Postgresql query results to depend on few rows of same table - postgresql

I'm working on some application, and we're using postgres as our DB. I don't a lot of experience with SQL at all, and now i encountered a problem, that i can't find answer to.
So here's a problem:
We have privacy settings stored in separate table, and accessibility of each row of data depends on few rows of this privacy table.
Basically structure of privacy table is:
entityId | entityType | privacyId | privacyType | allow | deletedAt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5 | user | 6 | user | f | //example entry
5 | user | 1 | user_all | t |
In two words, this settings mean, that user id5 allows to have access to his data to everybody except user id6.
So i get available data by query like:
SELECT <some_relevant_fields> FROM <table>
JOIN <join>
WHERE
(privacy."privacyId"=6 AND privacy."privacyType"='user' AND privacy.allow=true)
OR (
(privacy."privacyType"='user_all' AND privacy."deletedAt" IS NOT NULL)
AND
(privacy."privacyType"='user' AND privacy."privacyId"=6 AND privacy.allow!=false)
);
I know that this query is incorrect in this form, but i want you to get idea of what i try to achieve.
So it must check for field with its type/id and allow=true, OR check that user_all is not deleted(deletedAt field is null) and there is no field restricting access with allow=false to this user.
But it seems like postgres is chaining all expressions, so it overrides privacy."privacyType"='user_all' with 'user' at the end of expression, and returns no results, or returns data even if user "blocked", because 'user_all' exist.
Is there a way to write WHERE clause to return result if AND expression is true for 2 different rows, for example in code above: (privacy."privacyType"='user_all' AND privacy."deletedAt" IS NOT NULL) is true for one row AND (privacy."privacyType"='user' AND privacy."privacyId"=6 AND privacy.allow!=false) is true for other, or maybe check for absence of row with this values.

Is this what you want?
select <some_fields> from <table> where
privacyType='user_all' AND deletedAt IS NOT NULL
union
select <some_fields> from <table> where
privacyType='user' AND privacyId=6 AND allow<>'f';

You left join the table with itself and found what element doesnt have a match using the where.
SELECT p1.*
FROM privacy p1
LEFT JOIN privacy p2
ON p1."entityId" = p2."entityId"
AND p1."privacyType" = 'user_all'
AND p1."deletedAt" IS NULL
AND p2."privacyType"='user' AND
AND p2."privacyId"= 6
AND p2.allow!=false
WHERE
p2.privacyId IS NOT NULL

Related

Getting number of rows using Left Join kql? Function 'row_number' cannot be invoked in current context. Details: the row set must be serialized

I have the following query:
let p1 = pageViews | where url has "xxx";
p1
| join kind=inner (pageViews
| where url !has "xxx")
on session_Id
| project timestamp1, session_Id1, url1, client_CountryOrRegion1, client_StateOrProvince1, client_City1, user_Id1
It does get users that originated from a certain provider and then looks at which URLs they are going to.
I am now trying to get how many users I got from that provider.
I could just do distinct session_Id and count but what I would like to do is add two columns, first for specific session_id and then increment it when it changes and another one to increment for the number of requests made.
i.e
I tried:
let p1 = pageViews | where url has "project-management";
p1
| join kind=inner (pageViews
| where url !has "project-management")
on session_Id
| project timestamp1, session_Id1, url1, client_CountryOrRegion1, client_StateOrProvince1, client_City1, user_Id1
| extend Rank=row_number(1)
but it gave me
Function 'row_number' cannot be invoked in current context. Details: the row set must be serialized
The records in the output aren't sorted, therefore there's no meaning to row_number().
row_number() only works on serialized records, which you have after using order by, or serialize.
So the solution to your question is to add | serialize before | extend Rank=row_number(1).

Select by id and generate column with relationships in array

Essentially what i want to do is to get by id from "Tracks" but i also want to get the relations it has to other tracks (found in table "Remixes").
I can write a simple query that gets the track i want by id, ex.
SELECT * FROM "Tracks" WHERE id IN ('track-id1');
That gives me:
id | dateModified | channels | userId
-----------+---------------------+-----------------+--------
track-id1 | 2019-07-21 12:15:46 | {"some":"json"} | 1
But this is what i want to get:
id | dateModified | channels | userId | remixes
-----------+---------------------+-----------------+--------+---------
track-id1 | 2019-07-21 12:15:46 | {"some":"json"} | 1 | track-id2, track-id3
So i want to generate a column called "remixes" with ids in an array based on the data that is available in the "Remixes" table by a SELECT query.
Here is example data and database structure:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!17/ec2e6/3
Don't hesitate to ask questions in case anything is unclear,
Thanks in advance
Left join the remixes and then GROUP BY the track ID and use array_agg() to get an array of the remix IDs.
SELECT t.*,
CASE
WHEN array_agg(r."remixTrackId") = '{NULL}'::varchar(255)[] THEN
'{}'::varchar(255)[]
ELSE
array_agg(r."remixTrackId")
END "remixes"
FROM "Tracks" t
LEFT JOIN "Remixes" r
ON r."originalTrackId" = t."id"
WHERE t."id" = 'track-id1'
GROUP BY t."id";
Note that, if there are no remixes array_agg() will return {NULL}. But I figured you rather want an empty array in such a case. That's what the CASE is for.
BTW, providing a fiddle is a nice move of yours! But please also include the code in the original question. The fiddle site might be down (even permanently) and that renders the question useless because of the missing information.
That's a simple outer join with a string aggregation to get the comma separated list:
SELECT t.*,
string_agg(r."remixTrackId", ', ') as remixes
FROM "Tracks" t
LEFT JOIN "Remixes" r ON r."originalTrackId" = t.id
WHERE t.id = 'track-id1'
GROUP BY t.id;
The above assumes that Tracks.id is the primary key of the Tracks table.

