I'm trying to have a request with a case sensitive result with eloquent.
For example in my database I have
1ABC
2Abc
3abc
User::where('code', 'LIKE', "%$code%")->get() or User::where('code', '=', $code)->get()
but I have my 3 rows as result and I just want 2Abc
It's feature of the database not Laravel itself. In MySql you can define CHARACTER SET and COLLATION on different levels (DB, connection, table, column - see the docs).
In your case you must be using ci - case insensitive collaction, so you need to change that in your db.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/charset-mysql.html
Related
I want to filter a form using accent and case insensitive filters.
MS Access doesn't support either, but Posgres does. Using these for reference:
Does PostgreSQL support "accent insensitive" collations?
PostgreSQL: How to make "case-insensitive" query
I asked how to send Postgres specific SQL from within access and the solution is to use a passthrough query Postgresql syntax in ms access
And I get the results I want, regardless of accent or case. HOWEVER, the form's recordset is no longer editable. From my research (for example: How to make a passthrough / passthru query editable? ) Pass through queries are not editable/updateable
Is there a way to filter a form with accent/case insensitive filters and have the resulting recordset updateable?
You can use an Access query (not Pass-Through), using the StrComp Function with vbBinaryCompare = 0.
SELECT foo
FROM bar
WHERE StrComp(foo, "Aáà", 0) = 0
Result 0 = Exact match.
I have a basic REST service backed by a PostgreSQL database with a table with various columns, one of which is a JSONB column that contains arbitrary data. Clients can store data filling in the fixed columns and provide any JSON as opaque data that is stored in the JSONB column.
I want to allow the client to query the database with constraints on both the fixed columns and the JSONB. It is easy to translate some query parameters like ?field=value and convert that into a parameterized SQL query for the fixed columns, but I want to add an arbitrary JSONB query to the SQL as well.
This JSONB query string could contain SQL injection, how can I prevent this? I think that because the structure of the JSONB data is arbitrary I can't use a parameterized query for this purpose. All the documentation I can find suggests I use parameterized queries, and I can't find any useful information on how to actually sanitize the query string itself, which seems like my only option.
For example a similar question is:
How to prevent SQL Injection in PostgreSQL JSON/JSONB field?
But I can't apply the same solution as I don't know the structure of the JSONB or the query, I can't assume the client wants to query a particular path using a particular operator, the entire JSONB query needs to be freely provided by the client.
I'm using golang, in case there are any existing libraries or code fragments that I can use.
edit: some example queries on the JSONB that the client might do:
(content->>'company') is NULL
(content->>'income')::numeric>80000
content->'company'->>'name'='EA' AND (content->>'income')::numeric>80000
content->'assets'#>'[{"kind":"car"}]'
(content->>'DOB')::TIMESTAMP<'2000-01-30T10:12:18.120Z'::TIMESTAMP
EXISTS (SELECT FROM jsonb_array_elements(content->'assets') asset WHERE (asset->>'value')::numeric > 100000)
Note that these don't cover all possible types of queries. Ideally I want any query that PostgreSQL supports on the JSONB data to be allowed. I just want to check the query to ensure it doesn't contain sql injection. For example, a simplistic and probably inadequate solution would be to not allow any ";" in the query string.
You could allow the users to specify a path within the JSON document, and then parameterize that path within a call to a function like json_extract_path_text. That is, the WHERE clause would look like:
WHERE json_extract_path_text(data, $1) = $2
The path argument is just a string, easily parameterized, which describes the keys to traverse down to the given value, e.g. 'foo.bars[0].name'. The right-hand side of the clause would be parameterized along the same rules as you're using for fixed column filtering.
Currently I have a PostgreSQL query which calculates expression:
SELECT sum(timestamp2 - timestamp1 [some other math]) from <...> WHERE <...>.
Is there a way to do it with Slick? I tried to fetch raw data (login and logout) from database and process it, but this method is too expensive, so I need to process data on the database side.
