I have a problem regarding an algorith, for a record I am looking for.
I can do it in straight sql statements, but I am certain there is a
Ruby "idion" for this (which, coming from another language, is the
hardest thing about this fantastic language, getting a handle on the
idiomsm the syntactic sugars).
Suppose I have a table with
channel_id int(11)
associate_id int(11)
battingorder int(11)
I have an id for an associate (''my_associate_id'') and I want
to
determine if my associate is in this table with a given channel_id (my
channel_id) and if not, to select the associate_id in this list whose
channel_id matches my_channel_id with the lowest batting order.
Doing this in a couple of sql statements is quite trivial -- but is
there a way to do it in a purely Ruby-like idiom?
Thanks, RVince
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, RVince wrote:> I have a problem regarding an algorith, for a record I am looking for. > I can do it in straight sql statements, but I am certain there is a > Ruby "idion" for this (which, coming from another language, is the > hardest thing about this fantastic language, getting a handle on the > idiomsm the syntactic sugars). > > Suppose I have a table with > > channel_id int(11) > associate_id int(11) > battingorder int(11) > > I have an id for an associate (''my_associate_id'') and I want to > determine if my associate is in this table with a given channel_id (my > channel_id) and if not, to select the associate_id in this list whose > channel_id matches my_channel_id with the lowest batting order. > > Doing this in a couple of sql statements is quite trivial -- but is > there a way to do it in a purely Ruby-like idiom?You could look at Ruby DBI or maybe you can use ActiveRecord from Rails. -- A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=.
See, I don''t htink there IS an easier way -- just a Ruby-occluded way called .find_by_sql(["select ..."]) A lot of this syntactic sugar really gets in the way. Rails is great, as a web framework -- far superior to something like Struts. But in the end, it;s back to JRuby, writing the back end in the C-like syntax of Java, and avoiding Ruby and it''s idioms, making use of Rails this way. On Nov 22, 10:47 am, Eno <ra...-0tr1fCYfOsfR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, RVince wrote: > > I have a problem regarding an algorith, for a record I am looking for. > > I can do it in straight sql statements, but I am certain there is a > > Ruby "idion" for this (which, coming from another language, is the > > hardest thing about this fantastic language, getting a handle on the > > idiomsm the syntactic sugars). > > > Suppose I have a table with > > > channel_id int(11) > > associate_id int(11) > > battingorder int(11) > > > I have an id for an associate (''my_associate_id'') and I want to > > determine if my associate is in this table with a given channel_id (my > > channel_id) and if not, to select the associate_id in this list whose > > channel_id matches my_channel_id with the lowest batting order. > > > Doing this in a couple of sql statements is quite trivial -- but is > > there a way to do it in a purely Ruby-like idiom? > > You could look at Ruby DBI or maybe you can use ActiveRecord from Rails. > > -- > A-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, RVince wrote:> See, I don''t htink there IS an easier way -- just a Ruby-occluded way > called .find_by_sql(["select ..."]) > > A lot of this syntactic sugar really gets in the way. Rails is great, > as a web framework -- far superior to something like Struts. But in > the end, it;s back to JRuby, writing the back end in the C-like > syntax of Java, and avoiding Ruby and it''s idioms, making use of Rails > this way.I wasn''t saying use Rails, just ActiveRecord. And DBI is fairly light and gives you database independance. You know what an ORM is right? That''s really nice syntactic sugar. -- A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=.
Yes, ORMs are wonderful, once you learn the abstraction layer. But --
and I know some will take offense at this -- there are things to avoid
in learning Ruby, and just use the old tried-n-true (many things, like
using straight Javascript for most of the Ajax-like things you want to
do, or for db-query-b ased algorithms, like I am trying to accomplish
here, sticking with as straight of an sql interface as possible). This
is true of most languages, if you can learn a more generic means of
implementing the language, you are not only up-to-speed faster, BUT,
you generally have a finer-grained control over what you ware
implementing.
The algorithm I am looking to sweeten of:
# Is the associate in the list - if not, make it the person at
the top of the list.
