The grakn server version is 1.3.0.
I have a 4000+ line CSV file, each line stands for an employee profile record. The CSV file has a column called Reportingline, which stands for the EmployeeID of the employee's line manage.
I can successfully migrate my CSV data into my Grakn keyspace, but when I use the following query I can only get one record returned.
match
$e isa employee has report-line "00136450";get;
without 'contains' only 1 result returned
The results are correct when I change the above query as below, but significantly this is a big performance hit.
match
$e isa employee has report-line contains "00136450";get;
with 'contains' the result is correct
Can anyone point out what is wrong with my query? How do I get the full results without contains keyword?
I use the following schema to define an employee
employee sub entity
plays superior
plays subordinate
has employee-id
has employee-name
has report-line
has bu
has email
has phone-number
has division
has title;
employee-id sub attribute datatype string;
employee-name sub attribute datatype string;
report-line sub attribute datatype string;
bu sub attribute datatype string;
email sub attribute datatype string;
phone-number sub attribute datatype string;
division sub attribute datatype string;
title sub attribute datatype string;
I use the following template to migrate the CSV data.
$x isa employee,
has employee-id <EmployeeID>,
has employee-name <EmployeeName>,
has report-line <ReportLine>,
if(<BU>!=null) do { has bu <BU>,}
has email <Email>,
if(<PhoneNumber>!=null) do { has phone-number <PhoneNumber>,}
if(<Division>!=null) do { has division <Division>,}
has title <Title>;
Thank you for reporting this issue. I am writing here to confirm that the bug has been fixed in Grakn 1.4.0.
Related
I’m building an Access database with classes e.g clsOrder, clsCustomer etc which manage the interface with tables. These classes create instances of forms when displaying their data. I found that once the execution of code was within one of these forms I couldn’t refer to the parent object that created it (so is there a better way of doing this? would be part of my question).
To deal with this I’m using a scripting dictionary to store instances of classes with a key using the ID of the class and a unique identifier for the class (e.g Order-3265). I then store a reference to the owner object in the form itself.
So when an object is created and its ID is known it puts a pointer to itself in the dictionary and gives that pointer to its form (hope that’s clear enough).
This then allows the form to interact with its owner class.
I’m using another class clsManager to do the adding of items to the Dictionary or retrieval or removal (with destruction).
Examples of classes - seriously cut down..
clsManager:
Public WorkingObjects As New Scripting.Dictionary
Public Function AddWorkingObject(key As String, ObjectType As Object) As Boolean
If Me.WorkingObjects.Exists(key) Then
Me.WorkingObjects.Remove key
Me.WorkingObjects.Add key, ObjectType
Else
Me.WorkingObjects.Add key, ObjectType
End If
End Function
Public Function GetWorkingObject(key As String) As Object
If Me.WorkingObjects.Exists(key) Then
Set GetWorkingObject = Me.WorkingObjects(key)
Else
Set GetWorkingObject = Nothing
End If
End Function
Public Function DestroyObject(obj As Object) As Boolean
Dim key As String
If Not obj Is Nothing Then
key = obj.DictionaryKey
If Me.WorkingObjects.Exists(key) Then
Me.WorkingObjects.Remove (key)
Set obj = Nothing
If obj Is Nothing Then
Debug.Print key & " destroyed"
Else
Debug.Print obj.DictionaryKey & " NOT destroyed"
End If
End If
Set obj = Nothing
End If
End Function
clsQuote:
Option Compare Database
Option Explicit
'use a form using an instance of this class to control manipulation of Quote records
'Loading and saving set default values if a null value is detected
Private Const scTABLE As String = "tblQuote"
Private intID As Long 'unique identifier
Private intCustomerID As Long
Private intSiteID As Long
Private rsQuoteTotalValues As DAO.Recordset
Private oCustomer As clsCustomer
Const ObjectType = "Quote-"
Private oEditForm As Form_frmQuote
Property Get EditForm() As Form_frmQuote
Set EditForm = oEditForm
End Property
Property Get ID() As Long
ID = intID
End Property
Property Let ID(QuoteID As Long)
intID = QuoteID
Me.EditForm.ID = QuoteID
End Property
Property Get Customer() As clsCustomer
Set Customer = oCustomer
End Property
Property Let CustomerID(ID As Long)
intCustomerID = ID
oCustomer.Load (ID)
EditForm.SiteID.RowSource = oCustomer.AddressSQL
EditForm.SiteID.Requery
EditForm.ContactID.RowSource = oCustomer.ContactsSQL
EditForm.ContactID.Requery
EditForm.CustomerID = ID
End Property
Property Get DictionaryKey() As String
DictionaryKey = ObjectType & CStr(Me.ID)
End Property
'END PROPERTIES//////////////////////////////////
Public Sub DisplayForm(Visibility As Boolean)
With Me.EditForm
.Visible = False
.subFrmQuoteSectionsSummary.SourceObject = ""
If Visibility = True Then
...some stuff...