This is how you do calculated columns
https://github.com/slick/slick/issues/1314
So in your case it will be
def ts(row: YourTableClass[_]) = row.timestamp2 -- row.timestamp1
Next you can do aggregation like shown in nmat's link
I am performing an ETL job via Pentaho 7.1.
The job is to populate a table 'PRO_T_TICKETS' in PostgreSQL 9.2 via the Pentaho Jobs and transformations?
I have mapped the table fields with respect to the stream fields
Mapped Fields
My Table PRO_T_TICKETS contains the Schema (Column Names) in UPPERCASE.
Is this the reason I can't populate the table PRO_T_TICKETS with my ETL Job?
I duplicated the step TABLE_OUTPUT to PRO_T_TICKETS and changed the Target table field to 'PRO_T_TICKETS2'. Pentaho created a new table with lowercase schema and populated the data in it.
But I want this data to be uploaded in the table PRO_T_TICKETS only and with the UPPERCASE schema if possible.
I am attaching the whole job here and the error thrown by Pentaho. Pentaho Error I have also tried my query by adding double quotes to the column names as you can see in the error. But it didn't help.
What do you think I should do?
When you create (or modify) the connection, select Advanced on the left panel and click on the Force to upper case or Force to lower case or, even better, Preserve case of reserved words.
To know which option to choose, copy the 4th line of your error log, the line starting with INSERT INTO "public"."PRO_T_TICKETS("OID"... in your SQL-developer tool and change the connection advanced parameters until it works.
Also, at debug time, don't use batch updates, don't use lazy conversion on previous steps, and try with one (1) field rather than all (25).
Just as a complement: it worked for me following the tips from AlainD and using specific configurations that I'd like to share with you. I have a transformation streaming data from MySQL to PostgreSQL using a Table Input and Output. In both of DBs I have uppercase objects.
I did the following steps to work in the right way:
In the table input (MySQL) the objects are uppercase too, but I typed in lowercase and it worked and I didn't set any special option in the DB Connection.
In the table output (PostgreSQL) I typed everything in uppercase (schema, table name and columns) and I also set "specify the database fields" (clicking on "Get fields").
In the target DB Connection (PostgreSQL) I put the options (in "Advanced" section): "Quote all in database" and "Preserve case of reserved words".
PS: Ah, the last option is because I've found out that there was one more problem with my fields: there was a column called "Admin" (yes guys, they created a camelcase column using a reserved word!) and for that reason I must to put "Preserve case of reserved words" and type it as "Admin" (without quotes and in camelcase) in the Table Output.
The following works
s = select([tsr.c.kod]).where(tsr.c.rr=='10').group_by(tsr.c.kod)
and this does not:
s = select([tsr.c.kod, tsr.c.rr, any fields]).where(tsr.c.rr=='10').group_by(tsr.c.kod)
Why?
thx.
It doesn't work because the query isn't valid like that.
Every column needs to be in the group_by or needs an aggregate (i.e. max(), min(), whatever) according to the SQL standard. Most databases have always complied to this but there are a few exceptions.
MySQL has always been the odd one in this regard, within MySQL this behaviour depends on the ONLY_FULL_GROUP_BY setting: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/group-by-handling.html
I would personally recommend setting the sql_mode setting to ANSI. That way you're largely compliant to the SQL standard which will help you in the future if you ever need to use (or migrate) to a standards compliant database such as PostgreSQL.
What you are trying to do is somehow valid in mysql, but invalid in standard sql, postgresql and common sense. When you group rows by 'kod', each row in a group has the same 'kod' value, but different values for 'rr' for example. With aggregate functions you can get some aspect of the values in this column for each group, for example
select kod, max(rr) from table group by kod
will give you list of 'kod's and the max of 'rr's in each group (by kod).
That being sad, in the select clause you can only put columns from the group by clause and/or aggregate functions from other columns. You can put whatever you like in where - this is used for filtering. You can also put additional 'having' clause after group that contains aggregate function expression that can also be used as post-group filtering.