My system needs to validate if an oracle query contains order by. I thought I would do with regex but I wanted to know if oracle does not have a ready solution.
I tried to execute the with oracle explain plan but in some queries the order by does not appear in the plan.
Use regex:
.*order by.*
Some queries that don't have an order by, such as union, still internally perform sorts, so you can't tell by looking explain plan if an order by has been used.
Related
I am working on small app the allows users to browse items based on various filters they select in the view.
After looking though, the firebase documentation I realised that the sort of compound query that I'm trying to create is not possible since Firestore only supports a single "IN" operator per query. To get around this the docs says to use multiple separate queries and then merge the results on the client side.
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/query-data/queries#query_limitations
Cloud Firestore provides limited support for logical OR queries. The in, and array-contains-any operators support a logical OR of up to 10 equality (==) or array-contains conditions on a single field. For other cases, create a separate query for each OR condition and merge the query results in your app.
I can see how this would work normally but what if I only wanted to show the user ten results per page. How would I implement pagination into this since I don't want to be sending lots of results back to the user each time?
My first thought would be to paginate each separate query and then merge them but then if I'm only getting a small sample back from the db I'm not sure how I would compare and merge them with the other queries on the client side.
Any help would be much appreciated since I'm hoping I don't have to move away from firestore and start over in an SQL db.
Say you want to show 10 results on a page. You will need to get 10 results for each of the subqueries, and then merge the results client-side. You will be overreading quite a bit of data, but that's unfortunately unavoidable in such an implementation.
The (preferred) alternative is usually to find a data model that allows you to implement the use-case with a single query. It is impossible to say generically how to do that, but it typically involves adding a field for the OR condition.
Say you want to get all results where either "fieldA" is "Red" or "fieldB" is "Blue". By adding a field "fieldA_is_Red_or_fieldB_is_Blue", you could then perform a single query on that field. This may seem horribly contrived in this example, but in many use-cases it is more reasonable and may be a good way to implement your OR use-case with a single query.
You could just create a complex where
Take a look at the where property in https://www.npmjs.com/package/firebase-firestore-helper
Disclaimer: I am the creator of this library. It helps to manipulate objects in Firebase Firestore (and adds Cache)
Enjoy!
My table is (device, type, value, timestamp), where (device,type,timestamp) makes a unique combination ( a candidate for composite key in non-DynamoDB DBMS).
My queries can range between any of these three attributes, such as
GET (value)s from (device) with (type) having (timestamp) greater than <some-timestamp>
I'm using dynamoosejs/dynamoose. And from most of the searches, I believe I'm supposed to use a combination of the three fields (as a single field ; device-type-timestamp) as id. However the set: function of Schema doesn't let me use the object properties (such as this.device) and due to some reasons, I cannot do it externally.
The closest I got (id:uuidv4:hashKey, device:string:GlobalSecIndex, type:string:LocalSecIndex, timestamp:Date:LocalSecIndex)
and
(id:uuidv4:rangeKey, device:string:hashKey, type:string:LocalSecIndex, timestamp:Date:LocalSecIndex)
and so on..
However, while using a Query, it becomes difficult to fetch results of particular device,type as the id, (hashKey or rangeKey) keeps missing from the scene.
So the question. How would you do it for such kind of table?
And point to be noted, this table is meant to gather content from IoT devices, which is generated every 5 mins by each device on an average.
I'm curious why you are choosing DynamoDB for this task. Advanced queries like this seem to be much better suited for a SQL based database as opposed to a NoSQL database. Due to the advanced nature of SQL queries, this task in my experience is a lot easier in SQL databases. So I would encourage you to think about if DynamoDB is truly the right system for what you are trying to do here.
If you determine it is, you might have to restructure your data a little bit. You could do something like having a property that is device-type and that will be the device and type values combined. Then set that as an index, and query based on that and sort by the timestamp, and filter out the results that are not greater than the value you want.
You are correct that currently, Dynamoose does not pass in the entire object into the set function. This is something that personally I'm open to exploring. I'm a member on the GitHub project, and if you would like to submit a PR adding that feature I would be more than happy to help explore that option with you and get that into the codebase.
