I've looked at a lot of the stackoverflow answers around this subject, but they all seem to be coming at it from a different direction. Here's what I want to do, and at this stage I'm more head-scratching as to the way to approach it than writing the specific code.
The task is to display shows that a user could see based on their existing commitments, whether that be not available or already seeing something else.
Table A contains a list of start & end times of user unavailability
Table B contains a list of start & end times of user existing bookings.
Table C contains a list of start & end times of all shows.
To add more detail to this, I'm using FullCalendar agendaView to display a users commitments. In the gaps I want to display shows they could see. The code to display the unavailability and existing commitments is already written, but I have no clue now trying to find shows in Table C that don't clash with entries in Tables A & B.
Any ideas?
My solution is for PHP, but I'm sure there is a better solution hiding in an SQL stored procedure or something.
If you work with Unix Time you can simply test for open slots by comparing begin and end times:
Dynamically create a list of available slots for a user.
Iterate through this list and compare an open slot with each show in Table C. Something like
if (
(showtime['begin'] >> opentime['begin']) &&
(showtime['end'] << opentime['end'])
) return true;
If you find a match, print it out.
EDIT:
After thinking a bit I came up with possibly a better solution. There is no way to get away from not comparing everything item by item. So the trick is to instead of doing all the processing at once, spread it out over the entire lifecycle of the app:
Edit the database and add duration field to all the tables.
Make a stored procedure (mySQL can do this, right?) that triggers on a table update. This procedure calculates the duration and fills the corresponding field for that tuple.
Now you select all the tuples whose duration =< some open slot
This way all the grunt work is done in SQL and not in PHP, so it could be faster.
Related
First of, I'm pretty new to this site and coding in general so please explain in simple terms as I'm still learning! Thanks
Ok, so I've got a database of results. These are 1-6 ratings. I've already created the ability to retrieve certain results (user, group, all).
But now I'm wanting to alongside retrieving the group and all results to display at the top of the results a mean for each question.
So to start I'm wanting something like this I believe.
SELECT sum(r1), sum(r2), sum(r3) so on,
FROM table
This is where I get confused.
I think I'd need a variable to contain these and then another that counts the amount of entries to divide the total of r1 hence the mean.
Any ideas?..
To calculate a mean, use the AVG function, e.g.
SELECT AVG(r1), AVG(r2)
FROM table
See the MySQL docs.
Hello again Stackoverflow!
I'm currently working on custom forumsoftware and one of the things you like to see on a forum is a viewcounter.
All the approaches for a viewcounter that I found would just select the topic from the database, retrieve the number from a "views" column, add one and update it.
But here's my thought: If, lets say 400, people at the exact same time open a topic, the MySQL database probably won´t count all views because it takes time for the queries to complete, and so the last person (of the 400) might overwrites the first persons (of the 400) view.
Ofcourse one could argue that on a normal site this is never going to happen, but if you have ~7 people opening that topic at the exact same second and the server is struggleing at that moment, you could have the same problem.
Is there any other good approach to count views?
EDIT
Woah, could the one who voted down specify why?
I ment by "Retrieving the number of views and adding one" that I would use SELECT to retrieve the number, add one using PHP (note the tags) and updating it using UPDATE. I had no idea of the other methods specified below, that's why I asked.
If, lets say 400, people at the exact same time open a topic, the MySQL database apparently would count all the views because this is exactly what databases were invented for.
All the approaches for a viewcounter that you have found are wrong. To update a field you don't need to retrieve it, but just already update:
UPDATE forum SET views + 1 WHERE id = ?
So something like that will work:
UPDATE tbl SET cnt = cnt+1 WHERE ...
UPDATE is guaranteed to be atomic. That means no one will be able to alter cnt between the time it is read and the time it is replaced. If you have several concurrent UPDATE for the same row (InnoDB) or table (MyISAM) they have to wait their turn to update the date.
See Is incrementing a field in MySQL atomic?
and http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/ansi-diff-transactions.html
I have a drupal site, and am trying to use php to grab some data from my database. What I need to do is to display, in a user's profile, how many times they were the first person to review a venue (exactly like Yelp's "First" tally). I'm looking at two options, and trying to decide which is the better way to approach it.
First Option: The first time a venue is reviewed, save the value of the reviewer's user ID into a table in the database. This table will be dedicated to storing the UID of the first user to review each venue. Then, use a simple query to display a count in the user's profile of the number of times their UID appears in this table.
