I would like to update a MySQL table from an F# query.
Basically I am now able to import a MySql table into a F# matrix.
I am doing some calculation on this matrix through F# and after the calculation I would like to update the primary MySQL table with the new values obtained.
For example let's take a simple matrix coming from a MySQL table :
let m = matrix [[1.;2.;3.];[1.;1.;3.];[3.;3.;3.]]
Now I would like to design a query which updates the mySQL table.
let query() =
seq { use conn = new SqlConnection(connString)
do conn.Open()
use comm = new SqlCommand("UPDATE MyTAble SET ID = "the first column of the matrix",
conn)
}
Do I need to convert the matrix into a sequence?
For this iterative update, do I need to use T-SQL (I found this way by reading some others answers?
There is no built-in functionality that would make it easier to update F# matrix in a database, so you'll have to write the update yourself. I think the best approach is to simply iterate over the matrix using for and run the update command if the value has changed. Something like:
let m1 = matrix [[1.;0.]; [0.;2.]] // The original value from DB
let m2 = m1 + m1 // New updated matrix
for i in 0 .. (fst m1.Dimensions) - 1 do
for j in 0 .. (snd m1.Dimensions) - 1 do
if m1.[i, j] <> m2.[i, j] then
// Here you need to do the actual update
printfn "SET %d, %d = %f" i j m2.[i, j]
Your function already shows how to run a single UPDATE command - just note that you don't need to wrap it in seq { .. } if you're not returning a sequence of results (here, you just want to perform some action).
If the number of changed values is big, then it may be useful to use some bulk update functionality (so that you don't run too many SQL commands which may be slow), but I'm not sure if MySQL has anything like that.
Related
Note: this is a similar but NOT duplicate question with How to use sqlx to query mysql IN a slice?. I'm asking for the Rust one.
This is what I try to do.
let v = vec![..];
sqlx::query("SELECT something FROM table WHERE column IN (?)").bind(v)
...
Then I got the following error
the trait bound `std::vec::Vec<u64>: sqlx::Encode<'_, _>` is not satisfied
Answer is in first on FAQ https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx/blob/master/FAQ.md
How can I do a SELECT ... WHERE foo IN (...) query? In 0.6 SQLx will
support binding arrays as a comma-separated list for every database,
but unfortunately there's no general solution for that currently in
SQLx itself. You would need to manually generate the query, at which
point it cannot be used with the macros.
The error shows Vec is not an Encode that is required to be as a valid DB value. The Encode doc lists all the Rust types that have implemented the trait. Vec is not one.
You can use the following way to bind the parameters in IN with the values of a vector. Firstly, you need to expand the number of '?' in the IN expression to be the same number of the parameters. Then, you need to call bind to bind the values one by one.
let v = vec![1, 2];
let params = format!("?{}", ", ?".repeat(v.len()-1));
let query_str = format!("SELECT id FROM test_table WHERE id IN ( { } )", params);
let mut query = sqlx::query(&query_str);
for i in v {
query = query.bind(i);
}
let row = query.fetch_all(&pool).await?;
Please note if the target database is not MySql, you need to use $n, like $1, $2, instead of ?, as the parameter placeholder.
I'd like to update a table with Django - something like this in raw SQL:
update tbl_name set name = 'foo' where name = 'bar'
My first result is something like this - but that's nasty, isn't it?
list = ModelClass.objects.filter(name = 'bar')
for obj in list:
obj.name = 'foo'
obj.save()
Is there a more elegant way?
Update:
Django 2.2 version now has a bulk_update.
Old answer:
Refer to the following django documentation section
Updating multiple objects at once
In short you should be able to use:
ModelClass.objects.filter(name='bar').update(name="foo")
You can also use F objects to do things like incrementing rows:
from django.db.models import F
Entry.objects.all().update(n_pingbacks=F('n_pingbacks') + 1)
See the documentation.
However, note that:
This won't use ModelClass.save method (so if you have some logic inside it won't be triggered).
No django signals will be emitted.
You can't perform an .update() on a sliced QuerySet, it must be on an original QuerySet so you'll need to lean on the .filter() and .exclude() methods.
Consider using django-bulk-update found here on GitHub.
