Is there some scala relational database framework (anorm, squeryl, etc...) using postgres-like aggregators to produce lists after a group-by, or at least simulating its use?
I would expect two levels of implementation:
a "standard" one, where at least any SQL grouping with array_agg is translated to a List of the type which is being aggregated,
and a "scala ORM powered" one where some type of join is allowed so that if the aggregation is a foreign key to other table, a List of elements of the other table is produced. Of course this last thing is beyond the reach of SQL, but if I am using a more powerful language, I do not mind some steroids.
I find specially intriguing that the documentation of slick, which is based precisely in allowing scala group-by notation, seems to negate explicitly the output of lists as a result of the group-by.
EDIT: use case
You have the typical many-to-many table of, say, products and suppliers, pairs (p_id, s_id). You want to produce a list of suppliers for each product. So the postgresql query should be
SELECT p_id, array_agg(s_id) from t1 group by p_id
One could expect some idiomatic way to to this in slick, but I do not see how. Furthermore, if we go to some ORM, then we could also consider the join with the tables products and suppliers, on p_id and s_id respectively, and get as answer a zip (product, (supplier1, supplier2, supplierN)) containing the objects and not only the ids
I am also not sure if I understand you question correct, could you elaborate?
In slick you currently can not use postgres "array_agg" or "string_agg" as a method on type Query. If you want to use this specific function then you need to use custom sql. But: I added an issue some time ago (https://github.com/slick/slick/issues/923, you should follow this discussion) and we have a prototype from cvogt ready for this.
I needed to use "string_agg" in the past and added a patch for it (see https://github.com/mobiworx/slick/commit/486c39a7ed90c9ccac356dfdb0e5dc5c24e32d63), so maybe this is helpful to you. Look at "AggregateTest" to learn more about it.
Another possibility is to encapsulate the usage of "array_agg" in a database view and just use this view with slick. This way you do not need "array_agg" directly in slick.
You can use slick-pg.
It supports array_agg and other aggregate functions.
Your question is intriguing, care to elaborate a little on how it might ideally look? When you group by you often have an additional column, such as count(*) over and above the standard columns from your case class, so what would the type of your List be?
Most of my (anorm) methods either return a singleton (perhaps Option) or a List of that class's type. For each case class, I have an sqlFields variable (e.g. m.id, m.name, m.forManufacturer) and a single parser variable that I reference as either .as(modelParser.singleOpt) or .as(modelParser *). For foreign keys, a lazy val at the case class level (or def if it needs to be) is pretty useful. E.g. if I had Model and Manufacturer entities, with a foreign key forManufacturer on Model, then I might define a lazy val manufacturer : Manufacturer = ... in the case class of the model, so that at any time I can refer to model.manufacturer. I can define joins as their own methods, either in this way, or as methods in the companion object.
Not 100% sure I am answering your question, but thought this was a bit long for a comment.
Edit: If your driver supported parsing of postgresql arrays, you could map them directly to a class like ProductSuppliers(id:Int, suppliers:List[Int]) (or even List[Supplier]?) In anorm that's about as idiomatic as one could get, I think? For databases that don't support it, it seems to me similar to an order by version, i.e. select p1, s1 from t1 order by p1, which you could groupBy p1 and similarly map to ProductSuppliers.
Related
Im currently using jOOQ to build my SQL (with code generation via the mvn plugin).
Executing the created query is not done by jOOQ though (Using vert.X SqlClient for that).
Lets say I want to select all columns of two tables which share some identical column names. E.g. UserAccount(id,name,...) and Product(id,name,...). When executing the following code
val userTable = USER_ACCOUNT.`as`("u")
val productTable = PRODUCT.`as`("p")
create().select().from(userTable).join(productTable).on(userTable.ID.eq(productTable.AUTHOR_ID))
the build method query.getSQL(ParamType.NAMED) returns me a query like
SELECT "u"."id", "u"."name", ..., "p"."id", "p"."name", ... FROM ...
The problem here is, the resultset will contain the column id and name twice without the prefix "u." or "p.", so I can't map/parse it correctly.
Is there a way how I can say to jOOQ to alias these columns like the following without any further manual efforts ?
SELECT "u"."id" AS "u.id", "u"."name" AS "u.name", ..., "p"."id" AS "p.id", "p"."name" AS "p.name" ...
Im using the holy Postgres Database :)
EDIT: Current approach would be sth like
val productFields = productTable.fields().map { it.`as`(name("p.${it.name}")) }
val userFields = userTable.fields().map { it.`as`(name("p.${it.name}")) }
create().select(productFields,userFields,...)...
This feels really hacky though
How to correctly dereference tables from records
You should always use the column references that you passed to the query to dereference values from records in your result. If you didn't pass column references explicitly, then the ones from your generated table via Table.fields() are used.
