I hope the title was descriptive enough, i wasn't sure how to name it.
Let's say i have the following code:
Class Movie_model {
public method getMoviesByDate($date) {
// Connects to db
// Gets movie IDs from a specific date
// Loop through movie IDs
// On each ID, call getMovieById() and store the result in an array
// When all IDs has looped, return array with movies returned from getMovieById().
}
public function getMovieById($id) {
// Get movie by specified ID
// Also get movie genres from another method
// Oh, and it gets movie from another method as well.
}
}
I always want to get the same result when getting a movie (I always want the result from getMovieById().
I hope you get my point. I will have many other functions like getMoviesByDate(), i will also have getMoviesByGenre() for example, and i want that to return the same movie info as getMovieById() as well.
It it "ok" to do it this way? I know this puts more load on the server and increases load time, but is there any other, better way that i don't know of?
EDIT: I clarified the code in getMoviesByDate() a bit. Also, getMovieByDate() is just an example. As i said, i will be calling methods like getMoviesByGenre() also.
EDIT: I'm currently running 48 database queries on the frontpage of my project, and the frontpage is still far from finished, so that number would at least triple when i'm done. Almost all queries take around 0.0002, but as the database keeps growing that number will rise dramatically i'm guessing. I need to change something.
I don't think it's good to work like this in this particular case. The function getMoviesByDate would return an amount of "n" movies (or movie ids) from a single query. For each id in this query you would have a separate query to get the movie by the specified ID.
This would mean if the first function would return 200 movies, you would run the getMovieById() function (and the query inside it) 200 times. A better practice (IMO) would be to just get all the info you require in the getMoviesByDate() function and return it as a collection.
It doesn't seem very logical to have getMoviesByDate() and getMoviesById() methods on a Movie class.
An alternative would be to have some sort of MovieManager class that does all of the retrieving, and returns Movie objects.
class MovieManager {
public function getMoviesByDate($date) {
// get movies by date, build an array of Movie objects and return
}
public function getMoviesByGenre($genre) {
// get movies by genre, build an array of Movie objects and return
}
public function getMovieById($id) {
// get movie by id, return Movie object
}
}
Your Movie class would just have properties and methods specific to a single movie:
class Movie {
public id;
public name;
public releaseDate;
}
It's OK to have separate methods for getting by date, genre etc etc, but you must ensure that you are not calling for the same records multiple times - in that case you will want a single query that could join the various tables you need.
Edit - after you have clarified your question:
The idea of getting movie IDs by date, then running them all through getMovieById() is bad! The movie data should be pulled when getting by date, so you don't have to hit the database again.
You can modified your getMovieById function. You can pass date as a parameter, the function should return the movies by their id and filtered by date.
To keep track which records you've already loaded into RAM previously you can use a base class for your models which saves the id's of the records already loaded and a reference to object the model object in the RAM.
class ModelBase {
/* contains the id of the current record, null if new record */
protected $id;
// keep track of records already loaded
static $loaded_records = Array();
public function __construct(Array $attr_values) {
// assign $attr_values to this classes attributes
// save this instance in class variable to reuse this object
if($attr_values['id'] != null) {
self::$loaded_records[get_called_class()][$attr_values['id']] = $this;
}
}
public static function getConcurrentInstance(Array $attr_values) {
$called_class = get_called_class();
if(isset(self::$loaded_records[$called_class][$attr_values['id']])) {
// this record was already loaded into RAM
$record = self::$loaded_records[$called_class][$attr_values['id']];
// you may need to update certain fields of $record
// from the data in $attr_values, because the data in the RAM may
// be old data.
} else {
// create the model with the given values
$record = new $called_class($attr_values);
}
return $record;
}
// provides basic methods to update records in ram to database etc.
public function save() {
// create query to save this record to database ...
}
}
Your movie model could look something like this.
Class MovieModel extends ModelBase {
// additional attributes
protected $title;
protected $date;
// more attributes ...
public static function getMoviesByDate($date) {
// fetches records from database
// calls getConcurrentInstance() to return an instance of MovieModel() for every record
}
public static function getMovieById($id) {
// fetches record from database
// calls getConcurrentInstance() to return an instance of MovieModel()
}
}
Other things you could do do decrease the load on the DB:
Only connect once to the database per request. There are also possibilities to share a connection to a database between multiple requests.
