In Rails, you can find the number of records using both Model.size
and Model.count
. If you're dealing with more complex queries is there any advantage to using one method over the other? How are they different?
For instance, I have users with photos. If I want to show a table of users and how many photos they have, will running many instances of user.photos.size
be faster or slower than user.photos.count
?
Thanks!
You should read that, it's still valid.
You'll adapt the function you use depending on your needs.
Basically:
if you already load all entries, say User.all, then you should use length to avoid another db query
if you haven't anything loaded, use count to make a count query on your db
if you don't want to bother with these considerations, use size which will adapt
As the other answers state:
count will perform an SQL COUNT query
length will calculate the length of the resulting array
size will try to pick the most appropriate of the two to avoid excessive queries
But there is one more thing. We noticed a case where size
acts differently to count
/length
altogether, and I thought I'd share it since it is rare enough to be overlooked.
If you use a :counter_cache on a has_many association, size will use the cached count directly, and not make an extra query at all. class Image < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :product, counter_cache: true end class Product < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :images end > product = Product.first # query, load product into memory > product.images.size # no query, reads the :images_count column > product.images.count # query, SQL COUNT > product.images.length # query, loads images into memory
This behaviour is documented in the Rails Guides, but I either missed it the first time or forgot about it.
_count
column (without the counter_cache: true
directive on the association). This has been fixed in github.com/rails/rails/commit/e0cb21f5f7
tl;dr
If you know you won't be needing the data use count.
If you know you will use or have used the data use length.
If you don't know where it is used or the speed difference is neglectable, use size...
count
Resolves to sending a Select count(*)...
query to the DB. The way to go if you don't need the data, but just the count.
Example: count of new messages, total elements when only a page is going to be displayed, etc.
length
Loads the required data, i.e. the query as required, and then just counts it. The way to go if you are using the data.
Example: Summary of a fully loaded table, titles of displayed data, etc.
size
It checks if the data was loaded (i.e. already in rails) if so, then just count it, otherwise it calls count. (plus the pitfalls, already mentioned in other entries).
def size
loaded? ? @records.length : count(:all)
end
What's the problem?
That you might be hitting the DB twice if you don't do it in the right order (e.g. if you render the number of elements in a table on top of the rendered table, there will be effectively 2 calls sent to the DB).
Sometimes size
"picks the wrong one" and returns a hash (which is what count
would do)
In that case, use length
to get an integer instead of hash.
The following strategies all make a call to the database to perform a COUNT(*)
query.
Model.count
Model.all.size
records = Model.all
records.count
The following is not as efficient as it will load all records from the database into Ruby, which then counts the size of the collection.
records = Model.all
records.size
If your models have associations and you want to find the number of belonging objects (e.g. @customer.orders.size
), you can avoid database queries (disk reads). Use a counter cache and Rails will keep the cache value up to date, and return that value in response to the size
method.
Model.all.size
and Model.all.count
generate a count
query in Rails 4 and above. The real advantage of size
is that it doesn't generate the count query if the association is already loaded. In Rails 3 and below, I believe Model.all
is not a relation, hence all the records are already loaded. This answer might be out of date and I suggest deleting it.
I recommended using the size function.
class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :customer_activities
end
class CustomerActivity < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :customer, counter_cache: true
end
Consider these two models. The customer has many customer activities.
If you use a :counter_cache on a has_many association, size will use the cached count directly, and not make an extra query at all.
Consider one example: in my database, one customer has 20,000 customer activities and I try to count the number of records of customer activities of that customer with each of count, length and size method. here below the benchmark report of all these methods.
user system total real
Count: 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 ( 0.006105)
Size: 0.010000 0.000000 0.010000 ( 0.003797)
Length: 0.030000 0.000000 0.030000 ( 0.026481)
so I found that using :counter_cache Size is the best option to calculate the number of records.
Success story sharing
size
adapts to the situation anyway, then what need is there forlength
andcount
at all?size
can make a call to them when you make the call tosize
(after it determines which one to call).Comment.create(post_id: post.id)
, yourpost.comments.size
will not be up to date, whilepost.comments.count
will. So just be careful.company.devices.build(:name => "device1"); company.devices.build(:name => "device2")
, thencompany.devices.size
and.length
will include the number of objects you've built but haven't saved,.count
will report only the count from the database.