The other thing you might want to explore is having a DynamoDB stream, that will set that device-type property whenever it gets added to your DynamoDB table. That would abstract that logic out of DynamoDB and your application. I'm not sure if it's necessary for what you are doing to decouple it to that level, but it might be something you want to explore.
Finally, depending on your setup, you could figure out which item will be more unique, device or type, and setup an index on that property. Then just query based on that, and filter out the results of the other property that you don't want. I'm not sure if that is what you are looking for, it will of course work, but I'm not sure how many items you will have in your table, and there get to be questions about scalability at a certain level. One way to solve some of those scalability questions might be to set the TTL of your items if you know that you the timestamp you are querying for is constant, or predictable ahead of time.
Overall there are a lot of ways to achieve what you are looking to do. Without more detail about how many items, what exactly those properties will be doing, the amount of scalability you require, which of those properties will be most unique, etc. it's hard to give a good solution. I would highly encourage you to think about if NoSQL is truly the best way to go. That query you are looking to do seems a LOT more like a SQL query. Not saying it's impossible in DynamoDB, but it will require some thought about how you want to structure your data model, and such.
Considering opinion of #charlie-fish, I decided to jump into Dynamoose and improvise the code to pass the model to the set function of the attribute. However, I discovered that the model is already being passed to default parameter of the attribute. So I changed my Schema to the following:
id:hashKey;default: function(model){ return model.device + "" + model.type; }
timestamp:rangeKey
For anyone landing here on this answer, please note that the default & set functions can access attribute options & schema instance using this . However both those functions should be regular functions, rather than arrow functions.
Keeping this here as an answer, but I won't accept it as an answer to my question for sometime, as I want to wait for someone else to hit out a better approach.
I also want to make sure that if a value is passed for id field, it shouldn't be set. For this I can use set to ignore the actual incoming value, which I don't know how, as of yet.
I have two document types in the same collection: Order, Shipping.
The relation is: one shipping have one or many orders.
The order has a shipping_id.
I would select orders listing some properties of shipping.
RDBMS talking it is a classic JOIN but I can't find a solution with DocumentDb.
Any ideas?
CosmosDb is not a RDBMS. For that reason you will have to perform two queries. First, retrieve the shipping(s) that you're interested in and then issue another query retrieving the order(s) based on the shipping_id. If you know the shipping_id ahead of time, you can even issue these queries in parallel using something like Task.WhenAll. Another option is wrap this logic inside of a Stored Procedure. This would allow you get all the results you're looking for from a single operation.
I'm trying to add a feature in my app to search users by their name in Firebase, so I've tried to make a query that returns all the users where their name contains the search.
For example, if we have 5 users and their names are: "Bernard, Francois, Connard, Antoine, Penard" and the search is "nar", the query would return "Bernard, Connard, Penard". Does someone have an idea how to do the query? Or else a better idea to find the users?
Unfortunately, Firebase does not offer substring-match functionality. There are some hacks available with good thought on data structures and a bit of code work if you only want PREFIX based matches, but there is no operator for INFIX matches.
Your best option is to acknowledge that Firebase is an excellent database, but not an excellent search engine. There is nothing wrong with this - it does its actual job very well. When you need search, you will have the best results "pairing" it with an actual search engine such as ElasticSearch, Algolia, CloudSearch, etc.
Is it quicker to make one trip to the database and bring back 3000+ plus rows, then manipulate them in .net & LINQ or quicker to make 6 calls bringing back a couple of 100 rows at a time?
It will entirely depend on the speed of the database, the network bandwidth and latency, the speed of the .NET machine, the actual queries etc.
In other words, we can't give you a truthful general answer. I know which sounds easier to code :)
Unfortunately this is the kind of thing which you can't easily test usefully without having an exact replica of the production environment - most test environments are somewhat different to the production environment, which could seriously change the results.
Is this for one user, or will many users be querying the data? The single database call will scale better under load.
Speed is only one consideration among many.
