I know conditional filters aren't yet available for queries (as per "26.1.4. Applying Filter Rules to any Query" in the Known Limitations section of the Doctrine2 manual) , so I wanted to ask the experts what their preferred solution to the following problem is:
My site has product objects that each have many reviews. The reviews have a status field. I don't want to unnecessarily pull in reviews that haven't been approved during the automatic association that Doctrine2 does so wonderfully.
My current solution/hack is to use single table inheritance (STI) with a discriminator for "status" and have an ApprovedProductReview extending the ProductReview class based on a status of "APPROVED"
I should add that I am currently simply calling
$em->find('Entities\Product', $pid);
to get my product, and Doctrine2 does all the associations automatically. Should I instead be instantiating a product by providing a DQL query?
What I'd really like is a way to override the magic that Doctrine2 provides based on the annotations, and simply be able to use DQL to lazily get the correct subset of reviews.
Suggestions?
You can use the WITH statement in DQL:
$dql = "SELECT p, r
FROM Entities\Product p
LEFT JOIN p.reviews r WITH r.status = :status
WHERE p.id = :id"
$q = $em->createQuery($dql);
$q->setParameter('id', $id);
$q->setParameter('status', $status);
$product = $q->getSingleResult();
Related
I need to fetch the top performer for each month, here is the below MySql query which gives me the correct output.
select id,Name,totalPoints, createdDateTime
from userdetail
where app=4 and totalPoints in ( select
max(totalPoints)
FROM userdetail
where app=4
group by month(createdDateTime), year(createdDateTime))
order by totalPoints desc
I am new to Django ORM. I am not able to write an equivalent Django query which does the task. I have been struggling with this logic for 2 days. Any help would be highly appreciated.
While the GROUP BY clause in a subquery is slightly difficult to express with the ORM because aggregate() operations don't emit querysets, a similar effect can be achieved with a Window function:
UserDetail.objects.filter(total_points__in=UserDetail.objects.annotate(max_points=Window(
expression=Max('total_points'),
partition_by=[Trunc('created_datetime', 'month')]
)).values('max_points')
)
In general, this sort of pattern is implemented with Subquery expressions. In this case, I've implicitly used a subquery by passing a queryset to an __in predicate.
The Django documentation's notes on using aggregates within subqueries is are also relevant to this sort of query, since you want to use the results of an aggregate in a subquery (which I've avoided by using a window function).
However, I believe your query may not correctly capture what you want to do: as written it could return rows for users who weren't the best in a given month but did have the same score as another user who was the best in any month.
**
Difference between creating a foreign key for consistency and for joins
**
I am fine to use Foreignkey and Queryset API with Django.
I just want to understand little bit more deeply how it works behind the scenes.
In Django manual, it says
a database index is automatically created on the ForeignKey. You can
disable this by setting db_index to False. You may want to avoid the
overhead of an index if you are creating a foreign key for consistency
rather than joins, or if you will be creating an alternative index
like a partial of multiple column index.
creating for a foreign key for consistency rather than joins
this part is confusing me.
I expected that you use Join keyword if you do query with Foreign key like below.
SELECT
*
FROM
vehicles
INNER JOIN users ON vehicles.car_owner = users.user_id
For example,
class Place(models.Model):
name = models.Charfield(max_length=50)
address = models.Charfield(max_length=50)
class Comment(models.Model):
place = models.ForeignKeyField(Place)
content = models.Charfield(max_length=50)
if you use queryset like Comment.objects.filter(place=1), i expected using Join Keyword in low level SQL command.
but, when I checked it by printing out queryset.query in console, it showed like below.
(I simplified with Model just to explains. below, it shows all attributes in my model. you can ignore attributes)
SELECT
"bfm_comment"."id", "bfm_comment"."content", "bfm_comment"."user_id", "bfm_comment"."place_id", "bfm_comment"."created_at"
FROM "bfm_comment" WHERE "bfm_comment"."place_id" = 1
creating a foreign key for consistency vs creating a foreign key for joins
simply, I thought if you use any queryset, it means using foreign key for joins. Because you can get parent's table data by c = Comment.objects.get(id=1) c.place.name easily. I thought it joins two tables behind scenes. But result of Print(queryset.query) didn't how Join Keyword but Find it by Where keyword.
The way I understood from an answer
Case 1:
Comment.objects.filter(place=1)
result
SELECT
"bfm_comment"."id", "bfm_comment"."content", "bfm_comment"."user_id", "bfm_comment"."place_id", "bfm_comment"."created_at"
FROM "bfm_comment"
WHERE "bfm_comment"."id" = 1
Case 2:
Comment.objects.filter(place__name="df")
result
SELECT "bfm_comment"."id", "bfm_comment"."content", "bfm_comment"."user_id", "bfm_comment"."place_id", "bfm_comment"."created_at"
FROM "bfm_comment" INNER JOIN "bfm_place" ON ("bfm_comment"."place_id" = "bfm_place"."id")
WHERE "bfm_place"."name" = df
Case1 is searching rows which has comment.id column is 1 in just Comment table.
But in Case 2, it needs to know Place table's attribute 'name', so It has to use JOIN keyword to check values in column of Place table. Right?
