Why do the conditions need to be in the other models? Can you run me through
the associations in all models related to this issue?
On 02/01/2013, at 11:34 AM, John Barker wrote:
> So I thought this problem was fixed, after moving the needed conditions to
> the relationship table, but come to find out, I can't have the conditions
> there; they have to be in my other models. Consider me stumped.
>
> On Friday, December 28, 2012 11:11:07 PM UTC-6, Pat Allan wrote:
> No worries - it helps that I had someone else dealing with the same issue on
> Flying Sphinx recently :)
> On 29/12/2012, at 4:06 PM, John Barker wrote:
>
> > Hi Pat,
> >
> > Thanks for such a prompt response! So moving the conditions from the User
> > model to the Relationship model and changing the attributes to
> > relationships.model(:column) seems to work exactly as I need it to. I tried
> > a similar thing earlier, but must have overlooked something.
> >
> > Thanks for such a great library (and a great service, Flying Sphinx)!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Friday, December 28, 2012 10:51:16 PM UTC-6, Pat Allan wrote:
> > Hi John
> > I would avoid using has_many :through shortcuts in your index definition -
> > so, you're doing the right thing with fields, but not with attributes.
> > Thinking Sphinx uses ActiveRecord to generate the SQL, and it appears
> > ActiveRecord isn't as smart as it could be with joins for those
> > associations.
> >
> > Of course, then you have the catch that you're applying conditions to the
> > has_many :through versions of the associations… I would probably define
> > those as additional associations on Relationship instead if necessary?
> >
> > --
> > Pat
> >
> > On 29/12/2012, at 1:15 PM, John Barker wrote:
> >
> > > I have an index in my User model that is creating redundant joins for
> > > attributes I have defined. My model looks as follows:
> > >
> > > class User < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > has_many :relationships
> > > has_many :groups, through: :relationships, conditions: Proc.new {
> > > ['relationships.type = ?', 'Group'] }
> > > has_many :organizations, through: :relationships, conditions:
> > > Proc.new { ['relationships.type = ?', 'Organization'] }
> > > has_many :roles, through: :relationships
> > >
> > >
> > > define_index do
> > > # fields
> > > indexes first_name, sortable: true
> > > indexes last_name, sortable: true
> > > indexes email, sortable: true
> > > indexes relationships.group(:name), as: :groups, sortable: true
> > > indexes relationships.role(:name), as: :roles
> > >
> > > set_property field_weights: {
> > > first_name: 15,
> > > last_name: 15,
> > > email: 7,
> > > groups: 10
> > > }
> > >
> > > has relationships(:type), as: :relationship_type, crc: true
> > > has groups(:id), as: :group_id
> > > has organizations(:id), as: :organization_id
> > > has roles(:name), as: :role_name, crc: true
> > > has created_at, updated_at
> > > end
> > >
> > > This produces the following query in the sphinx configuration:
> > >
> > > SELECT
> > > SQL_NO_CACHE `users`.`id` * CAST(5 AS SIGNED) + 4 AS `id` ,
> > > `users`.`first_name` AS `first_name`
> > > `users`.`last_name` AS `last_name`,
> > > `users`.`email` AS `email`,
> > > GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT IFNULL(`groups`.`name`, '0') SEPARATOR ' ') AS
> > > `groups`,
> > > GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT IFNULL(`roles`.`name`, '0') SEPARATOR ' ') AS
> > > `roles`,
> > > `users`.`id` AS `sphinx_internal_id`, 0 AS `sphinx_deleted`,
> > > 765557111 AS `class_crc`, IFNULL('User', '') AS
> > > `sphinx_internal_class`,
> > > IFNULL(`users`.`first_name`, '') AS `first_name_sort`,
> > > IFNULL(`users`.`last_name`, '') AS `last_name_sort`,
> > > IFNULL(`users`.`email`, '') AS `email_sort`,
> > > GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT IFNULL(IFNULL(`groups`.`name`, ''), '0')
> > > SEPARATOR ' ') AS `groups_sort`,
> > > GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT IFNULL(CRC32(`relationships`.`type`), '0')
> > > SEPARATOR ',') AS `relationship_type`,
> > > GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT IFNULL(`groups_users`.`id`, '0') SEPARATOR ',')
> > > AS `group_id`,
> > > GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT IFNULL(`organizations`.`id`, '0') SEPARATOR
> > > ',') AS `organization_id`,
> > > GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT IFNULL(CRC32(`roles_users`.`name`), '0')
> > > SEPARATOR ',') AS `role_name`,
> > > UNIX_TIMESTAMP(`users`.`created_at`) AS `created_at`,
> > > UNIX_TIMESTAMP(`users`.`updated_at`) AS `updated_at`
> > > FROM `users`
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `relationships` ON `relationships`.`user_id` =
> > > `users`.`id`
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `groups` ON `groups`.`id` =
> > > `relationships`.`relationship_id`
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `roles` ON `roles`.`id` = `relationships`.`role_id`
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `relationships` `relationships_users_join` ON
> > > `relationships_users_join`.`user_id` = `users`.`id`
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `groups` `groups_users` ON `groups_users`.`id` =
> > > `relationships_users_join`.`relationship_id` AND relationships.type =
> > > 'Group'
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `relationships` `relationships_users_join_2` ON
> > > `relationships_users_join_2`.`user_id` = `users`.`id`
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `organizations` ON `organizations`.`id` =
> > > `relationships_users_join_2`.`relationship_id` AND relationships.type =
> > > 'Organization'
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `relationships` `relationships_users_join_3` ON
> > > `relationships_users_join_3`.`user_id` = `users`.`id`
> > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `roles` `roles_users` ON `roles_users`.`id` =
> > > `relationships_users_join_3`.`role_id`
> > > WHERE (`users`.`id` >= $start AND `users`.`id` <= $end)
> > > GROUP BY `users`.`id` ORDER BY NULL
> > >
> > > Everything is great up until the joins; it creates three extra
> > > unnecessary joins (relationships_users_join_n) for the Group,
> > > Organization, and Roles attributes. I have tried changing the attribute
> > > syntax from groups(:id) to relationships.group(:id) but it fails to
> > > acknowledge the conditions that is applied to the join that is defined by
> > > the has_many in the model. Other than failing to acknowledge the
> > > condition, it solves my redundant join issue.
> > >
> > > Any help is greatly appreciated!
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/thinking-sphinx/-/JvcwXKlb4MgJ.
> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > [email protected].
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/thinking-sphinx/-/IJE3e6jUKT8J.
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [email protected].
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/thinking-sphinx/-/c1sORwQ8_ssJ.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thinking Sphinx" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en.