Drools - Finding a single matching condition for a table of products ranked by consumers

I have a table displaying information for the top four ratings of produce in a store. I want to be able to find specific products in this rating table. Here is a structure of the table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
sectId | product_code | product_category | consumer_raniking
10444 | 11222 | PRODUCE | RATING_1
10444 | 45555 | PRODUCE | RATING_1
10444 | 10005 | PR0DUCE | RATING_1
20555 | 11344 | PRODUCE | RATING_2
20555 | 94003 | PRODUCE | RATING_2
... and so on.
I wrote a rule to find inserted products which ins not working the way I want, i.e. to find the targetted fact that was inserted into the table. Here is the rule I put together:
rule "find by product codes rating_1"
when
$product_table: ProductRanking( $rank1: this.getProductCodesRankFirst())
$product1 : Product( this.product_code memberOf $rank1, $product_code: product_code )
$product2 : Product( this.product_code == 10444,this.product_code != $product_code ,$product_code2: product_code)
then
System.out.println("Found Products for product_codes "+$product_code+ " "+$product_code2 ) ;
end
Unfortunately, this returns 3 rows. I inserted into the session the product in row 2 i.e. product with ocde 45555 and it does find row 2. However, ir also brings in row 1 and row3.
I can see why it's doing that. It's because the skus are in the sectId with sectId 10444. However, I want to only bring in the row
that I inserted, which is sectionId(10444), product_code(45555). How can I achieve that?
I solved it by using a global to filter out the extra products. In the first line that brings the rankings, I eliminate the extra-matching products this way:
global ProductHelper productHelper
$product_table: ProductRanking( $rank1: productHelper.getProductCodesRankFirst(),
productCode != productHelper.getProductCodeFruitCategory() && productCode!=
productHelper.productCodeVegetableCategory())
The ProductHelper identifies the product codes I want to eliminate and hence the extra 2 products brought in are ignored, creating a single match. I'm sure there is a better way, but since I'm no expert, this is what I was able to come up with.

group by in postgres sql with error must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function [duplicate]