So Is it alright to think that I create a foreign key for joins if i use queryset like Case2 and that it is better to create index on the Foreign Key?
for above question, I think I can take the answer from Django Manual
Consider adding indexes to fields that you frequently query using
filter(), exclude(), order_by(), etc. as indexes may help to speed up
lookups. Note that determining the best indexes is a complex
database-dependent topic that will depend on your particular
application. The overhead of maintaining an index may outweigh any
gains in query speed
In conclusion, it really depends on how my application work with it.
If you execute the following command the mystery will be revealed
./manage.py sqlmigrate myapp 0001
Take care to replace myapp with your app name (bfm I think) and 0001 with the actual migration where the Comment model is created.
The generated sql will reveal that the actual table is created with place_id int rather than a place Place that is because the RDBMS doesn't know anything about models, the models are only in the application level. It's the job of the django orm to fetch the data from the RDBMS and convert them into model instances. That's why you always get a place member in each of your Comment instances and that place member gives you access to the members of the related Place instance in turn.
So what happens when you do?
Comment.objects.filter(place=1)
Django is smart enough to know that you are referring to a place_id because 1 is obviously not an instance of a Place. But if you used a Place instance the result would be the same. So there is no join here. The above query would definitely benefit from having an index on the place_id, but it wouldn't benefit from having a foreign key constraint!! Only the Comment table is queried.
If you want a join, try this:
Comment.objects.filter(place__name='my home')
Queries of this nature with the __ often result in joins, but sometimes it results in a sub query.
Querysets are lazy.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.10/topics/db/queries/#querysets-are-lazy
QuerySets are lazy – the act of creating a QuerySet doesn’t involve
any database activity. You can stack filters together all day long,
and Django won’t actually run the query until the QuerySet is
evaluated. Take a look at this example:
I've created a nested resource that I'm posting some data to and filtering based on what I post. What I need to do in addition to that is annotate my data as well which I can't seem to figure out.
Is there a way to get a query similar to the following in a nested resource?
Collection.objects.filter(picture__type__name__in=request.POST.getlist('pictures[]')).annotate(total=Count('picture')).filter(total=len(request.POST.getlist('pictures[]')))
If you're attempting to make an annotated query on each individual item in the initial collection you should look into using extra.
The example from the docs that might help you on your way:
Blog.objects.extra(
select={
'entry_count': 'SELECT COUNT(*) FROM blog_entry WHERE blog_entry.blog_id = blog_blog.id'
},
)
Is it possible to prevent multiple querys when i use django ORM ? Example:
product = Product.objects.get(name="Banana")
for provider in product.providers.all():
print provider.name
This code will make 2 SQL querys:
1 - SELECT ••• FROM stock_product WHERE stock_product.name = 'Banana'
2 - SELECT stock_provider.id, stock_provider.name FROM stock_provider INNER JOIN stock_product_reference ON (stock_provider.id = stock_product_reference.provider_id) WHERE stock_product_reference.product_id = 1
I confess, i use Doctrine (PHP) for some projects. With doctrine it's possible to specify joins when retrieve the object (relations are populated in object, so no need to query database again for get attribute relation value).
Is it possible to do the same with Django's ORM ?
PS: I hop my question is comprehensive, english is not my primary language.
In Django 1.4 or later, you can use prefetch_related. It's like select_related but allows M2M relations and such.
product = Product.objects.prefetch_related('providers').get(name="Banana")
You still get two queries, though. From the docs:
prefetch_related, on the other hand, does a separate lookup for each relationship, and does the ‘joining’ in Python.
As for packing this down into a single query, Django won't do it like Doctrine because it doesn't do that much post-processing of the result set (Django would have to remove all the redundant column data, since you'll get a row per provider and each of these rows will have a copy of all of product's fields).
So if you want to pack this down to one query, you're going to have to turn it around and run the query on the Provider table (I'm guessing at your schema):
providers = Provider.objects.filter(product__name="Banana").select_related('product')
This should pack it down to one query, but you won't get a single product ORM object out of it, instead needing to get the product fields via providers[k].product.
You can use prefetch_related, sometimes in combination with select_related, to get all related objects in a single query: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.5/ref/models/querysets/#prefetch-related
Can I have a DQL join between unrelated entities using WITH DQL operator? OR is definign relationship absolutely mandatory?
I have a unidirectional relationship with Category and CategorySubsription. Where CategorySubscription has a many to one unidirectional relationship with Category. I want to grab a list of Categories c and left join CategorySubscription cs WITH cs.category_id = c.id AND cs.user_id = value.
Can I do this somehow?
Starting with Doctrine version 2.3 you can, as mentioned in a blog.
It's also mentioned in the docs if you know where to look. Scroll down to the last example under "15.2.4. DQL SELECT Examples":
Joins between entities without associations were not possible until version 2.4, where you can generate an arbitrary join with the following syntax:
<?php
$query = $em->createQuery('SELECT u FROM User u JOIN Blacklist b WITH u.email = b.email');
I know it says "not possible until version 2.4", but it definitely works starting with 2.3!
You can try using multiple from() methods and join conditions put in where() or andWhere methods()