Index thefields in your database which get searched often.
only fetch the records you need
Prevent to load the same record twice (if it didn't change)
Related
I have 2 models, store and dvd with many to many relationship
dvd model:
public function stores() {
return $this->belongsToMany('App\store');
}
store model:
public function dvds ( ) {
return $this->belongsToMany('App\dvd');
}
Then, in controller, when I need fetch data from both models, I use code like this:
$res_store = store::orderBy("id","desc")->get();
foreach( $res_store as $row ) {
$dvds = $row->dvds()->get();
foreach ($dvds as $dvd) {
// echo columns here
}
}
This works, but my question is, I'm doing this in correct way? I'm asking because it seems 2 loops for this simple relation is somehow inefficient.
No, this is not the right way.
When looping over a $store, you can access the associated $dvd records via $store->dvds; there is no need to call $row->dvds()->get(), as that is executing a new query with the same result of $store->dvds. Full code should simply be:
$stores = Store::with("dvds")->orderBy("id", "DESC")->get();
foreach($stores AS $store){
foreach($store->dvds AS $dvd){
... // Do something with `$dvd`
}
}
The ::with("dvds") clause is known as "Eager loading", and prevents $store->dvds from needing execute another query behind the scenes.
Also, please name your models correctly. Classes in PHP are StudlyCase, so Store and DVD, not store and dvd.
I am having difficulty sorting my data results alphabetically when matching them with the User that has placed the item in their "Locker".
I have two queries; the first one searches the database for all of the items that the user placed in their 'locker', and the second query pulls the details of the item and sorts them into a list by which brand the items are.
I feel like there is a better way to do this rather than forcing the page to run the query once for each item, but am not sure the proper way to write out the mySQL in the most efficient way that works.
I think the solution would be to pull all IDs as an array, then somehow search and sort all of their associated brands in the second query.
I currently have:
//$lockerid is pulled earlier in the code based on which locker number is associated with this user
// Pull all of the items and their ids that are in this users locker
$userlockerquery= mysql_query("SELECT DISTINCT item_id FROM lockers WHERE user_id = '$profile_userid' AND locker_id ='$lockerid' ");
while($lockeritems=mysql_fetch_array($userlockerquery)){
$indi_item=$lockeritems[item_id];
$lockeritemdetails = mysql_query("SELECT DISTINCT brand FROM inventory WHERE id = '$indi_item' ");
$brands=mysql_fetch_array($lockeritemdetails );
$brandname=$brands[brand];
echo '<div>'.$brandname.'</div>';
}
Although the results do show up with all of the brands, My problem seems to be that since the query is ran once for each items id, it cannot have the list results talk to each other, and thus cannot have them ordered by ASC alphabetically, since the query is ran once per each item.
Also because of this, the DISTINCT flag does not have any effect, since it is not matching against any other results.
As an example, my results would return in divs in order of ID instead of brand, and repeating:
Nike
Puma
Puma
Converse
Rather than
Converse
Nike
Puma
Adding the ORDER BY flag to the second query did not help, so I figured I would try to ask here for some ideas. Please let me know if any other details are needed!
Maybe try something like this class. See if it will work for your needs. It's hard to check it without trying the sql queries, but provided I've written it properly, it should work.
class MyLocker
{
// Protected means that you can't use this variable outside of the functions/class
// so you can not use $myLocker->_array; It will throw an error
protected $_array;
// Construct is basically used as an auto-function. It will execute automatically
// when you create a new instance of the class so as soon as you do this:
// $myLocker = new MyLocker($_locker); you initiate the __construct
// When you label as public, you allow it to be used outside of itself
public function __construct($_array)
{
// When you set this variable, it is now open to use in all
// other functions in this class.
$this->_array = $_array;
}
// This is the method that will do everything
public function LockerContents()
{
// Loop through query. Since the $_array was set in the __construct
// it is available in this function as $this->_array
while($lockeritems = mysql_fetch_array($this->_array)){
// $brand is something we want to use in other functions but not
// outside the class so it is set here for use in the Fetch() function
$this->brand = $lockeritems['item_id'];
// We ant to use our Fetch() function to return our brand
$_brand = $this->Fetch();
// If brand available, set it to an array
if(!empty($_brand))
$array[] = $_brand;
}
if(isset($array)) {
// Sort the array
asort($array);
// Finally, we use the Display() function for the final output
$this->Display($array);
}
else { ?>
<div>Locker is empty.</div><?php
}
}
// Establish this as an in-class variable
protected $brand;
// Establish this as a public function incase we want to use it by itself
// To do so you would write $myLocker->Fetch(); outside of the class.