Install: pip install django-bulk-update
Implement: (code taken directly from projects ReadMe file)
from bulk_update.helper import bulk_update
random_names = ['Walter', 'The Dude', 'Donny', 'Jesus']
people = Person.objects.all()
for person in people:
r = random.randrange(4)
person.name = random_names[r]
bulk_update(people) # updates all columns using the default db
Update: As Marc points out in the comments this is not suitable for updating thousands of rows at once. Though it is suitable for smaller batches 10's to 100's. The size of the batch that is right for you depends on your CPU and query complexity. This tool is more like a wheel barrow than a dump truck.
Django 2.2 version now has a bulk_update method (release notes).
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/stable/ref/models/querysets/#bulk-update
Example:
# get a pk: record dictionary of existing records
updates = YourModel.objects.filter(...).in_bulk()
....
# do something with the updates dict
....
if hasattr(YourModel.objects, 'bulk_update') and updates:
# Use the new method
YourModel.objects.bulk_update(updates.values(), [list the fields to update], batch_size=100)
else:
# The old & slow way
with transaction.atomic():
for obj in updates.values():
obj.save(update_fields=[list the fields to update])
If you want to set the same value on a collection of rows, you can use the update() method combined with any query term to update all rows in one query:
some_list = ModelClass.objects.filter(some condition).values('id')
ModelClass.objects.filter(pk__in=some_list).update(foo=bar)
If you want to update a collection of rows with different values depending on some condition, you can in best case batch the updates according to values. Let's say you have 1000 rows where you want to set a column to one of X values, then you could prepare the batches beforehand and then only run X update-queries (each essentially having the form of the first example above) + the initial SELECT-query.
If every row requires a unique value there is no way to avoid one query per update. Perhaps look into other architectures like CQRS/Event sourcing if you need performance in this latter case.
Here is a useful content which i found in internet regarding the above question
https://www.sankalpjonna.com/learn-django/running-a-bulk-update-with-django
The inefficient way
model_qs= ModelClass.objects.filter(name = 'bar')
for obj in model_qs:
obj.name = 'foo'
obj.save()
The efficient way
ModelClass.objects.filter(name = 'bar').update(name="foo") # for single value 'foo' or add loop
Using bulk_update
update_list = []
model_qs= ModelClass.objects.filter(name = 'bar')
for model_obj in model_qs:
model_obj.name = "foo" # Or what ever the value is for simplicty im providing foo only
update_list.append(model_obj)
ModelClass.objects.bulk_update(update_list,['name'])
Using an atomic transaction
from django.db import transaction
with transaction.atomic():
model_qs = ModelClass.objects.filter(name = 'bar')
for obj in model_qs:
ModelClass.objects.filter(name = 'bar').update(name="foo")
Any Up Votes ? Thanks in advance : Thank you for keep an attention ;)
To update with same value we can simply use this
ModelClass.objects.filter(name = 'bar').update(name='foo')
To update with different values
ob_list = ModelClass.objects.filter(name = 'bar')
obj_to_be_update = []
for obj in obj_list:
obj.name = "Dear "+obj.name
obj_to_be_update.append(obj)
ModelClass.objects.bulk_update(obj_to_be_update, ['name'], batch_size=1000)
It won't trigger save signal every time instead we keep all the objects to be updated on the list and trigger update signal at once.
IT returns number of objects are updated in table.
update_counts = ModelClass.objects.filter(name='bar').update(name="foo")
You can refer this link to get more information on bulk update and create.
Bulk update and Create
Very similar to this question MySQL Dynamic Query Statement in Python
However what I am looking to do instead of two lists is to use a dictionary
Let's say i have this dictionary
instance_insert = {
# sql column variable value
'instance_id' : 'instnace.id',
'customer_id' : 'customer.id',
'os' : 'instance.platform',
}
And I want to populate a mysql database with an insert statement using sql column as the sql column name and the variable name as the variable that will hold the value that is to be inserted into the mysql table.
