I am working on implementing grouping w/ the Server Side Row Model. I need to generate an appropriate ID for the intermediate group rows. For example, if I group by Status then I would have intermediate rows representing each Status (NEW, IN PROGRESS, COMPLETE, etc). I need to come up with a unique ID for these rows (but preferable something deterministic if they need to be accessed/updated later).
The getRowId function is passed an object that contains things like the row's data, the previous parent group values, a reference to the api, etc.
What I would ideally like to know is the current list of group fields... I have all of the values readily accessible, but I don't know what field the current row is being grouped by - else I could just go grab that field from the row's data to use as part of the row id...
Is there any good way to acquire this information?
The columnApi exposes the 'getRowGroupColumns' function from which the field property can be deduced:
getRowId: ({ columnApi, data, level, parentKeys = [] }) => {
const groupColumns = columnApi.getRowGroupColumns();
if (groupColumns.length > level) {
const field = groupColumns[level].getColDef().field;
return [...parentKeys, data[field]].join('-');
}
return [...parentKeys, data.athlete, data.year];
},
Related
List list = new List();
I have a list of Guid. What is the best to check all guid exits or not using ef core table?
I am currently using the below code but the performance is very bad. assume user table as 1 million records.
for Example
public async Task<bool> IsIdListValid(IEnumerable<int> idList)
{
var validIds = await _context.User.Select(x => x.Id).ToListAync();
return idList.All(x => validIds.Contains(x));
}
The performance is bad because you are reading each row of the table into memory, and then iterating through it (ToList materializes the query.) Try using the Any() method to take advantage of the strength of the database. Use something like the following: bool exists = _context.User.Any(u => idList.Contains(u));. This should translate to an SQL IN clause.
Provided you assert that the # of IDs being sent in is kept reasonable, you could do the following:
var idCount = _context.User.Where(x => idList.Contains(x.Id)).Count();
return idCount == idList.Count;
This assumes that you are comparing on a unique constraint like the PK. We get a count of how many rows have a matching ID from the list, then compare that to the count of IDs sent.
If you're passing a large # of IDs, you would need to break the list up into reasonable sets as there are limits to what you can do with an IN clause and potential performance costs as well.
We have following structure in MongoDB documents.
{
"id":"1111",
"keys":[
{
"name":"Country",
"value":"USA"
},
{
"name":"City",
"value":"LongIsland"
},
{
"name":"State",
"value":"NewYork"
}
]
}
Now using Springframework Query object, I figured out a way to pull the details using below syntax
query.addCriteria(
Criteria.where("keys.value").is(countryparam).
andOperator(
Criteria.where("keys.value").is(stateparam)
)
);
Two issue with this query model.
First issue is it is irrelevant if countryparam and stateparam are actually meant to match Country key name and State key name respectively. If just the values matches, the query returns the document. Means, if I have Country and City params, this just works if user passes Country and City values, even if they are swapped. So how can I exactly compare City to cityparam and State to Stateparam?
More complexity is if I have to extract the document basing on multiple key value pairs, I should be correspondingly able to match key name with respective value and query the document. How can I do this?
Thanks in advance!
My sample code lines are,
var question = context.EXTests
.Include(i => i.EXTestSections.Where(t => t.Status != (int)Status.InActive))
.Include(i => i.EXTestQuestions)
.FirstOrDefault(p => p.Id == testId);
Here Include was not supporting Where Clause. How can I modify above code?
You have a sequence of ExTests. Every ExText has zero or more ExTestSections, Every Extest also has a property ExtestQuestions, which is probably also a sequence. Finally every ExTest is identified by an Id.
You want a query where you get the first ExTest that has Id equal to testId, inclusive all its ExTestQuestions and some ExTestSections. You want only those ExTestSections whith an InActive status.
Use Select instead of Using
One of the slower parts of database queries is the transfer of the data from the DBMS to your process. Hence it is wise to limit it to only the data you actually plan to use.
It seems that you have designed a one-to-many relation between ExTests and its ExTestSections: every ExTest has zero or more ExTestSections and every ExTestSection belongs to exactly one ExTest. In databases this is done by giving the ExTestSection a foreign key to the ExTest that it belongs to. It might be that you've designed a many-to-many relation. The principle remains the same.
If you ask an ExTest with its hundred ExTestSections, you get the Id of the the ExTest and hundred times the value of the foreign key of the ExTestSection, thus sending the same value 101 times. What a waste.