// Since you need $brand for this function to work, you would need to turn
// $brand from "protected" to "public" and write $myLocker->brand = 'whatever';
// before you run the $myLocker->Fetch();
public function Fetch()
{
$query = mysql_query("SELECT DISTINCT brand FROM inventory WHERE id = '".$this->brand."'");
$brands = mysql_fetch_array($query);
// Return brand
return (isset($brands['brand']))? $brands['brand']:"";
}
protected function Display($array)
{
if(is_array($array)) {
foreach($array as $object) { ?>
<div><?php echo $object; ?></div><?php
}
}
}
}
// You should be using mysqli_ or PDO for your db connections/functions.
$_locker = mysql_query("SELECT DISTINCT item_id FROM lockers WHERE user_id = '$profile_userid' AND locker_id ='$lockerid' ");
// If there are more than 0 rows, create locker.
if(mysql_num_rows($_locker) > 0) {
// Create new instance of the locker app
$myLocker = new MyLocker($_locker);
// Display the results
$myLocker->LockerContents();
}
I have two database tables Players and Units. Respectively I also have two classes in PHP that look pretty identically in the base.
class Player {
private $id;
private $name;
// a bunch of other properties
public function __construct($id){
// fetch info from database with $id and populate properties
}
}
class Unit {
private $id;
private $name;
// a bunch of other properties
public function __construct($id){
// fetch info from database with $id and populate properties
}
}
But one player can have multiple units, so I implemented the method loadUnits() in the Player class
public function loadUnits(){
$units = array();
foreach($db->prepare('SELECT id FROM units WHERE owner = ?')->execute([$this->id])->fetchAll() as $unit){
$units[] = new Unit($unit['id']);
}
return $units;
}
The problem is that constructing Unit X number of times will make X number of calls to the database and this is really something I don't like. I would like to ask what are the good practices and how is this done in reality? Thanks!
Instead of just selecting the id in loadUnits and then issuing another query for the properties per id, I recommend getting all unit properties with a single query and passing those properties to the constructor of Unit
//don't just get the id's, get the actual unit properties
public function loadUnits(){
$units = array();
foreach($db->prepare('SELECT <all properties> FROM units WHERE owner = ?')->execute([$this->id])->fetchAll() as $properties){
$units[] = new Unit($properties['id'],$properties);
}
return $units;
}
class Unit {
private $id;
private $name;
// a bunch of other properties
//make the unit properties an optional parameter and use it
//instead of querying the db if available
public function __construct($id,$properties=null){
if(is_null($properties)) {
// fetch info from database with $id and populate properties
}
else {
// populate via $properties
}
}
}
I have a similar problem in one of my projects. Calling Room->computeDoors() will run a query to find what Doors are attached to the Rooms, then for each of them it has to run a query to find out what the Door's properties are... and then it has to query each room to find out what the door is connected to!
Problem solved: Memcache. Store as much as you can in cache, that way the data's already there to be used no matter how many times you need it, even across pageloads/AJAX calls, or even across users! Just make sure to invalidate or update the cache when you update the object's state.
You can solve this bei either using an ORM like Doctrine or Eloquent.
In Doctrine you define the relations between your entities, it will automatically generate the SQL and tables, it will generate proxies containing findBy() methods, give notes about wrong relations or missing values.
Doctrine has implemented different fetching methods and caching for example persistence of entities and lazy loading. You define your model and Doctrine takes care of everything else the most stable and fastest way.
If you want to implement your own, you should cache the results locally in the instance.
private $units;
protected function loadUnits(){
$units = array();
foreach($db->prepare('SELECT id FROM units WHERE owner = ?')->execute([$this->id])->fetchAll() as $unit){
$units[] = new Unit($unit['id']);
}
$this->setUnits($units);
return $this;
}
public function setUnits($units) {
assert(is_array($units));
$this->units = $units;
return $this;
}
public function getUnits() {
// this if needs improvement to fit your needs
if (!is_array($this->units)) {
$this->loadUnits();
}
return $this->units;
}
Some quick background info: I'm coding up a site which matches books to the classes they're required for.