.Visible = True
End If
End With
End Sub
Public Function Load(ID As Long) As Boolean
'On Error GoTo HandleError
Dim RS As DAO.Recordset
Dim sQry As String
Load = False
If Nz(ID, 0) <> 0 Then
sQry = "SELECT * FROM " & scTABLE & " WHERE ([ID]=" & ID & ");"
Set RS = Manager.DB().OpenRecordset(sQry, dbOpenForwardOnly)
With RS
If .RecordCount = 0 Then
MsgBox "Cannot find Quote with ID = " & ID, vbCritical
GoTo Done
End If
Me.ID = Nz(!ID, 0)
Me.CustomerID = Nz(!CustomerID, 0)
Manager.AddWorkingObject Me.DictionaryKey, Me
Me.EditForm.SetOwnerObject (Me.DictionaryKey)
.Close
End With
Set RS = Nothing
Load = True
End If
Done:
Exit Function
HandleError:
MsgBox "Error in Customer Load: " & vbCrLf & Err.Description, vbCritical
Resume Done
End Function
Private Sub Class_Initialize()
Debug.Print "Quote class initialized"
Set oCustomer = New clsCustomer
Set oEditForm = New Form_frmQuote
Me.ID = 0
Set oQuoteTidier = New clsClassTidier
Me.DisplayForm (False)
End Sub
Private Sub Class_Terminate()
Set oCustomer = Nothing
Set oEditForm = Nothing
Debug.Print "Quote class terminated"
End Sub
From the EditForm:
Option Compare Database
Option Explicit
'necessary for the object to have a reference to its owner in this manner to prevent circular reference
Private OwnerObject As clsQuote
Public Function SetOwnerObject(OwnerKey As String) As Boolean
SetOwnerObject = False
Set OwnerObject = Manager.GetWorkingObject(OwnerKey)
SetOwnerObject = True
End Function
Private Sub cmdClose_Click()
OwnerObject.EditForm.Visible = False
Manager.DestroyObject OwnerObject
DoCmd.Close acForm, Me.Name
End Sub
Each business object class (like ClsOrder) has an editForm instance which is loaded and hidden until required and a up to 3 DAO Recordsets that it keeps open.
I think all references to the business objects that are interrelated are pointers to the objects in the dictionary.
My problem is error 3035 exceeding system resources. I’ve checked objects are destroyed when not in use but repeatedly opening and closing objects gets me to error 3035.
So the question is- am I just asking Access to do stuff it can’t or would better programming fix it?
I see ZERO reasons to write all that code. Why not let a form handle all of this? Remember, each form is in fact a "class" instance. You can even launch multiple copies of a single form, each with their own code, own data and each instance of the SAME form can operate 100% independent of other working copies of that same form.
If you attempting to look at this problem and wanting to have a class object for a form, then just use the form object - that's what it does for you!
I see zero benefits from writing all that code. While .net has the dataset manager and system (and now the very similar entity framework, this is MUCH done since .net does not have data bound forms.
In Access, each form is in fact a class object. And that includes any public sub or function for that form (so functions become methods of that form, and public vars become properties of that form). In addition to the bound form having a truckload events, these events work as actions against any data editing. So, unlike most systems, you have "on change" event, before update event, after update event. So, by simply adoptiing a bound form, then you get:
A class object is automatic created for you.
You can have multiple instances of that class, and hence multiple instances of that same form open at the same time.
You get all of those data events that can be used for verifiction of data input (or have the user not save the record until such time your critera is met.
You have full use of all data columns, even if controls are NOT placed on the form bound to those columns. So, you even get intel-sense for all of the data columns - that is you map.