So if you query data from the database, only query for the data you actually plan to use.
Use Include if you plan to update the queried data, otherwise use Select
Back to your question
var result = myDbContext.EXTests
.Where(exTest => exTest.Id == testId)
.Select( exTest => new
{
// only select the properties you plan to use
Id = exTest.Id;
Name = exTest.Name,
Result = exText.Result,
... // other properties
ExTestSections = exTest.Sections
.Where(exTestSection => exTestSection.Status != (int)Status.InActive)
.Select(exTestSection => new
{
// again: select only those properties you actually plan to use
Id = exTestSection.Id,
// foreign key not needed, you know it equals ExTest primary key
// ExTestId = exTestSection.ExtTestId
... // other ExtestSection properties you plan to use
})
.ToList(),
ExTestQuestions = exTest.ExTestQuestions
.Select( ...) // only the properties you'll use
})
.FirstOrDefault();
I've transferred the test on equal TestId to a Where. This would allow you to omit the Id of the requested item: you know it will equal testId, so not meaningful to transfer it.
How insert item on top table in PostgreSQL? That it is possible? In the table I have only two fields as text. First is primary key.
CREATE TABLE news_table (
title text not null primary key,
url text not null
);
I need a simple query for the program in java.
OK, this is my code:
get("/getnews", (request, response) -> {
List<News> getNews = newsService.getNews();
List<News> getAllNews = newsService.getAllNews();
try (Connection connection = DB.sql2o.open()) {
String sql = "INSERT INTO news_table(title, url) VALUES (:title, :url)";
for (News news : getNews) {
if (!getAllNews.contains(news)) {
connection.createQuery(sql, true)
.addParameter("title", news.getTitle())
.addParameter("url", news.getUrl())
.executeUpdate()
.getKey();
}
}
}
return newsService.getNews();
}, json());
The problem is that as it calls getnews method for the second time this new news adds at the end of the table, and there is no extant hronologi news. How this resolve? I use Sql2o + sparkjava.
Probably already I know. I need to reverse the List getnews before I will must contains object getnews and getallnews?
There is no start or end in a table. If you want to sort your data, just use an ORDER BY in your SELECT statements. Without ORDER BY, there is no order.
Relational theory, the mathematical foundation of relational databases, lays down certain conditions that relations (represented in real databases as tables) must obey. One of them is that they have no ordering (i.e., the rows will neither be stored nor retrieved in any particular order, since they are treated as a mathematical set). It's therefore completely under the control of the RDBMS where a new row is entered into a table.
Hence there is no way to ensure a particular ordering of the data without using an ORDER BY clause when you retrieve the data.
I'm new to Couchbase and am struggling to get a composite index to do what I want it to. The use-case is this:
I have a set of "Enumerations" being stored as documents
Each has a "last_updated" field which -- as you may have guessed -- stores the last time that the field was updated
I want to be able to show only those enumerations which have been updated since some given date but still sort the list by the name of the enumeration
I've created a Couchbase View like this:
function (doc, meta) {
var time_array;
if (doc.doc_type === "enum") {
if (doc.last_updated) {
time_array = doc.last_updated.split(/[- :]/);
} else {
time_array = [0,0,0,0,0,0];
}
for(var i=0; i<time_array.length; i++) { time_array[i] = parseInt(time_array[i], 10); }
time_array.unshift(meta.id);
emit(time_array, null);
}
}
I have one record that doesn't have the last_updated field set and therefore has it's time fields are all set to zero. I thought as a first test I could filter out that result and I put in the following:
startkey = ["a",2012,0,0,0,0,0]
endkey = ["Z",2014,0,0,0,0,0]
While the list is sorted by the 'id' it isn't filtering anything! Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Is there a better composite view to achieve these results?
In couchbase when you query view by startkey - endkey you're unable to filter results by 2 or more properties. Couchbase has only one index, so it will filter your results only by first param. So your query will be identical to query with:
startkey = ["a"]
endkey = ["Z"]
Here is a link to complete answer by Filipe Manana why it can't be filtered by those dates.
Here is a quote from it:
For composite keys (arrays), elements are compared from left to right and comparison finishes as soon as a element is different from the corresponding element in the other key (same as what happens when comparing strings à la memcmp() or strcmp()).
So if you want to have a view that filters by date, date array should go first in composite key.