I want to retrieve a sum of two fields (which are aggregations themselves) for each object in a table.
The following may describe a bit better what I'm after but results in an Unknown column in field list-Error:
items = MyModel.objects.annotate(
field1=Sum("relatedModel__someField"),
field2=Sum("relatedModel__someField")).extra(
select={"sum_field1_field2": "field1 + field2"})
I also tried using F() for the field lookups but that gives me an invalid sql statement.
Any ideas on how to solve this are much appreciated.
it this what you want?
items = MyModel.objects.extra(
select = {'sum_field1_field2': 'SUM(relatedModel__someField) + SUM(relatedModel__someField)'},
)
To make it work for many to many or for many to one (reverse) relations, you may use the following:
items = MyModel.objects.extra(
select = {'sum_field1_field2': 'SUM("relatedModel"."someField") + SUM("relatedModel"."someField")'},
)
But this will break also if you need another annotate, like for a count, because extra will add the statement to the GROUP BY clause, whereas aggregate functions are not allowed in there.
Related
Here I'm trying to get count of each position from PunchRawData after filtering out distinct related values.
for that I need following code to work together.
queryset = PunchRawData.objects.filter(punch_type=IN, actual_clock_datetime__date=actual_clock_datetime).distinct('employee')
trade_based = queryset.values('employee__position').annotate(emp_count=Count('employee__position'))
But I get this error:
NotImplementedError: annotate() + distinct(fields) is not implemented.
How to resolve this?
Apply annotate first and then use distinct. Plus you can achieve this only using one query there is no need for another variable
queryset = PunchRawData.objects.filter(punch_type=IN, actual_clock_datetime__date=actual_clock_datetime).annotate(emp_count=Count('employee__position', distinct=True)).values('emp_count')
Hope this will work for you.
This is a bleeding-edge feature that I'm currently skewered upon and quickly bleeding out. I want to annotate a subquery-aggregate onto an existing queryset. Doing this before 1.11 either meant custom SQL or hammering the database. Here's the documentation for this, and the example from it:
from django.db.models import OuterRef, Subquery, Sum
comments = Comment.objects.filter(post=OuterRef('pk')).values('post')
total_comments = comments.annotate(total=Sum('length')).values('total')
Post.objects.filter(length__gt=Subquery(total_comments))
They're annotating on the aggregate, which seems weird to me, but whatever.
I'm struggling with this so I'm boiling it right back to the simplest real-world example I have data for. I have Carparks which contain many Spaces. Use Book→Author if that makes you happier but —for now— I just want to annotate on a count of the related model using Subquery*.
spaces = Space.objects.filter(carpark=OuterRef('pk')).values('carpark')
count_spaces = spaces.annotate(c=Count('*')).values('c')
Carpark.objects.annotate(space_count=Subquery(count_spaces))
This gives me a lovely ProgrammingError: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression and in my head, this error makes perfect sense. The subquery is returning a list of spaces with the annotated-on total.
The example suggested that some sort of magic would happen and I'd end up with a number I could use. But that's not happening here? How do I annotate on aggregate Subquery data?
Hmm, something's being added to my query's SQL...
I built a new Carpark/Space model and it worked. So the next step is working out what's poisoning my SQL. On Laurent's advice, I took a look at the SQL and tried to make it more like the version they posted in their answer. And this is where I found the real problem:
SELECT "bookings_carpark".*, (SELECT COUNT(U0."id") AS "c"
FROM "bookings_space" U0
WHERE U0."carpark_id" = ("bookings_carpark"."id")
GROUP BY U0."carpark_id", U0."space"
)
AS "space_count" FROM "bookings_carpark";
I've highlighted it but it's that subquery's GROUP BY ... U0."space". It's retuning both for some reason. Investigations continue.
Edit 2: Okay, just looking at the subquery SQL I can see that second group by coming through ☹
In [12]: print(Space.objects_standard.filter().values('carpark').annotate(c=Count('*')).values('c').query)
SELECT COUNT(*) AS "c" FROM "bookings_space" GROUP BY "bookings_space"."carpark_id", "bookings_space"."space" ORDER BY "bookings_space"."carpark_id" ASC, "bookings_space"."space" ASC
Edit 3: Okay! Both these models have sort orders. These are being carried through to the subquery. It's these orders that are bloating out my query and breaking it.