I have two pieces of data that I need to represent in my code-- which books go with which classes, and the data (titles, authors, pricing, etc.) on these books.
Currently I represent this all with two arrays: $classArray, and $Books_data.
The advantage of this approach over a one-variable approach is that I don't repeat myself-- if a Book is required multiple times for different classes, only the ISBN needs to be stored in the $classArray and I can store the data in the $Books_array. This advantage is especially poignant because I have to query the pricing data from API's on the fly. If I only had a $classBooksArray, I'd have to loop the query responses into a big array, repeating myself (seemingly) unnecessarily.
The disadvantage of this approach is that these variables follow each other almost everywhere like Siamese twins. Nearly every function that needs one, needs the other. And my coding spidey sense tells me it might be unnecessary.
So, what would be the best way to store this data? Two arrays, one array, or some other approach I haven't mentioned (e.g. passing by reference).
Why not an associative which has two keys - one pointing to an array of classes, one to store Books
data?
$allData = array("classes" => &$classArray, "books" => &$Books_data);
That way you're only passing around 1 variable (less clutter) but retain all the benefits of separate data stores for books and classes.
Though, to be honest, if it's just TWO sets of data, so IMHO your spidey sense is wrong - passing both as separate parameters is perfectly fine. Once you get into a set of siamise sextuplet variables, then the above approach starts to actually bring benefits.
A multidimensional array.
$collection = array(
'classes' => array( /* Contents of $classArray */),
'books' => array( /* Contents of $Books_data */)
);
function some_function($collection) {
// looping over books
foreach ($collection['books'] as $book) {
// yadda yadda
}
}
Or better yet a class:
/* Define */
class Collection {
private $books;
private $classes;
public function __construct($classes = array(), $books = array()) {
$this->books = $books;
$this->classes = $classes;
}
public function addBook($book) {
$this->books[] = $book;
}
public function addClass($class) {
$this->classes[] = $class;
}
public function get_classes() {
return $this->classes;
}
public function get_books() {
return $this->books;
}
}
function some_function(Collection $col) {
// looping over books
foreach ($col->get_books as $book) {
// yadda yadda
}
}
/* Usage */
$collection = new Collection(); // you also could pass classes and books in the
// constructor.
$collection->addBook($book);
somefunction($collection);
If your datas were a database, your current proposal being a normal form would be canonical. The two variables would just become tables and ISBN a foreign key to books table (with a third table as a class has several books). I would probably stick with the current implementation as it will be very easy to transform to database when that will be necessary (and it usually happens faster than expected).
EDIT: a comment, say it is already in a database... what I do not understand is why you would want to store a full database in memory instead of just keeping what is necessary for the current task.
Let's be OO and put the arrays into an object. Define a class with those properties, load it up, and call its methods. Or, if you must have other functions operating with the object's data, pass the instance around. Disallow direct access to the data, but provide methods for extracting the salient info.
class book_class_association {
protected $books_to_classes = array();
protected $classes_to_books = array();
function __construct() {
$this->books_to_classes = array(
'mathbook1' => array('math'),
'mathbook2' => array('math'),
);
$this->classes_to_books = array(
'math' => array('mathbook1', 'mathbook2'),
);
}
function classes_for_book( $class_name ) {
return $this->books_to_classes[$class_name];
}
function books_for_class( $class_name ) {
return $this->classes_to_books[$class_name];
}
}
Is there a reason you are not storing this data in a database and then querying the database? It is a many to many relationship, and you would need 3 tables - class , book, and class_book_intersection.
So for example, you ui could have "select class" from a list, where the list is derived from the rows in class.
Then if the class id selected is 123. The query would then be something like:
Select book.title, book.cost
from book
inner join class_book_intersection
on
class_book_intersection.classid = 123 and
class_book_intersection.bookid = book.bookid
What is the best way of working with calculated fields of Propel objects?
Say I have an object "Customer" that has a corresponding table "customers" and each column corresponds to an attribute of my object. What I would like to do is: add a calculated attribute "Number of completed orders" to my object when using it on View A but not on Views B and C.
The calculated attribute is a COUNT() of "Order" objects linked to my "Customer" object via ID.
