for product in products.iterator():
product.update(featured=False)
I have tried QuerySet's in statement too as following.
Product.objects.filter(pk__in=products).update(featured=False)
This line works fine on SQLite. But, it rises following exception on MySQL. So, I couldn't use that.
DatabaseError: (1235, "This version of MySQL doesn't yet support
'LIMIT & IN/ALL/ANY/SOME subquery'")
Edit: Also iterator() method causes re-evaluate the query. So, it is bad for performance.
As #Chris Pratt pointed out in comments, the second example is invalid because the objects don't have update methods. Your first example will require queries equal to results+1 since it has to update each object. That might really be costly if you have 1000 products. Ideally you do want to reduce this to a more fixed expense if possible.
This is a similar situation to another question:
Django: Cannot update a query once a slice has been taken
That being said, you would have to do it in at least 2 queries, but you have to be a bit sneaky on how to construct the LIMIT...
Using Q objects for complex queries:
# get the IDs we want to exclude
products = Product.objects.filter(featured=True).order_by("-modified_on")[:3]
# flatten them into just a list of ids
ids = products.values_list('id', flat=True)
# Now use the Q object to construct a complex query
from django.db.models import Q
# This builds a list of "AND id NOT EQUAL TO i"
limits = [~Q(id=i) for i in ids]
Product.objects.filter(featured=True, *limits).update(featured=False)
In some cases it's acceptable to cache QuerySet in array
products = list(products)
Product.objects.filter(pk__in=products).update(featured=False)
Small optimization with values_list
products_id = list(products.values_list('id', flat=True)
Product.objects.filter(pk__in=products_id).update(featured=False)
Related
I have a filter which should return a queryset with 2 objects, and should have one different field. for example:
obj_1 = (name='John', age='23', is_fielder=True)
obj_2 = (name='John', age='23', is_fielder=False)
Both the objects are of same model, but different primary key. I tried usign the below filter:
qs = Model.objects.filter(name='John', age='23').annotate(is_fielder=F('plays__outdoor_game_role')=='Fielder')
I used annotate first time, but it gave me the below error:
TypeError: QuerySet.annotate() received non-expression(s): False.
I am new to Django, so what am I doing wrong, and what should be the annotate to get the required objects as shown above?
The solution by #ktowen works well, quite straightforward.
Here is another solution I am using, hope it is helpful too.
queryset = queryset.annotate(is_fielder=ExpressionWrapper(
Q(plays__outdoor_game_role='Fielder'),
output_field=BooleanField(),
),)
Here are some explanations for those who are not familiar with Django ORM:
Annotate make a new column/field on the fly, in this case, is_fielder. This means you do not have a field named is_fielder in your model while you can use it like plays.outdor_game_role.is_fielder after you add this 'annotation'. Annotate is extremely useful and flexible, can be combined with almost every other expression, should be a MUST-KNOWN method in Django ORM.
ExpressionWrapper basically gives you space to wrap a more complecated combination of conditions, use in a format like ExpressionWrapper(expression, output_field). It is useful when you are combining different types of fields or want to specify an output type since Django cannot tell automatically.
Q object is a frequently used expression to specify a condition, I think the most powerful part is that it is possible to chain the conditions:
AND (&): filter(Q(condition1) & Q(condition2))
OR (|): filter(Q(condition1) | Q(condition2))
Negative(~): filter(~Q(condition))
It is possible to use Q with normal conditions like below:
(Q(condition1)|id__in=[list])
The point is Q object must come to the first or it will not work.
Case When(then) can be simply explained as if con1 elif con2 elif con3 .... It is quite powerful and personally, I love to use this to customize an ordering object for a queryset.
For example, you need to return a queryset of watch history items, and those must be in an order of watching by the user. You can do it with for loop to keep the order but this will generate plenty of similar queries. A more elegant way with Case When would be:
item_ids = [list]
ordering = Case(*[When(pk=pk, then=pos)
for pos, pk in enumerate(item_ids)])
watch_history = Item.objects.filter(id__in=item_ids)\
.order_by(ordering)
As you can see, by using Case When(then) it is possible to bind those very concrete relations, which could be considered as 1) a pinpoint/precise condition expression and 2) especially useful in a sequential multiple conditions case.
