Yeah, sorry bout that. Turns out I misunderstood the purpose of GROUP BY. Thanks for putting up with me. ;) Josiah
On Mar 1, 3:55 pm, Hameed Gifford <[email protected]> wrote: > And so strikes the teddy bear at the help desk > > - h85 > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:40 -0800, Josiah wrote: > > Aaaand I realize now that I don't want GROUP BY at all. I just want 2 > > ORDER BY columns. > > > Using the mock data I provided, swapping the order of the ORDER BY > > columns will give the result I want. > > > Thanks for making me think through my problem completely. > > Josiah > > > On Mar 1, 3:30 pm, Josiah <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My tables look like this:http://pastie.org/1622672 > > > (This is a legacy database: I tried to distill the classes down to > > > only what was important) > > > > I want to pull in TrackingGroupMember#name for each Bug and be able to > > > sort and group on it. > > > > I also want to be able to sort by Bug#date_updated, for instance, and > > > group on TrackingGroupMember#name in the same query. > > > > I basically want to treat TrackingGroupMember#name as if it were a > > > column in Bug, as there will only ever be a 1 to 1 mapping (in this > > > particular where clause) of TrackingGroupMember to Bug > > > > I want to group and sort like this: > > > > a|1 > > > c|2 > > > a|2 > > > a|3 > > > b|2 > > > b|1 > > > c|5 > > > > If I group on the first column, and sort on the second column I want > > > to see: > > > > a|1 > > > a|2 > > > a|3 > > > b|1 > > > b|2 > > > c|2 > > > c|5 > > > > If I group on the second column and sort by the first, I want to see: > > > > a|1 > > > b|1 > > > a|2 > > > b|2 > > > c|2 > > > a|3 > > > c|5 > > > > Does that sound possible? > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > Josiah > > > > On Mar 1, 2:26 pm, "Xavier (DBIYF)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 2/03/11 9:24 AM, Josiah wrote:> Aha, yeah, I was asking for how to > > > > do it in the database (somehow I > > > > > glossed over the fact that group_by was not a datamapper call and it > > > > > was not actually issuing a group by in sql). Is there a way to do > > > > > group by without sorting by that field as well? I'd like to be able > > > > > to sort by one column and group by another. > > > > > Please provide the concrete SQL query you are trying to achieve > > > > (or the input with expected output) > > > > > My brain doesn't work with Foo and joinedtable ;) > > > > > > Thanks for your help so far, > > > > > Josiah > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2:16 pm, Xavier Shay<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> On Mar 2, 6:03 am, Josiah<[email protected]> wrote:> What is the > > > > >> api for grouping by and sorting by a joined table in 1.1? > > > > > >>> eg: > > > > > >>> Foo.all( ... ).group_by(&:'joinedtable.some_field') > > > > > >> I'm not convinced this a datamapper method ... #group_by is provided > > > > >> by activesupport, and you're using it with a proc. This happens in > > > > >> ruby land, not in the DB, meaning you can do this: > > > > >> .group_by {|record| record.joined_table.some_field } > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>> Foo.all(order: [ :'joined_table.some_field'.asc ]) > > > > > >> Foo.all( > > > > >> order: Foo.joined_table.some_field.asc, > > > > >> links: [relationships['joined_table'].inverse] > > > > >> ) > > > > > >> (There is small chance I didn't get this fix merged in for 1.1, in > > > > >> that case here is a hack to you can use to work > > > > >> around:http://rhnh.net/2010/12/01/ordering-by-a-field-in-a-join-model-with-d...) > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > >> Xavier > > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > >>> Josiah -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" 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/datamapper?hl=en.