What I can do now is to first select all Customer objects, then iteratively count Orders for all of them, but I'd think doing it in a single query would improve performance. But I cannot properly "hydrate" my Propel object since it does not contain the definition of the calculated field(s).
How would you approach it?
There are several choices. First, is to create a view in your DB that will do the counts for you, similar to my answer here. I do this for a current Symfony project I work on where the read-only attributes for a given table are actually much, much wider than the table itself. This is my recommendation since grouping columns (max(), count(), etc) are read-only anyway.
The other options are to actually build this functionality into your model. You absolutely CAN do this hydration yourself, but it's a bit complicated. Here's the rough steps
Add the columns to your Table class as protected data members.
Write the appropriate getters and setters for these columns
Override the hydrate method and within, populate your new columns with the data from other queries. Make sure to call parent::hydrate() as the first line
However, this isn't much better than what you're talking about already. You'll still need N + 1 queries to retrieve a single record set. However, you can get creative in step #3 so that N is the number of calculated columns, not the number of rows returned.
Another option is to create a custom selection method on your TablePeer class.
Do steps 1 and 2 from above.
Write custom SQL that you will query manually via the Propel::getConnection() process.
Create the dataset manually by iterating over the result set, and handle custom hydration at this point as to not break hydration when use by the doSelect processes.
Here's an example of this approach
<?php
class TablePeer extends BaseTablePeer
{
public static function selectWithCalculatedColumns()
{
// Do our custom selection, still using propel's column data constants
$sql = "
SELECT " . implode( ', ', self::getFieldNames( BasePeer::TYPE_COLNAME ) ) . "
, count(" . JoinedTablePeer::ID . ") AS calc_col
FROM " . self::TABLE_NAME . "
LEFT JOIN " . JoinedTablePeer::TABLE_NAME . "
ON " . JoinedTablePeer::ID . " = " . self::FKEY_COLUMN
;
// Get the result set
$conn = Propel::getConnection();
$stmt = $conn->prepareStatement( $sql );
$rs = $stmt->executeQuery( array(), ResultSet::FETCHMODE_NUM );
// Create an empty rowset
$rowset = array();
// Iterate over the result set
while ( $rs->next() )
{
// Create each row individually
$row = new Table();
$startcol = $row->hydrate( $rs );
// Use our custom setter to populate the new column
$row->setCalcCol( $row->get( $startcol ) );
$rowset[] = $row;
}
return $rowset;
}
}
There may be other solutions to your problem, but they are beyond my knowledge. Best of luck!
I am doing this in a project now by overriding hydrate() and Peer::addSelectColumns() for accessing postgis fields:
// in peer
public static function locationAsEWKTColumnIndex()
{
return GeographyPeer::NUM_COLUMNS - GeographyPeer::NUM_LAZY_LOAD_COLUMNS;
}
public static function polygonAsEWKTColumnIndex()
{
return GeographyPeer::NUM_COLUMNS - GeographyPeer::NUM_LAZY_LOAD_COLUMNS + 1;
}
public static function addSelectColumns(Criteria $criteria)
{
parent::addSelectColumns($criteria);
$criteria->addAsColumn("locationAsEWKT", "AsEWKT(" . GeographyPeer::LOCATION . ")");
$criteria->addAsColumn("polygonAsEWKT", "AsEWKT(" . GeographyPeer::POLYGON . ")");
}
// in object
public function hydrate($row, $startcol = 0, $rehydrate = false)
{
$r = parent::hydrate($row, $startcol, $rehydrate);
if ($row[GeographyPeer::locationAsEWKTColumnIndex()]) // load GIS info from DB IFF the location field is populated. NOTE: These fields are either both NULL or both NOT NULL, so this IF is OK
{
$this->location_ = GeoPoint::PointFromEWKT($row[GeographyPeer::locationAsEWKTColumnIndex()]); // load gis data from extra select columns See GeographyPeer::addSelectColumns().
$this->polygon_ = GeoMultiPolygon::MultiPolygonFromEWKT($row[GeographyPeer::polygonAsEWKTColumnIndex()]); // load gis data from extra select columns See GeographyPeer::addSelectColumns().
}
return $r;
}
There's something goofy with AddAsColumn() but I can't remember at the moment, but this does work. You can read more about the AddAsColumn() issues.