@up = Up.find(params[:id]) #get the individual up record which
has the associate and channel
@associate = @up.associate #specify ref to the associate in question
#see if this associate is in the current list
@Qplayers = Qplayer.find_by_sql(["select * from qplayers where
associate_id=? and channel_id=? and
inlist=1",@associate.id,@associate.channel_id])
if @Qplayers[0].blank? #if the associate from the up in the row is in
the list, it wont be blank
@Qplayers = Up.find_by_sql(["select * from qplayers where
channel_id=? and inlist=1 order by battingorder ASC",@up.channel_id])
@Qplayer = @Qplayers[0]
@associate = @Qplayer.associate
end
I''m not sure can be more clearly expressed in a "sweeter"
way,
especially if the criteria changes in the future -R.Vince
On Nov 22, 10:59 am, Eno <ra...-0tr1fCYfOsfR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, RVince wrote:
> > See, I don''t htink there IS an easier way -- just a
Ruby-occluded way
> > called .find_by_sql(["select ..."])
>
> > A lot of this syntactic sugar really gets in the way. Rails is great,
> > as a web framework -- far superior to something like Struts. But in
> > the end, it;s back to JRuby, writing the back end in the C-like
> > syntax of Java, and avoiding Ruby and it''s idioms, making use
of Rails
> > this way.
>
> I wasn''t saying use Rails, just ActiveRecord. And DBI is fairly
light and
> gives you database independance.
>
> You know what an ORM is right? That''s really nice syntactic sugar.
>
> --
> A
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=.
On Nov 22, 4:10 pm, RVince <rvinc...-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Yes, ORMs are wonderful, once you learn the abstraction layer. But -- > and I know some will take offense at this -- there are things to avoid > in learning Ruby, and just use the old tried-n-true (many things, like > using straight Javascript for most of the Ajax-like things you want to > do, or for db-query-b ased algorithms, like I am trying to accomplish > here, sticking with as straight of an sql interface as possible). This > is true of most languages, if you can learn a more generic means of > implementing the language, you are not only up-to-speed faster, BUT, > you generally have a finer-grained control over what you ware > implementing. > > The algorithm I am looking to sweeten of: > > # Is the associate in the list - if not, make it the person at > the top of the list. > @up = Up.find(params[:id]) #get the individual up record which > has the associate and channel > @associate = @up.associate #specify ref to the associate in question > #see if this associate is in the current list > @Qplayers = Qplayer.find_by_sql(["select * from qplayers where > associate_id=? and channel_id=? and > inlist=1",@associate.id,@associate.channel_id])> if @Qplayers[0].blank? #if the associate from the up in the row is in > the list, it wont be blank > @Qplayers = Up.find_by_sql(["select * from qplayers where > channel_id=? and inlist=1 order by battingorder ASC",@up.channel_id]) > @Qplayer = @Qplayers[0] > @associate = @Qplayer.associate > end > > I''m not sure can be more clearly expressed in a "sweeter" way, > especially if the criteria changes in the future -R.Vince >I wouldn''t resort to find_by_sql for this - just a normal find :all keeps things clean, and plays nicely with scopes and so on. It seems to me that you could make this a little more succinct by playing around with named_scope and similar tools, eg add named_scope :in_list, :conditions => {:inlist => true} named_scope :in_channel, lambda {|channel_id| {:conditions => {:channel_id => channel_id}}} to Qplayer And then you can write something like @qplayer = @associate.q_players.in_list.in_channel (@associate.channel_id).first if !@qplayer @qplayer = Qplayer.inlist.in_channel (@up.channel_id).find :first, :order -> ''batting_order asc'' end Fred> On Nov 22, 10:59 am, Eno <ra...-0tr1fCYfOsfR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, RVince wrote: > > > See, I don''t htink there IS an easier way -- just a Ruby-occluded way > > > called .find_by_sql(["select ..."]) > > > > A lot of this syntactic sugar really gets in the way. Rails is great, > > > as a web framework -- far superior to something like Struts. But in > > > the end, it;s back to JRuby, writing the back end in the C-like > > > syntax of Java, and avoiding Ruby and it''s idioms, making use of Rails > > > this way. > > > I wasn''t saying use Rails, just ActiveRecord. And DBI is fairly light and > > gives you database independance. > > > You know what an ORM is right? That''s really nice syntactic sugar. > > > -- > > A-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=.