You can use Case/When with annotate
from django.db.models import Case, BooleanField, Value, When
Model.objects.filter(name='John', age='23').annotate(
is_fielder=Case(
When(plays__outdoor_game_role='Fielder', then=Value(True)),
default=Value(False),
output_field=BooleanField(),
),
)
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.
When I do something like
I. objects = Model.objects.all()
and then
II. objects.filter(field_1=some_condition)
I hit db every time when on the step 2 with various conditions. Is there any way to get all data in first action and then just take care of the result?
You actually don't hit the db until you evaluate the qs, queries are lazy.
Read more here.
edit:
After re-reading your question it becomes apparent you were asking how to prevent db hits when filtering for different conditions.
qs = SomeModel.objects.all()
qs1 = qs.filter(some_field='some_value')
qs2 = qs.filter(some_field='some_other_value')
Usually you would want the database to do the filtering for you.
You could force an evaluation of the qs by converting it to a list. This would prevent further db hits, however it would likely be worse than having your db return you results.
qs_l = list(qs)
qs1_l = [element for element in qs_l if element.some_field='some_value']
qs2_l = [element for element in qs_l if element.some_field='some_other_value']
Of course you will hit db every time. filter() transforms to SQL statement which is executed by your db, you can't filter without hitting it. So you can retrieve all the objects you need with values() or list(Model.objects.all()) and, as zeekay suggested, use Python expressions (like list comprehensions) for additional filtering.
Why don't you just do objs = Model.objects.filter(field=condition)? That said, once the SQL query is executed you can use Python expressions to do further filtering/processing without incurring additional database hits.
I'm curious if there's any way to do a query in Django that's not a "SELECT * FROM..." underneath. I'm trying to do a "SELECT DISTINCT columnName FROM ..." instead.
Specifically I have a model that looks like:
class ProductOrder(models.Model):
Product = models.CharField(max_length=20, promary_key=True)
Category = models.CharField(max_length=30)
Rank = models.IntegerField()
where the Rank is a rank within a Category. I'd like to be able to iterate over all the Categories doing some operation on each rank within that category.
I'd like to first get a list of all the categories in the system and then query for all products in that category and repeat until every category is processed.
I'd rather avoid raw SQL, but if I have to go there, that'd be fine. Though I've never coded raw SQL in Django/Python before.
One way to get the list of distinct column names from the database is to use distinct() in conjunction with values().
In your case you can do the following to get the names of distinct categories:
q = ProductOrder.objects.values('Category').distinct()
print q.query # See for yourself.
# The query would look something like
# SELECT DISTINCT "app_productorder"."category" FROM "app_productorder"
There are a couple of things to remember here. First, this will return a ValuesQuerySet which behaves differently from a QuerySet. When you access say, the first element of q (above) you'll get a dictionary, NOT an instance of ProductOrder.
Second, it would be a good idea to read the warning note in the docs about using distinct(). The above example will work but all combinations of distinct() and values() may not.
PS: it is a good idea to use lower case names for fields in a model. In your case this would mean rewriting your model as shown below:
class ProductOrder(models.Model):
product = models.CharField(max_length=20, primary_key=True)
category = models.CharField(max_length=30)
rank = models.IntegerField()
It's quite simple actually if you're using PostgreSQL, just use distinct(columns) (documentation).
Productorder.objects.all().distinct('category')
Note that this feature has been included in Django since 1.4
User order by with that field, and then do distinct.
ProductOrder.objects.order_by('category').values_list('category', flat=True).distinct()
The other answers are fine, but this is a little cleaner, in that it only gives the values like you would get from a DISTINCT query, without any cruft from Django.
>>> set(ProductOrder.objects.values_list('category', flat=True))
{u'category1', u'category2', u'category3', u'category4'}
or
>>> list(set(ProductOrder.objects.values_list('category', flat=True)))
[u'category1', u'category2', u'category3', u'category4']
And, it works without PostgreSQL.
This is less efficient than using a .distinct(), presuming that DISTINCT in your database is faster than a python set, but it's great for noodling around the shell.