Second Option: Use a set of several more complex queries to display the count in the user's profile, without storing any extra data in the database. This will rely on several queries which will have to do something along the lines of:
Find the ID for each review the user has created
Check the ID of the venue contained in each review
First review for each venue based on the venue ID stored in the review
Get the User ID of the author for the first review
Check which, if any, of these Author UIDs match the current user's UID
I'm assuming that this would involve creating an array of the IDs in step one, and then somehow executing each step for each item in the array. There would also be 3 or 4 different tables involved in the query.
I'm relatively new to writing SQL queries, so I'm wondering if it would be better to perform the set of potentially longer queries, or to take the small database hit and use a much much smaller count query instead. Is there any way to compare the advantages of either, or is it like comparing apples and oranges?
The volume of extra data stored will be negligible; the simplification to the processing will be significant. The data won't change (the first person to review a venue won't change), so there is a negligible update burden. Go with the extra data and simpler query.
I have recently written a survey application that has done it's job and all the data is gathered. Now i have to analyze the data and i'm having some time issues.
I have to find out how many people selected what option and display it all.
I'm using this query, which does do it's job:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM survey
WHERE users = ? AND table = ? AND col = ? AND row = ? AND selected = ?
GROUP BY users,table,col,row,selected
As evident by the "?" i'm using MySQLi (in php) to fetch the data when needed, but i fear this is causing it to be so slow.
The table consists of all the elements above (+ an unique ID) and all of them are integers.
To explain some of the fields:
Each survey was divided into 3 or 4 tables (sized from 2x3 to 5x5) with a 1 to 10 happiness grade to select form. (questions are on the right and top of the table, then you answer where the questions intersect)
users - age groups
table, row, col - explained above
selected - dooooh explained above
Now with the surveys complete and around 1 million entries in the table the query is getting very slow. Sometimes it takes like 3 minutes, sometimes (i guess) the time limit expires and you get no data at all. I also don't have access to the full database, just my empty "testing" one since the costumer is kinda paranoid :S (and his server seems to be a bit slow)
Now (after the initial essay) my questions are: I left indexing out intentionally because with a lot of data being written during the survey, it would be a bad idea. But since no new data is coming in at this point, would it make sense to index all the fields of a table? How much sense does it make to index integers that never go above 10? (as you can guess i haven't got a clue about indexes). Do i need the primary unique ID in this table? I
I read somewhere that indexing may help groups but only if you group by the first columns in a table (and since my ID is first and from my point of view useless can i remove it and gain anything by it?)
Is there another way to write my query that would basically do the same thing but in a shorter period of time?
Thanks for all your suggestions in advance!
Add an index on entries that you "GROUP BY" or do "WHERE". So that's ONE index incorporating users,table,col,row and selected in your case.
Some quick rules:
combine fields to have the WHERE first, and the GROUP BY elements last.
If you have other queries that only use part of it (e.g. users,table,col and selected) then leave the missing value (row, in this example) last.
Don't use too many indexes/indeces, as each will slow the table to updates marginally - so on really large system you need to balance queries with indexes.
Edit: do you need the GROUP BY user,col,row as these are used in the WHERE. If the WHERE has already filtered them out, you only need group by "selected".
I've got a somewhat complicated question for you cakephp experts.
Basically, I have created a db table called "locations". Every month I will get this table sent to me in csv format from a client. Unfortunately, instead of updating this table, I will have to empty it and reimport all of the records. Unfortunately, I cannot alter this table at all.
Functionality wise, users will have the ability to look at a display of these records, and be able to choose to hide certain ones. This "hidden" attribute must be persistent and survive the month to month purging of all records.
I had all of this working yesterday. What I did was, create a separate table called location_properties (columns were: id(int), location_id(foreign key), is_hidden(boolean)). When showing these records, it would simply check to see if "is_hidden==true".
This was all well and good(AND WORKING!), but then my boss kind of gummed up the works. He told me to delete the "is_hidden" column from the table because it would be more efficient. That I should be able to simply check for the existence of the location_id to hide or show it.
It doesn't appear to be quite that simple. Anyone know how I can pull this off? I've tried everything I can think of.
Your boss is wrong.
It's more efficient to add your column, than it is too delete and re-import the locations every month.
Did he say it was less efficient, or did you do an actual benchmark to see if its harms performance too much?
At first glance I see 2 solutions:
1) add a condition array('Location.id' => 'NOT NULL')
2) change join type to right join
I hope this helps