How flexible is your code? How easy is it to revise and extend when the requirements change? How easy is it for another person to read and maintain your code? How portable is your code? what if you change to a diferent DBMS, or a different progamming language? Are any of these considerations important in your case?
Having said that, go for the single round trip if all other things are equal or unimportant.
You mentioned that the single round trip might result in reading data you don't need. If all the data you need can be described in a single result table, then it should be possible to devise a query that will get that result. That result table might deliver some result data in more than one row, if the query denormalizes the data. In that case, you might gain some speed by obtaining the data in several result tables, and composing the result yourself.
You haven't given enough information to know how much programming effort it will be to compose a single query or to compose the data returned by 6 queries.
As others have said, it depends.
If you know which 6 SQL statements you're going to execute beforehand, you can bundle them into one call to the database, and return multiple result sets using ADO or ADO.NET.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311274
the problem I have here is that I need it all, i just need it displayed separately...
The answer to your question is 1 query for 3000 rows is better than 6 queries for 500 rows. (given that you are bringing all 3000 rows back regardless)
However, there's no way you're going (to want) to display 3000 rows at a time, is there? In all likelihood, irrespective of using Linq, you're going to want to run aggregating queries and get the database to do the work for you. You should hopefully be able to construct the SQL (or Linq query) to perform all required logic in one shot.
Without knowing what you're doing, it's hard to be more specific.
* If you absolutely, positively need to bring back all the rows, then investigate the ToLookup() method for your linq IQueryable< T >. It's very handy for grouping results in non-standard ways.
Oh, and I highly recommend LINQPad (free) for trying out queries with Linq. It has loads of examples, and it also shows you the sql and lambda forms so you can familiarize yourself with Linq<->lambda form<->Sql.
Well, the answer is always "it depends". Do you want to optimize on the database load or on the application load?
My general answer in this case would be to use as specific queries as possible at the database level, therefore using 6 calls.
Thx
I was kind of thinking "ball park", but it sounds as though its a choice thing...the difference is likely small.
I was thinking that getting all the data and manipulating in .net would be the best - I have nothing concrete to base this on (hence the question), I just tend to feel that calls to the DB are expensive and if I know i need all the data...get it in one hit?!?
Part of the problem is that you have not provided sufficient information to give you a precise answer. Obviously, available resources need to be considered.
If you pull 3000 rows infrequently, it might work for you in the short term. However, if there are say 10,000 people that execute the same query (ignoring cache effects), this could become a problem for both the app and db.
Now in the case of something like pagination, it makes sense to pull in just what you need. But that would be a general rule to try to only pull what is necessary. It's much more elegant to use a scalpel instead of a broadsword. =)
If you are talking about a query that has already been run by SQL (so optimized by SQL Server), working with LINQ or a SqlDataReader might actually have the same performance.
The only difference will be "how hard will it be to maintain your code?"
LINQ doesn't query anything to the database until you ask for the result with ".ToList()" or ".ToArray()" or even ".Count()". LINQ is dynamically building your query so it is exactly the same as having a SqlDataReader but with runtime verification.
Rather than speculating, why don't you try both and measure the results?
It depends
1) if your connector implementation precaches a lot of objects AND you have big rows (for example blobs, contry polygons etc.) you have a problem, you have to download a LOT of data. I've optimalized once a code that had this problem and it was just downloading some megs of garbage all the time via localhost, and my software runs now 10 times faster because i removed the precaching by an option
2) If your rows are small and you have a good chance that you need to read through all the 3000, you're better going on a big resultset
3) If you don't use prepared statements, all queries have to be parsed! Big resultset might be better.
Hope it helped
I always stick to the rule of "bring in what I need" and nothing more...the problem I have here is that I need it all, I just need it displayed separately.
So say...
I have a table with userid and typeid. I want to display all records with a userid, and display on the page in grids say separated by typeid.
At the moment I call sproc that does "select field1, field2 from tab where userid=1",
then on the page set the datasource of a grid to from t in tab where typeid=2 select t;
Rather than calling a different sproc "select field1, field2 from tab where userid=1 and typeid=2" 6 times.
??