I am not aware that there is some big huge circular reference problem here. This is like stubbing your toe, but then going to the doctor for some huge open heart by-pass operation. So to go on some huge massive coding spree, and chew up huge amounts of developer dollars for some "rare" issue of some kind of rare and un-seen circular reference issue is essentially a huge wild goose chase that will only have you chewing up huge amounts of developer code and time when NONE is required at all.
I mean, if you have say 3 instances of the SAME form open? Then how does the code know and refernce what insance of that form? Well, the EXACT same approac used in typical OO programming can and should be used here. That approach means you don't HARD CODE the forms! name or referances in code EVER. You never want to do this.
So, if you are in a sub form, and need to referacne say data or controls in the parent form?
You could do this:
strLastName = forms!frmCustomer!LastName
In above, we have hard coded the forms name. You don't want to do that.
In that subform, the correct way to write this code is:
strLastName = me.Parent.form!LastName
Now, note how the above referances the parent form. So, that code will work EVEN if we have 3 copies of the frmCustomer active at the same time. You can full refernce ANYTHING in a form by its object "instance". So, in JavaScrip, or c#, you often see "this.SomProperty" as a refeance to that object.
In access, you can do the same thing, and use "me". Or me.Parent.From to reference the parent form. So, as a general approach here, you should NEVER have to hard code forms reference. If you take this approach, then all issues of circular referencing will not only be eliminated, but then you are using a classic and traditional approach to object programming, and object referencing. While Access is not full OO, it certainly follows a lot of OO design concepts, and how forms work in Access are most certainly instances of a object.
Attempting to write truckloads of code when the forms object model already exists as a "single" class object instance of that form makes no sense, and is not required, and the road you going down will likely hamper and reduce your abilities to deal with the fantastic instance of that form you already have.
As noted, the form already has the dictionaly and columns attached, and Access EVEN generates the members for your automatic. The result is you can reference any column of the table that the form is bound to with
me.LastName
me!LastName
While the above two formats are allowed, the first (me + dot + column name) is in fact a member of the forms class. You will find that if you use code to set the forms data source, then often these members are NOT generated for you, and thus you have to use the ! (bang) to reference columns from the table for that form.
So, I don't grasp while you attempting all that extra code when the form has all of the abilities you are asking for in a class object.
Is there a way to partially insert an object using PetaPoco or NPoco?
For example, I have a table called Users:
UserId | UserName | UserMail | UserCreationDate
Each one of these columns are NON NULLABLE and have a default value when they are left empty.
In ASP.NET I have a User class, and I use the ORM to insert a new record with only the name:
Dim userData As New User()
userData.UserName = "Jimmy Hendrix"
db.Insert(userData)
I expect the database to look as follows:
UserId | UserName | UserMail | UserCreationDate
12 | Jimmy Hendrix | (DB default)| (DB default)
I want the insert command only insert the name, without inserting the other object properties with the object's default values.
Such as there is a partial update, I want a partial insert.
Is that possible in PetaPoco?
Is there another way to do it by myself without any ORM?
Edit:
Using SQL I can get the job done, but I need to use POCO objects, so I don't want to have to remember the database parameters. I want something like
user.UserName = "Michael"
user.Insert(user)
And it will insert only the UserName, ignoring the other variables. The SQL that I want to be generated in the background is:
"INSERT Users(UserName) VALUES(#UserName)"
(while the #UserName parameter holds the userData.FirstName value)
As you can see, it doesn't take in account the other variables in the class.
Today if I use the insert command, even if I give a value to a single property in the class, NPoco still tries to insert ALL the class variables into the db setting the variables I didn't want to set with the class's default values (which are different from the db default values)
Also, all of the properties are insertable/updateable, so there can't be any ResultColumn types in the class. I want to insert these values but only the ones I declare in that particular instance. All of the properties are available to update and insert but for each instance i insert only what i declare.
I would create a PartialUserForInsert class:
[TableName("Users")]
public class PartialUserForInsert
{
public string UserName { get; set; }
}
Your provided schema does not include a FirstName column.
Assuming the column is mapped to UserName, using the following should insert as expected.
dim sql = new Sql("INSERT Users(UserName) VALUES(#0)", userData.FirstName)
db.Execute(sql)
I'm using Vici Coolstorage in a Windows Forms project to access a SQLite database. In every table in my database there is a field called ID defined as INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, so it is an auto increment field.