Kind of lost because I don't understand exactly what this statement does, but was pulled from the question that I posted where he was using two lists to do what he wanted.
sql = "INSERT INTO instance_info_test VALUES (%s);" % ', '.join('?' for _ in instance_insert)
cur.execute (sql, instance_insert)
Also I would like it to be dynamic in the sense that I can add/remove columns to the dictionary
Before you post, you might want to try searching for something more specific to your question. For instance, when I Googled "python mysqldb insert dictionary", I found a good answer on the first page, at http://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/2010-December/080701.html. Relevant part:
Here's what I came up with when I tried to make a generalized version
of the above:
def add_row(cursor, tablename, rowdict):
# XXX tablename not sanitized
# XXX test for allowed keys is case-sensitive
# filter out keys that are not column names
cursor.execute("describe %s" % tablename)
allowed_keys = set(row[0] for row in cursor.fetchall())
keys = allowed_keys.intersection(rowdict)
if len(rowdict) > len(keys):
unknown_keys = set(rowdict) - allowed_keys
print >> sys.stderr, "skipping keys:", ", ".join(unknown_keys)
columns = ", ".join(keys)
values_template = ", ".join(["%s"] * len(keys))
sql = "insert into %s (%s) values (%s)" % (
tablename, columns, values_template)
values = tuple(rowdict[key] for key in keys)
cursor.execute(sql, values)
filename = ...
tablename = ...
db = MySQLdb.connect(...)
cursor = db.cursor()
with open(filename) as instream:
row = json.load(instream)
add_row(cursor, tablename, row)
Peter
If you know your inputs will always be valid (table name is valid, columns are present in the table), and you're not importing from a JSON file as the example is, you can simplify this function. But it'll accomplish what you want to accomplish. While it may initially seem like DictCursor would be helpful, it looks like DictCursor is useful for returning a dictionary of values, but it can't execute from a dict.
I've stumbled upon a very strange LINQ to SQL behaviour / bug, that I just can't understand.
Let's take the following tables as an example: Customers -> Orders -> Details.
Each table is a subtable of the previous table, with a regular Primary-Foreign key relationship (1 to many).
If I execute the follow query:
var q = from c in context.Customers
select (c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() ?? new Order()).Details.Count();
Then I get an exception: Could not format node 'Value' for execution as SQL.
But the following queries do not throw an exception:
var q = from c in context.Customers
select (c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() ?? new Order()).OrderDateTime;
var q = from c in context.Customers
select (new Order()).Details.Count();
If I change my primary query as follows, I don't get an exception:
var q = from r in context.Customers.ToList()
select (c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() ?? new Order()).Details.Count();
Now I could understand that the last query works, because of the following logic:
Since there is no mapping of "new Order()" to SQL (I'm guessing here), I need to work on a local list instead.
But what I can't understand is why do the other two queries work?!?
I could potentially accept working with the "local" version of context.Customers.ToList(), but how to speed up the query?
For instance in the last query example, I'm pretty sure that each select will cause a new SQL query to be executed to retrieve the Orders. Now I could avoid lazy loading by using DataLoadOptions, but then I would be retrieving thousands of Order rows for no reason what so ever (I only need the first row)...
If I could execute the entire query in one SQL statement as I would like (my first query example), then the SQL engine itself would be smart enough to only retrieve one Order row for each Customer...
Is there perhaps a way to rewrite my original query in such a way that it will work as intended and be executed in one swoop by the SQL server?
EDIT:
(longer answer for Arturo)
The queries I provided are purely for example purposes. I know they are pointless in their own right, I just wanted to show a simplistic example.
The reason your example works is because you have avoided using "new Order()" all together. If I slightly modify your query to still use it, then I still get an exception:
var results = from e in (from c in db.Customers
select new { c.CustomerID, FirstOrder = c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() })
select new { e.CustomerID, Count = (e.FirstOrder != null ? e.FirstOrder : new Order()).Details().Count() }
Although this time the exception is slightly different - Could not format node 'ClientQuery' for execution as SQL.
If I use the ?? syntax instead of (x ? y : z) in that query, I get the same exception as I originaly got.
In my real-life query I don't need Count(), I need to select a couple of properties from the last table (which in my previous examples would be Details). Essentially I need to merge values of all the rows in each table. Inorder to give a more hefty example I'll first have to restate my tabels:
Models -> ModelCategoryVariations <- CategoryVariations -> CategoryVariationItems -> ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmounts -> ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmountValueChanges
The -> sign represents a 1 -> many relationship. Do notice that there is one sign that is the other way round...