Update:
This is answer is great for making queries in the Django shell during development. DO NOT use this solution in production unless you are absolutely certain that you will always have a trivially small number of results before set is applied. Otherwise, it's a terrible idea from a performance standpoint.
I've a model called Valor. Valor has a Robot. I'm querying like this:
Valor.objects.filter(robot=r).reverse()[0]
to get the last Valor the the r robot. Valor.objects.filter(robot=r).count() is about 200000 and getting the last items takes about 4 seconds in my PC.
How can I speed it up? I'm querying the wrong way?
The optimal mysql syntax for this problem would be something along the lines of:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE x=y ORDER BY z DESC LIMIT 1
The django equivalent of this would be:
Valor.objects.filter(robot=r).order_by('-id')[:1][0]
Notice how this solution utilizes django's slicing method to limit the queryset before compiling the list of objects.
If none of the earlier suggestions are working, I'd suggest taking Django out of the equation and run this raw sql against your database. I'm guessing at your table names, so you may have to adjust accordingly:
SELECT * FROM valor v WHERE v.robot_id = [robot_id] ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1;
Is that slow? If so, make your RDBMS (MySQL?) explain the query plan to you. This will tell you if it's doing any full table scans, which you obviously don't want with a table that large. You might also edit your question and include the schema for the valor table for us to see.
Also, you can see the SQL that Django is generating by doing this (using the query set provided by Peter Rowell):
qs = Valor.objects.filter(robot=r).order_by('-id')[0]
print qs.query
Make sure that SQL is similar to the 'raw' query I posted above. You can also make your RDBMS explain that query plan to you.
It sounds like your data set is going to be big enough that you may want to denormalize things a little bit. Have you tried keeping track of the last Valor object in the Robot object?
class Robot(models.Model):
# ...
last_valor = models.ForeignKey('Valor', null=True, blank=True)
And then use a post_save signal to make the update.
from django.db.models.signals import post_save
def record_last_valor(sender, **kwargs):
if kwargs.get('created', False):
instance = kwargs.get('instance')
instance.robot.last_valor = instance
post_save.connect(record_last_valor, sender=Valor)
You will pay the cost of an extra db transaction when you create the Valor objects but the last_valor lookup will be blazing fast. Play with it and see if the tradeoff is worth it for your app.
Well, there's no order_by clause so I'm wondering about what you mean by 'last'. Assuming you meant 'last added',
Valor.objects.filter(robot=r).order_by('-id')[0]
might do the job for you.
django 1.6 introduces .first() and .last():
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.6/ref/models/querysets/#last
So you could simply do:
Valor.objects.filter(robot=r).last()
Quite fast should also be:
qs = Valor.objects.filter(robot=r) # <-- it doesn't hit the database
count = qs.count() # <-- first hit the database, compute a count
last_item = qs[ count-1 ] # <-- second hit the database, get specified rownum
So, in practice you execute only 2 SQL queries ;)
Model_Name.objects.first()
//To get the first element
Model_name.objects.last()
//For get last()
in my case, the last is not work because there is only one row in the database
maybe help full for you too :)
Is there a limit clause in django? This way you can have the db, simply return a single record.
mysql
select * from table where x = y limit 1
sql server
select top 1 * from table where x = y
oracle
select * from table where x = y and rownum = 1
I realize this isn't translated into django, but someone can come back and clean this up.
The correct way of doing this, is to use the built-in QuerySet method latest() and feeding it whichever column (field name) it should sort by. The drawback is that it can only sort by a single db column.
The current implementation looks like this and is optimized in the same sense as #Aaron's suggestion.
def latest(self, field_name=None):
"""
Returns the latest object, according to the model's 'get_latest_by'
option or optional given field_name.
"""
latest_by = field_name or self.model._meta.get_latest_by
assert bool(latest_by), "latest() requires either a field_name parameter or 'get_latest_by' in the model"
assert self.query.can_filter(), \
"Cannot change a query once a slice has been taken."
obj = self._clone()
obj.query.set_limits(high=1)
obj.query.clear_ordering()
obj.query.add_ordering('-%s' % latest_by)
return obj.get()