I've been migrating some of my MySQL queries to PostgreSQL to use Heroku. Most of my queries work fine, but I keep having a similar recurring error when I use group by:
ERROR: column "XYZ" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in
an aggregate function
Could someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
MySQL which works 100%:
SELECT `availables`.*
FROM `availables`
INNER JOIN `rooms` ON `rooms`.id = `availables`.room_id
WHERE (rooms.hotel_id = 5056 AND availables.bookdate BETWEEN '2009-11-22' AND '2009-11-24')
GROUP BY availables.bookdate
ORDER BY availables.updated_at
PostgreSQL error:
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PGError: ERROR: column
"availables.id" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an
aggregate function:
SELECT "availables".* FROM "availables" INNER
JOIN "rooms" ON "rooms".id = "availables".room_id WHERE
(rooms.hotel_id = 5056 AND availables.bookdate BETWEEN E'2009-10-21'
AND E'2009-10-23') GROUP BY availables.bookdate ORDER BY
availables.updated_at
Ruby code generating the SQL:
expiration = Available.find(:all,
:joins => [ :room ],
:conditions => [ "rooms.hotel_id = ? AND availables.bookdate BETWEEN ? AND ?", hostel_id, date.to_s, (date+days-1).to_s ],
:group => 'availables.bookdate',
:order => 'availables.updated_at')
Expected Output (from working MySQL query):
+-----+-------+-------+------------+---------+---------------+---------------+
| id | price | spots | bookdate | room_id | created_at | updated_at |
+-----+-------+-------+------------+---------+---------------+---------------+
| 414 | 38.0 | 1 | 2009-11-22 | 1762 | 2009-11-20... | 2009-11-20... |
| 415 | 38.0 | 1 | 2009-11-23 | 1762 | 2009-11-20... | 2009-11-20... |
| 416 | 38.0 | 2 | 2009-11-24 | 1762 | 2009-11-20... | 2009-11-20... |
+-----+-------+-------+------------+---------+---------------+---------------+
3 rows in set
MySQL's totally non standards compliant GROUP BY can be emulated by Postgres' DISTINCT ON. Consider this:
MySQL:
SELECT a,b,c,d,e FROM table GROUP BY a
This delivers 1 row per value of a (which one, you don't really know). Well actually you can guess, because MySQL doesn't know about hash aggregates, so it will probably use a sort... but it will only sort on a, so the order of the rows could be random. Unless it uses a multicolumn index instead of sorting. Well, anyway, it's not specified by the query.
Postgres:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (a) a,b,c,d,e FROM table ORDER BY a,b,c
This delivers 1 row per value of a, this row will be the first one in the sort according to the ORDER BY specified by the query. Simple.
Note that here, it's not an aggregate I'm computing. So GROUP BY actually makes no sense. DISTINCT ON makes a lot more sense.
Rails is married to MySQL, so I'm not surprised that it generates SQL that doesn't work in Postgres.
PostgreSQL is more SQL compliant than MySQL. All fields - except computed field with aggregation function - in the output must be present in the GROUP BY clause.
MySQL's GROUP BY can be used without an aggregate function (which is contrary to the SQL standard), and returns the first row in the group (I don't know based on what criteria), while PostgreSQL must have an aggregate function (MAX, SUM, etc) on the column, on which the GROUP BY clause is issued.
Correct, the solution to fixing this is to use :select and to select each field that you wish to decorate the resulting object with and group by them.
Nasty - but it is how group by should work as opposed to how MySQL works with it by guessing what you mean if you don't stick fields in your group by.
If I remember correctly, in PostgreSQL you have to add every column you fetch from the table where the GROUP BY clause applies to the GROUP BY clause.
Not the prettiest solution, but changing the group parameter to output every column in model works in PostgreSQL:
expiration = Available.find(:all,
:joins => [ :room ],
:conditions => [ "rooms.hotel_id = ? AND availables.bookdate BETWEEN ? AND ?", hostel_id, date.to_s, (date+days-1).to_s ],
:group => Available.column_names.collect{|col| "availables.#{col}"},
:order => 'availables.updated_at')
According to MySQL's "Debuking GROUP BY Myths" http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/debunking-group-by-myths.html. SQL (2003 version of the standard) doesn't requires columns referenced in the SELECT list of a query to also appear in the GROUP BY clause.
For others looking for a way to order by any field, including joined field, in postgresql, use a subquery:
SELECT * FROM(
SELECT DISTINCT ON(availables.bookdate) `availables`.*
FROM `availables` INNER JOIN `rooms` ON `rooms`.id = `availables`.room_id
WHERE (rooms.hotel_id = 5056
AND availables.bookdate BETWEEN '2009-11-22' AND '2009-11-24')
) AS distinct_selected
ORDER BY availables.updated_at
or arel:
subquery = SomeRecord.select("distinct on(xx.id) xx.*, jointable.order_field")
.where("").joins(")
result = SomeRecord.select("*").from("(#{subquery.to_sql}) AS distinct_selected").order(" xx.order_field ASC, jointable.order_field ASC")
I think that .uniq [1] will solve your problem.
[1] Available.select('...').uniq
Take a look at http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html#selecting-specific-fields

Search inside full search column using certain letters

I want to search inside a full search column using certain letters, I mean:
select "Name","Country","_score" from datatable where match("Country", 'China');
Returns many rows and is ok. My question is, how can I search for example:
select "Name","Country","_score" from datatable where match("Country", 'Ch');
I want to see, China, Chile, etc.
I think that match_type phrase_prefix can be the answer, but I don't know how I can use (correct syntax).
The match predicate supports different types by use of using match_type [with (match_parameter = [value])].
So in your example using the phrase_prefix match type:
select "Name","Country","_score" from datatable where match("Country", 'Ch') using phrase_prefix;
gives you your desired results.
See the match predicate documentation: https://crate.io/docs/en/latest/sql/fulltext.html?#match-predicate
If you just need to match the beginning of a string column, you don't need a fulltext analyzed column. You can use the LIKE operator instead, e.g.:
cr> create table names_table (name string, country string);
CREATE OK (0.840 sec)
cr> insert into names_table (name, country) values ('foo', 'China'), ('bar','Chile'), ('foobar', 'Austria');
INSERT OK, 3 rows affected (0.049 sec)
cr> select * from names_table where country like 'Ch%';
+---------+------+
| country | name |
+---------+------+
| Chile | bar |
| China | foo |
+---------+------+
SELECT 2 rows in set (0.037 sec)