Here's what I did to solve this without any additional queries:
Problem
Needed to add a custom COUNT field to a typical result set used with the Symfony Pager. However, as we know, Propel doesn't support this out the box. So the easy solution is to just do something like this in the template:
foreach ($pager->getResults() as $project):
echo $project->getName() . ' and ' . $project->getNumMembers()
endforeach;
Where getNumMembers() runs a separate COUNT query for each $project object. Of course, we know this is grossly inefficient because you can do the COUNT on the fly by adding it as a column to the original SELECT query, saving a query for each result displayed.
I had several different pages displaying this result set, all using different Criteria. So writing my own SQL query string with PDO directly would be way too much hassle as I'd have to get into the Criteria object and mess around trying to form a query string based on whatever was in it!
So, what I did in the end avoids all that, letting Propel's native code work with the Criteria and create the SQL as usual.
1 - First create the [get/set]NumMembers() equivalent accessor/mutator methods in the model object that gets returning by the doSelect(). Remember, the accessor doesn't do the COUNT query anymore, it just holds its value.
2 - Go into the peer class and override the parent doSelect() method and copy all code from it exactly as it is
3 - Remove this bit because getMixerPreSelectHook is a private method of the base peer (or copy it into your peer if you need it):
// symfony_behaviors behavior
foreach (sfMixer::getCallables(self::getMixerPreSelectHook(__FUNCTION__)) as $sf_hook)
{
call_user_func($sf_hook, 'BaseTsProjectPeer', $criteria, $con);
}
4 - Now add your custom COUNT field to the doSelect method in your peer class:
// copied into ProjectPeer - overrides BaseProjectPeer::doSelectJoinUser()
public static function doSelectJoinUser(Criteria $criteria, ...)
{
// copied from parent method, along with everything else
ProjectPeer::addSelectColumns($criteria);
$startcol = (ProjectPeer::NUM_COLUMNS - ProjectPeer::NUM_LAZY_LOAD_COLUMNS);
UserPeer::addSelectColumns($criteria);
// now add our custom COUNT column after all other columns have been added
// so as to not screw up Propel's position matching system when hydrating
// the Project and User objects.
$criteria->addSelectColumn('COUNT(' . ProjectMemberPeer::ID . ')');
// now add the GROUP BY clause to count members by project
$criteria->addGroupByColumn(self::ID);
// more parent code
...
// until we get to this bit inside the hydrating loop:
$obj1 = new $cls();
$obj1->hydrate($row);
// AND...hydrate our custom COUNT property (the last column)
$obj1->setNumMembers($row[count($row) - 1]);
// more code copied from parent
...
return $results;
}
That's it. Now you have the additional COUNT field added to your object without doing a separate query to get it as you spit out the results. The only drawback to this solution is that you've had to copy all the parent code because you need to add bits right in the middle of it. But in my situation, this seemed like a small compromise to save all those queries and not write my own SQL query string.
Add an attribute "orders_count" to a Customer, and then write something like this:
class Order {
...
public function save($conn = null) {
$customer = $this->getCustomer();
$customer->setOrdersCount($customer->getOrdersCount() + 1);
$custoner->save();
parent::save();
}
...
}
You can use not only the "save" method, but the idea stays the same. Unfortunately, Propel doesn't support any "magic" for such fields.
Propel actually builds an automatic function based on the name of the linked field. Let's say you have a schema like this:
customer:
id:
name:
...
order:
id:
customer_id: # links to customer table automagically
completed: { type: boolean, default false }
...
When you build your model, your Customer object will have a method getOrders() that will retrieve all orders associated with that customer. You can then simply use count($customer->getOrders()) to get the number of orders for that customer.
The downside is this will also fetch and hydrate those Order objects. On most RDBMS, the only performance difference between pulling the records or using COUNT() is the bandwidth used to return the results set. If that bandwidth would be significant for your application, you might want to create a method in the Customer object that builds the COUNT() query manually using Creole:
// in lib/model/Customer.php
class Customer extends BaseCustomer
{
public function CountOrders()
{
$connection = Propel::getConnection();
$query = "SELECT COUNT(*) AS count FROM %s WHERE customer_id='%s'";
$statement = $connection->prepareStatement(sprintf($query, CustomerPeer::TABLE_NAME, $this->getId());
$resultset = $statement->executeQuery();
$resultset->next();
return $resultset->getInt('count');
}
...
}