Hi Pat,
So bottom line is, I can't have the conditions on the relationship model,
they have to remain on the user/organization model as it breaks the
creation of relationships. Is there a way to explicitly define the join in
the index/attribute definition?
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:50:19 AM UTC-6, Pat Allan wrote:
>
> Hi John
>
> Perhaps there's details I've forgotten (also: I'm a little short on
> sleep), but you can keep those conditions you've commented out. It's just
> that you can't use the has_many :through associations reliably in Thinking
> Sphinx index definitions - and I had noticed that you had conditions on
> those that perhaps weren't on the underlying associations.
>
> If you've got conditions on non-:through associations and you want to use
> those associations with Thinking Sphinx, that should be fine.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Pat
>
> On 03/01/2013, at 2:43 AM, John Barker wrote:
>
> > Hi Pat,
> >
> > So, to begin, I have an application that is membership-centric; users
> can have 'memberships' to both 'groups' and 'organizations', which is
> handled through a 'relationships' table/model to handle all the
> associations/relationships.
> >
> > The relationships table handles all the relationships for the user for
> both organization and group, and simply distinguishes between which by the
> 'type' column. For example, here's my current 'Relationship' model (you'll
> see I have the conditioned commented out):
> >
> > class Relationship < ActiveRecord::Base
> > belongs_to :role
> > belongs_to :user
> > belongs_to :organization, foreign_key: 'relationship_id'#, conditions:
> { relationships: { type: 'Organization', active: true } }
> > belongs_to :group, foreign_key: 'relationship_id'#, conditions: {
> relationships: { type: 'Group', active: true } }
> >
> > has_many :lists
> >
> > attr_accessible :user_id, :role_id, :relationship_id, :role, :user,
> :created_at, :updated_at, :type, :begin_date, :end_date, :active
> >
> > validates_uniqueness_of :relationship_id, scope: [ :type, :role_id,
> :user_id ]
> >
> > scope :page_with_cached_total_count, lambda { |page_number,
> total_count_value |
> > page(page_number).extending {
> > define_method(:total_count) { total_count_value }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > define_index do
> > indexes user.first_name, as: :first_name, sortable: true
> > indexes user.middle_name, as: :middle_name, sortable: true
> > indexes user.last_name, as: :last_name, sortable: true
> > indexes user.email, as: :email, sortable: true
> > indexes group(:name), as: :group, sortable: true
> >
> > set_property field_weights: {
> > first_name: 15,
> > last_name: 15,
> > middle_name: 2,
> > email: 7,
> > groups: 10
> > }
> >
> > has organization(:id), as: :organization_id
> > has created_at, updated_at
> > has role(:name), as: :role_name, crc: true
> > has :type, crc: true
> > end
> >
> > # Override ActiveRecord's inheritance column method since we use a
> `type` column
> > def self.inheritance_column
> > nil
> > end
> > end
> >
> > I need those conditions on the User, Organization and other models so
> that they will respect the conditions when I call something like
> Organization.find(1).members, which would do a join on the relationships
> table and search by type 'organization' and the and ensure that the
> relationship is in fact active (active=1).
> >
> > For example, my Organization model's relationship definition looks like
> this:
> >
> > has_many :relationships, foreign_key: 'relationship_id', conditions: {
> relationships: { type: 'Organization', active: true } }
> > has_many :members, through: :relationships, source: :user
> >
> > If I remove the conditions from the Organization model, and simply leave
> it on the Relationships model, then it doesn't respect the condition when I
> call something like Organization.find(1).members. There are some other
> errors, weirdness I experience as well, but that is the major reason.
> >
> > If you have any help, or insight as to how I could better structure this
> and retain the needed index performance with TS, I would be forever
> grateful! I hope I made this clear enough.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 9:30:49 PM UTC-6, Pat Allan wrote:
> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/thinking-sphinx/-/BgBwJl6miUwJ.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > [email protected]<javascript:>
> .
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected] <javascript:>.
> > 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/-/VhUvzzEzfwEJ.
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.