My real query would go something like this:
var q = from m in context.Models
from mcv in m.ModelCategoryVariations
... // select some more tables
select new
{
ModelId = m.Id,
ModelName = m.Name,
CategoryVariationName = mcv.CategoryVariation.Name,
..., // values from other tables
Categories = (from cvi in mcv.CategoryVariation.CategoryVariationItems
let mmcvia = cvi.ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmounts.SingleOrDefault(mmcvia2 => mmcvia2.ModelModuleId == m.ModelModuleId) ?? new ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmount()
select new
{
cvi.Id,
Amount = (mmcvia.ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmountValueChanges.FirstOrDefault() ?? new ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmountValueChange()).Amount
... // select some more properties
}
}
This query blows up at the line let mmcvia =.
If I recall correctly, by using let mmcvia = new ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmount(), the query would blow up at the next ?? operand, which is at Amount =.
If I start the query with from m in context.Models.ToList() then everything works...
Why are you looking into only the individual count without selecting anything related to the customer.
You can do the following.
var results = from e in
(from c in db.Customers
select new { c.CustomerID, FirstOrder = c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() })
select new { e.CustomerID, DetailCount = e.FirstOrder != null ? e.FirstOrder.Details.Count() : 0 };
EDIT:
OK, I think you are over complicating your query.
The problem is that you are using the new WhateverObject() in your query, T-SQL doesnt know anyting about that; T-SQL knows about records in your hard drive, your are throwing something that doesn't exist. Only C# knows about that. DON'T USE new IN YOUR QUERIES OTHER THAN IN THE OUTER MOST SELECT STATEMENT because that is what C# will receive, and C# knows about creating new instances of objects.
Of course is going to work if you use ToList() method, but performance is affected because now you have your application host and sql server working together to give you the results and it might take many calls to your database instead of one.
Try this instead:
Categories = (from cvi in mcv.CategoryVariation.CategoryVariationItems
let mmcvia =
cvi.ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmounts.SingleOrDefault(
mmcvia2 => mmcvia2.ModelModuleId == m.ModelModuleId)
select new
{
cvi.Id,
Amount = mmcvia != null ?
(mmcvia.ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmountValueChanges.Select(
x => x.Amount).FirstOrDefault() : 0
... // select some more properties
}
Using the Select() method allows you to get the first Amount or its default value. I used "0" as an example only, I dont know what is your default value for Amount.
I am trying to get the records from the 'many' table of a one-to-many relationship and add them as a list to the relevant record from the 'one' table.
I am also trying to do this in a single database request.
Code derived from Linq to Sql - Populate JOIN result into a List almost achieves the intended result, but makes one database request per entry in the 'one' table which is unacceptable. That failing code is here:
var res = from variable in _dc.GetTable<VARIABLE>()
select new { x = variable, y = variable.VARIABLE_VALUEs };
However if I do a similar query but loop through all the results, then only a single database request is made. This code achieves all goals:
var res = from variable in _dc.GetTable<VARIABLE>()
select variable;
List<GDO.Variable> output = new List<GDO.Variable>();
foreach (var v2 in res)
{
List<GDO.VariableValue> values = new List<GDO.VariableValue>();
foreach (var vv in v2.VARIABLE_VALUEs)
{
values.Add(VariableValue.EntityToGDO(vv));
}
output.Add(EntityToGDO(v2));
output[output.Count - 1].VariableValues = values;
}
However the latter code is ugly as hell, and it really feels like something that should be do-able in a single linq query.
So, how can this be done in a single linq query that makes only a single database query?
In both cases the table is set to preload using the following code:
_dc = _db.CreateLinqDataContext();
var loadOptions = new DataLoadOptions();
loadOptions.LoadWith<VARIABLE>(v => v.VARIABLE_VALUEs);
_dc.LoadOptions = loadOptions;
I am using .NET 3.5, and the database back-end was generated using SqlMetal.
This link may help
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vcsharp/aa336746.aspx
Look under join operators. You'll probably have to change from using extension syntax other syntax too. Like this,
var = from obj in dc.Table
from obj2 in dc.Table2
where condition
select