In your code, that would correspond to:
userTable.NAME
productTable.NAME
So, in a resulting record, do this:
val rec = ...
rec[userTable.NAME]
rec[productTable.NAME]
Using Record.into(Table)
Since you seem to be projecting all the columns (do you really need all of them?) to the generated POJO classes, you can still do this intermediary step if you want:
val rec = ...
val userAccount: UserAccount = rec.into(userTable).into(UserAccount::class.java)
val product: Product = rec.into(productTable).into(Product::class.java)
Because the generated table has all the necessary meta data, it can decide which columns belong to it, and which ones don't. The POJO doesn't have this meta information, which is why it can't disambiguate the duplicate column names.
Using nested records
You can always use nested records directly in SQL as well in order to produce one of these 2 types:
Record2<Record[N], Record[N]> (e.g. using DSL.row(table.fields()))
Record2<UserAccountRecord, ProductRecord> (e.g using DSL.row(table.fields()).mapping(...), or starting from jOOQ 3.17 directly using a Table<R> as a SelectField<R>)
The second jOOQ 3.17 solution would look like this:
// Using an implicit join here, for convenience
create().select(productTable.userAccount(), productTable)
.from(productTable)
.fetch();
The above is using implicit joins, for additional convenience
Auto aliasing all columns
There are a ton of flavours that users could like to have when "auto-aliasing" columns in SQL. Any solution offered by jOOQ would be no better than the one you've already found, so if you still want to auto-alias all columns, then just do what you did.
But usually, the desire to auto-alias is a derived feature request from a misunderstanding of what's the best approch to do something in jOOQ (see above options), so ideally, you don't follow down the auto-aliasing road.
I want to do something like this in OrmLite
SELECT *, COUNT(title) as titleCount from table1 group by title;
Is there any way to do this via QueryBuilder without the need for queryRaw?
The documentation states that the use of COUNT() and the like necessitates the use of selectRaw(). I hoped for a way around this - not having to write my SQL as strings is the main reason I chose to use ORMLite.
http://ormlite.com/docs/query-builder
selectRaw(String... columns):
Add raw columns or aggregate functions
(COUNT, MAX, ...) to the query. This will turn the query into
something only suitable for using as a raw query. This can be called
multiple times to add more columns to select. See section Issuing Raw
Queries.
Further information on the use of selectRaw() as I was attempting much the same thing:
Documentation states that if you use selectRaw() it will "turn the query into" one that is supposed to be called by queryRaw().
What it does not explain is that normally while multiple calls to selectColumns() or selectRaw() are valid (if you exclusively use one or the other),
use of selectRaw() after selectColumns() has a 'hidden' side-effect of wiping out any selectColumns() you called previously.
I believe that the ORMLite documentation for selectRaw() would be improved by a note that its use is not intended to be mixed with selectColumns().
QueryBuilder<EmailMessage, String> qb = emailDao.queryBuilder();
qb.selectColumns("emailAddress"); // This column is not selected due to later use of selectRaw()!
qb.selectRaw("COUNT (emailAddress)");
ORMLite examples are not as plentiful as I'd like, so here is a complete example of something that works:
QueryBuilder<EmailMessage, String> qb = emailDao.queryBuilder();
qb.selectRaw("emailAddress"); // This can also be done with a single call to selectRaw()
qb.selectRaw("COUNT (emailAddress)");
qb.groupBy("emailAddress");
GenericRawResults<String[]> rawResults = qb.queryRaw(); // Returns results with two columns
Is there any way to do this via QueryBuilder without the need for queryRaw(...)?
The short answer is no because ORMLite wouldn't know what to do with the extra count value. If you had a Table1 entity with a DAO definition, what field would the COUNT(title) go into? Raw queries give you the power to select various fields but then you need to process the results.
With the code right now (v5.1), you can define a custom RawRowMapper and then use the dao.getRawRowMapper() method to process the results for Table1 and tack on the titleCount field by hand.
I've got an idea how to accomplish this in a better way in ORMLite. I'll look into it.
I have some data in a postgres table with one column called version (of type varchar). I would like to use my own comparison function to to order/sort on that column, but I am not sure what is the most appropriate answer:
I have an JS implementation of the style comp(left, right) -> -1/0/1, but I don't know how I can use it in a sql order by clause (through plv8)
I could write a C extension, but I am not particularly excited about this (mostly for maintenance reason, as writing the comparison in C would not be too difficult in itself)
others ?
The type of comparisons I am interested are similar to version string ordering used in package managers.
You want:
ORDER BY mycolumn USING operator
See the docs for SELECT. It looks like you may need to define an operator for the function, and a b-tree operator class containing the operator to use it; you can't just write USING myfunc().
(No time to test this and write a demo right now).
I've written a SQL query that basically selects from a number of tables to determine which ones have rows that were created since a particular date. My SQL looks something like this:
SELECT widget_type FROM(
SELECT 'A' as widget_type
FROM widget_a
WHERE creation_timestamp > :cutoff
UNION
SELECT 'B' as widget_type
FROM widget_b
WHERE creation_timestamp > :cutoff
) types
GROUP BY widget_type
HAVING count(*)>0
That works well in SQL but I recently found that, while JPA may use unions to perform "table per class" polymorphic queries, JPQL does not support unions in queries. So that leaves me wondering whether JPA has an alternative I could use to accomplish the same thing.