I guess this might be a bug in Django but short of removing the Meta-order_by on both these models, is there any way I can unsort a query at querytime?
*I know I could just annotate a Count for this example. My real purpose for using this is a much more complex filter-count but I can't even get this working.
Shazaam! Per my edits, an additional column was being output from my subquery. This was to facilitate ordering (which just isn't required in a COUNT).
I just needed to remove the prescribed meta-order from the model. You can do this by just adding an empty .order_by() to the subquery. In my code terms that meant:
from django.db.models import Count, OuterRef, Subquery
spaces = Space.objects.filter(carpark=OuterRef('pk')).order_by().values('carpark')
count_spaces = spaces.annotate(c=Count('*')).values('c')
Carpark.objects.annotate(space_count=Subquery(count_spaces))
And that works. Superbly. So annoying.
It's also possible to create a subclass of Subquery, that changes the SQL it outputs. For instance, you can use:
class SQCount(Subquery):
template = "(SELECT count(*) FROM (%(subquery)s) _count)"
output_field = models.IntegerField()
You then use this as you would the original Subquery class:
spaces = Space.objects.filter(carpark=OuterRef('pk')).values('pk')
Carpark.objects.annotate(space_count=SQCount(spaces))
You can use this trick (at least in postgres) with a range of aggregating functions: I often use it to build up an array of values, or sum them.
I just bumped into a VERY similar case, where I had to get seat reservations for events where the reservation status is not cancelled. After trying to figure the problem out for hours, here's what I've seen as the root cause of the problem:
Preface: this is MariaDB, Django 1.11.
When you annotate a query, it gets a GROUP BY clause with the fields you select (basically what's in your values() query selection). After investigating with the MariaDB command line tool why I'm getting NULLs or Nones on the query results, I've came to the conclusion that the GROUP BY clause will cause the COUNT() to return NULLs.
Then, I started diving into the QuerySet interface to see how can I manually, forcibly remove the GROUP BY from the DB queries, and came up with the following code:
from django.db.models.fields import PositiveIntegerField
reserved_seats_qs = SeatReservation.objects.filter(
performance=OuterRef(name='pk'), status__in=TAKEN_TYPES
).values('id').annotate(
count=Count('id')).values('count')
# Query workaround: remove GROUP BY from subquery. Test this
# vigorously!
reserved_seats_qs.query.group_by = []
performances_qs = Performance.objects.annotate(
reserved_seats=Subquery(
queryset=reserved_seats_qs,
output_field=PositiveIntegerField()))
print(performances_qs[0].reserved_seats)
So basically, you have to manually remove/update the group_by field on the subquery's queryset in order for it to not have a GROUP BY appended on it on execution time. Also, you'll have to specify what output field the subquery will have, as it seems that Django fails to recognize it automatically, and raises exceptions on the first evaluation of the queryset. Interestingly, the second evaluation succeeds without it.
I believe this is a Django bug, or an inefficiency in subqueries. I'll create a bug report about it.
Edit: the bug report is here.
Problem
The problem is that Django adds GROUP BY as soon as it sees using an aggregate function.
Solution
So you can just create your own aggregate function but so that Django thinks it is not aggregate. Just like this:
total_comments = Comment.objects.filter(
post=OuterRef('pk')
).order_by().annotate(
total=Func(F('length'), function='SUM')
).values('total')
Post.objects.filter(length__gt=Subquery(total_comments))
This way you get the SQL query like this:
SELECT "testapp_post"."id", "testapp_post"."length"
FROM "testapp_post"
WHERE "testapp_post"."length" > (SELECT SUM(U0."length") AS "total"
FROM "testapp_comment" U0
WHERE U0."post_id" = "testapp_post"."id")
So you can even use aggregate subqueries in aggregate functions.