I'm trying to retrieve the value of that field after I store the object in the database, but I always get the value 0 instead of the real ID. The Vici Coolstorage documentation states that "if the primary key is defined as an autonumber (identity) field in the database, your can retrieve the generated primary key after the object is saved", but that doesn't seem to be true unless I'm doing something wrong. Please help me. This code will reproduce the problem:
<MapTo("Company")> Public MustInherit Class Company
Inherits CSObject(Of Company, Integer)
Public MustOverride ReadOnly Property ID As Integer
Public MustOverride Property Name As String
End Class
Sub SomeMethod()
Dim C As Company = Company.[New]
C.Name = "Some name"
C.Save()
MessageBox.Show(C.ID) 'This always prints 0!!!
End Sub
Thank you!
Had faced this issue and figured out that setting the identity attribute on the field solved this.
[Identity]
public int Id
{
get { return (int)GetField("Id"); }
}
I don't think I am asking the question correctly, but hopefully you know what I am asking.
What are pros and cons of using a string value to represent a database field (or any variable) vs using an enumeration or constant? I am not asking about the datatype, but hows its handled on the back-end. I'll use LINQ to SQL for an example.
My thinking is that by using an enumerable or constant it's: easier to read, ensures compatibly should the values ever need to be changed, and the value is hard coded -so to speak- so there are less chances of an error caused by a typo. On the flip side, do I really need a class/structure with member enumerations that essentially act as a look up for the value I want?
Using an Constant
Module Trip
Public Const OPEN As String = "Open"
Public Const PENDING_PAYMENT As String = "Pending Payment"
Public Const CANCELLED As String = "Cancelled"
Public Const CLOSED As String = "Closed"
End Module
Dim product = From p In db.Payments
Where p.PaymentId = PaymentId
For Each item In product
item.Status = PayStatus.PENDING_PAYMENT
Next
Using a string
Dim product = From p In db.Payments
Where p.PaymentId = PaymentId
For Each item In product
item.Status = "Pending Payment"
Next
As one of the comments says, the common way to deal with this is using a lookup table in the database. In its most simple form, you would have a class, let's say PaymentStatus:
Class PaymentStatus
Public Property Id As Integer
Public Property Name As String
End Class
and Payment would have reference property like
Public Property PaymentStatus As PaymentStatus
This way, you can always get the options from the database and you will never make a typo in code. It's also much easier to add options or to change descriptions.
For instance, think of what you need to do if you'd decide that "Cancelled" needs to be differentiated into "Cancelled by user" (the old status) and "Cancelled by system" (a new status introduced by new business logic). You'd need a script to update all records in the database to the new string (and change the code, but you'd be changing code anyway). A lookup table allows you to update only one record (and add a new one in this example).
Can anyone help explain why the following will change a value in an object's member even if I pass it in ByVal?
Scenario: The name of the person is 'Sab' but when i pass the object in the sub routine, the name changes to 'John'.
I thought object types are passed in by reference only and should not be changed unless forced. Is this a feature in .NET and what is this behavior called?
Sub Main()
Dim p As New Person
p.name = "Sab"
DoSomething(p)
Console.WriteLine(p.name) ' John
Console.Read()
End Sub
Public Sub DoSomething(ByVal p As Person)
p.name = "John"
End Sub
Writing to p.name is not the same as writing to p. ByVal prevents the parameter itself from being modified, e.g.
p = New Person
If you want to prevent the properties of Person from being written to, then you need to re-design the Person class to be immutable instead of mutable. Whether this is an appropriate thing to do depends on how you want your code to behave.
Example:
Public Class Person
' All fields are private
Private _name As String
' All properties are read only
Public ReadOnly Property Name As String
Get
Return _name
End Get
End Property
' Field values can *only* be set in the constructor
Public Sub New(name As String)
_name = name
End Sub
End Class
An instance of an object is a reference - it's a pointer to the object. If you pass any object by value, you are passing it's reference by value. Effectively, there is no difference in passing an object by value or by reference. .Net creates a new copy of the reference and passes it's value to your method but the new copy of the reference still points to the same object. Some folks say that "all objects are passed by reference" but this is not true, the reference to the object in the called method is NOT the same as the reference in the caller but they point to the same object.
If you really want to pass a copy of the object such that the called method may not modify the originals' properties, then you need to create a copy. See discussions about shallow vs deep copies and be careful to understand references to objects vs simple data types. Do think about your design though. It's rare to actually need to create a copy rather than a new object.