In reality, I would be querying against a dozen tables, not just two, so I would like to avoid doing separate queries. I would also like to avoid doing a native SQL query for portability reasons.
In the question I linked to above, it was asked whether the entities that map to widget_a and widget_b are part of the same inheritance tree. Yes, they are. However, if I selected from their base class, I don't believe I would have a way of specifying different string constants for the different child entities, would I? If I could select an entity's class name instead of a string I provide, that might serve my purpose too. But I don't know if that's possible either. Thoughts?
I did a little more searching and found a (seemingly obscure) feature of JPA that serves my purpose perfectly. What I found is that JPA 2 has a type keyword that allows you to limit polymorphic queries to a particular subclass, like so:
SELECT widget
FROM BaseWidget widget
WHERE TYPE(widget) in (WidgetB, WidgetC)
I've found that JPA (or at least Hibernate as a JPA implementation) allows you to use type not only in constraints but also in select lists. This is approximately what my query ended up looking like:
SELECT DISTINCT TYPE(widget)
FROM BaseWidget widget
WHERE widget.creationTimestamp > :cutoff
That query returns a list of Class objects. My original query was selecting string literals because that's closest to what I might have done in SQL. Selecting Class is actually preferable in my case. But if I did prefer to select a constant based on an entity's type, that is the exact scenario that Oracle's documentation uses to illustrate case statements:
SELECT p.name
CASE TYPE(p)
WHEN Student THEN 'kid'
WHEN Guardian THEN 'adult'
WHEN Staff THEN 'adult'
ELSE 'unknown'
END
FROM Person p
Some JPA providers do support UNION,
http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/UserGuide/JPA/Basic_JPA_Development/Querying/JPQL#UNION
but your query seems very complex, and non object-oriented, so using a native SQL query would probably be best.
Aheo asks if it is ok to have a table with just one column. How about one with no columns, or, given that this seems difficult to do in most modern "relational" DBMSes, a relation with no attributes?
There are exactly two relations with no attributes, one with an empty tuple, and one without. In The Third Manifesto, Date and Darwen (somewhat) humorously name them TABLE_DEE and TABLE_DUM (respectively).
They are useful to the extent that they are the identity of a variety of relational operators, playing roles equivalent to 1 and 0 in ordinary algebra.
A table with a single column is a set -- as long as you don't care about ordering the values, or associating any other info with them, it seems fine. You can check for membership in it, and basically that's all you can do. (If you don't have a UNIQUE constraint on the single column I guess you could also count number of occurrences... a multiset).
But what in blazes would a table with no columns (or a relation with no attributes) mean -- or, how would it be any good?!
DEE and cartesian product form a monoid. In practice, if you have Date's relational summarize operator, you'd use DEE as your grouping relation to obtain grand-totals. There are many other examples where DEE is practically useful, e.g. in a functional setting with a binary join operator you'd get n-ary join = foldr join dee
"There are exactly two relations with no attributes, one with an empty tuple, and one without. In The Third Manifesto, Date and Darwen (somewhat) humorously name them TABLE_DEE and TABLE_DUM (respectively).
They are useful to the extent that they are the identity of a variety of relational operators, playing a roles equivalent to 1 and 0 in ordinary algebra."
And of course they also play the role of "TRUE" and "FALSE" in boolean algebra. Meaning that they are useful when propositions such as "The shop is open" and "The alarm is set" are to be represented in a database.
A consequence of this is that they can also be usefully employed in any expression of the relational algebra for their properties of "acting as an IF/ELSE" : joining to TABLE_DUM means retaining no tuples at all from the other argument, joining to TABLE_DEE means retaining them all. So joining R to a relvar S which can be equal to either TABLE_DEE or TABLE_DUM, is the RA equivalent of "if S then R else FI", with FI standing for the empty relation.
Hm. So the lack of "real-world examples" got to me, and I tried my best. Perhaps surprisingly, I got half way there!
cjs=> CREATE TABLE D ();
CREATE TABLE
cjs=> SELECT COUNT (*) FROM D;
count
-------
0
(1 row)
cjs=> INSERT INTO D () VALUES ();
ERROR: syntax error at or near ")"
LINE 1: INSERT INTO D () VALUES ();
A table with a single column would make sense as a simple lookup. Let's say you have a list of strings you want to filter against for user inputed text. That table would store the words you would want to filter out.
It is difficult to see utility of TABLE_DEE and TABLE_DUM from SQL Database perspective. After all it is not guaranteed that your favorite db vendor allows you creating one or the other.
It is also difficult to see utility of TABLE_DEE and TABLE_DUM in relational algebra. One have to look beyond that. To get you a flavor how these constants can come alive consider relational algebra put into proper mathematical shape, that is as close as it is possible to Boolean algebra. D&D Algebra A is a step in this direction. Then, one can express classic relational algebra operations via more fundamental ones and those two constants become really handy.