Example
You can count the number of workdays between two dates, excluding weekends and holidays, and aggregate and summarize them by employee:
class NonWorkDay(models.Model):
date = DateField()
class WorkPeriod(models.Model):
employee = models.ForeignKey(User, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
start_date = DateField()
end_date = DateField()
number_of_non_work_days = NonWorkDay.objects.filter(
date__gte=OuterRef('start_date'),
date__lte=OuterRef('end_date'),
).annotate(
cnt=Func('id', function='COUNT')
).values('cnt')
WorkPeriod.objects.values('employee').order_by().annotate(
number_of_word_days=Sum(F('end_date__year') - F('start_date__year') - number_of_non_work_days)
)
Hope this will help!
A solution which would work for any general aggregation could be implemented using Window classes from Django 2.0. I have added this to the Django tracker ticket as well.
This allows the aggregation of annotated values by calculating the aggregate over partitions based on the outer query model (in the GROUP BY clause), then annotating that data to every row in the subquery queryset. The subquery can then use the aggregated data from the first row returned and ignore the other rows.
Performance.objects.annotate(
reserved_seats=Subquery(
SeatReservation.objects.filter(
performance=OuterRef(name='pk'),
status__in=TAKEN_TYPES,
).annotate(
reserved_seat_count=Window(
expression=Count('pk'),
partition_by=[F('performance')]
),
).values('reserved_seat_count')[:1],
output_field=FloatField()
)
)
If I understand correctly, you are trying to count Spaces available in a Carpark. Subquery seems overkill for this, the good old annotate alone should do the trick:
Carpark.objects.annotate(Count('spaces'))
This will include a spaces__count value in your results.
OK, I have seen your note...
I was also able to run your same query with other models I had at hand. The results are the same, so the query in your example seems to be OK (tested with Django 1.11b1):
activities = Activity.objects.filter(event=OuterRef('pk')).values('event')
count_activities = activities.annotate(c=Count('*')).values('c')
Event.objects.annotate(spaces__count=Subquery(count_activities))
Maybe your "simplest real-world example" is too simple... can you share the models or other information?
"works for me" doesn't help very much. But.
I tried your example on some models I had handy (the Book -> Author type), it works fine for me in django 1.11b1.
Are you sure you're running this in the right version of Django? Is this the actual code you're running? Are you actually testing this not on carpark but some more complex model?
Maybe try to print(thequery.query) to see what SQL it's trying to run in the database. Below is what I got with my models (edited to fit your question):
SELECT (SELECT COUNT(U0."id") AS "c"
FROM "carparks_spaces" U0
WHERE U0."carpark_id" = ("carparks_carpark"."id")
GROUP BY U0."carpark_id") AS "space_count" FROM "carparks_carpark"
Not really an answer, but hopefully it helps.
How can I make an order_by like this ....
p = Product.objects.filter(vendornumber='403516006')\
.order_by('-created').distinct('vendor__name')
The problem is that I have multiple vendors with the same name, and I only want the latest product by the vendor ..
Hope it makes sense?
I got this DB error:
SELECT DISTINCT ON expressions must match initial ORDER BY expressions
LINE 1: SELECT DISTINCT ON ("search_vendor"."name")
"search_product"...
Based on your error message and this other question, it seems to me this would fix it:
p = Product.objects.filter(vendornumber='403516006')\
.order_by('vendor__name', '-created').distinct('vendor__name')
That is, it seems that the DISTINCT ON expression(s) must match the leftmost ORDER BY expression(s). So by making the column you use in distinct as the first column in the order_by, I think it should work.
Just matching leftmost order_by() arg and distinct() did not work for me, producing the same error (Django 1.8.7 bug or a feature)?
qs.order_by('project').distinct('project')
however it worked when I changed to:
qs.order_by('project__id').distinct('project')
and I do not even have multiple order_by args.
In case you are hoping to use a separate field for distinct and order by another field you can use the below code
from django.db.models import Subquery
Model.objects.filter(
pk__in=Subquery(
Model.objects.all().distinct('foo').values('pk')
)
).order_by('bar')
I had a similar issue but then with related fields. With just adding the related field in distinct(), I didn't get the right results.
I wanted to sort by room__name keeping the person (linked to residency ) unique. Repeating the related field as per the below fixed my issue:
.order_by('room__name', 'residency__person', ).distinct('room__name', 'residency__person')
See also these related posts:
ProgrammingError: when using order_by and distinct together in django
django distinct and order_by
Postgresql DISTINCT ON with different ORDER BY
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)
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.