# Using "find" when you have 2 has\_many relations **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [January 17, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652 "2006-01-17T16:31:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/1 "2006-01-17T16:31:58Z")
An Account has\_many Websites which in turn has\_many WebsiteDomains Now I can of course do this: @domains = Account.find(1).websites.find(1).website\_domains.find(:all) To get all the domains for Account with id 1 and Website with id 1. I would like to do something like this though: @domains = Account.find(1).websites.find(:all).website\_domains.find(:all) IE, get ALL domains for all websites in Account 1 The code above doesn’t work because of the multiple find(:all) I could do it using :joins and :conditions I guess but then I lose other useful stuff like attributes matching column names in the database. Any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/2 "2006-01-17T16:46:04Z")
@domains = Domain.find(:all, :conditions =\> [“websites.id = ? AND websites.account\_id = ?”, website\_id, acount\_id], :include =\> “website”) Should do it. May need to be tweaked a little. -Nick ---
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/3 "2006-01-17T17:13:03Z")
Oops, I forgot that I actually had one more relation that has to go in there. Watcher belongs\_to WebsiteDomain. So what I really would like to do is something like this: @watcher = Watcher.find(:all, :conditions =\> [websites.account\_id = ?", acount\_id], :include =\> [“website\_domain”, “website”]) This does not work however and I just found this on the RoR API site: “Itâ??s currently not possible to use eager loading on multiple associations from the same table.” Is that why I can not do this? If so, any work-arounds for it? ---
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/4 "2006-01-17T20:44:00Z")
On 1/17/06, Per Dj [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > “It’s currently not possible to use eager loading on multiple > associations from the same table.” > > Is that why I can not do this? Because Rails wasn’t designed with it in mind (it doesn’t alias tables in the SQL), and patches to implement it have been rejected (see [http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1562](http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1562)). > If so, any work-arounds for it? There’s the Allow Multiple Associations Same Table plugin: [http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Allow+Multiple+Associations+Same+Table+Plugin](http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Allow+Multiple+Associations+Same+Table+Plugin), which is a conversion of the latest patch in the ticket mentioned above. ---
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/5 "2006-01-17T19:38:27Z")
The goal is to get all Watchers for one Account. So my main problem is that since I have so many relations (Account --\> Websites --\> WebsiteDomains --\> Watchers) in between those two I’m not sure how to code it in any elegant way. Thanks for your help, really appreciate it! ---
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/6 "2006-01-17T19:31:37Z")
I guess it comes down to what you are looking for in the final results. Whats the end goal? A list of domains per watcher? per website? per account? Need some more info to be able to refine it a bit more. -Nick ---
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/7 "2006-01-17T22:49:09Z")
That’s a surprise 😮 Thanks for the info. So if I want to avoid plugins and engines etc then my only choice is to raw sql with find\_by\_sql ? ---
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/8 "2006-01-18T03:52:27Z")
Looks to be the easiest way yes, but its not to painful is it? Watcher.find\_by\_sql([“SELECT w.\* FROM watchers w LEFT JOIN website\_domains ON website\_domains.id = w.website\_domain\_id LEFT JOIN websites ON websites.id = website\_domains.website\_id WHERE websites.account\_id = ?”, account\_id]) Should do it if I got the table/column names right… ---
**Author:** ![pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f14d63/32.png) [@pernod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pernod)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:43am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/using-find-when-you-have-2-has-many-relations/52652/9 "2006-01-18T07:43:44Z")
> Looks to be the easiest way yes, but its not to painful is it? > No, not too painful 🙂 > Thanks for your help!