When I log with a user the userObject contains empty customData object despite saving a document in custom data collection pointing to the app user.
I tried to follow the documentation:
In the Users section of Mongo Stitch panel I enabled custom data. I chose database, collection (users) and stated User ID Field to be userId. Then I deployed changes.
I have a created and confirmed user.
I copied the user's _id and from shell (from admin account and context of the relevant db) I ran command db.users.insertOne({userId: ObjectId('copied_id'), description: "something"}). It was acknowledged and when I query the collection I see relevant document with userId field having correct ObjectId() value.
I even tried to set read rights to the users collection.
Nonetheless, if I log in with my user, customData object is empty. What can be the cause of this?
same issue here... pebcak :/
I fixed it by setting userId as String, not ObjectId.
Hoping it's not too late ;)
Not quite sure what the best practice is if I have two collections, a user collection and a picture collection - I do not want to embed all my pictures into my user collection.
My client searches for pictures under a certain criteria. Let's say he gets 50 pictures back from the search (i.e. one single mongodb query). Each picture is associated to one user. I want the user name displayed as well. I assume there is no way to do a single search performance wise on the user collection returning the names of each user for each picture, i.e. I would have to do 50 searches. Which means, I could only avoid this extra performance load by duplicating data (next to the user_id, also the user_name) in my pictures collection?
Same question the other way around. If my client searches for users and say 50 users are returned from the search through one single query. If I want the last associated picture + title also displayed next to the user data, I would again have to add that to the users collection, otherwise I assume I need to do 50 queries to return the picture data?
Lets say the schema for your picture collection is as such:
Picture Document
{
_id: Objectid(123),
url: 'img1.jpg',
title: 'img_one',
userId: Objectid(342)
}
1) Your picture query will return documents that look like the above. You don't have to make 50 calls to get the user associated with the images. You can simply make 1 other query to the Users Collection using the user ids taken from the picture documents like such:
db.users.find({_id: {$in[userid_1,user_id2,userid_3,...,userid_n]}})
You will receive an array of user documents with the user information. You'll have to handle their display on the client afterwards. At most you'll need 2 calls.
Alternatively
You could design the schema as such:
Picture Document
{
_id: Objectid(123),
url: 'img1.jpg',
title: 'img_one',
userId: Objectid(342),
user_name:"user associated"
}
If you design it this way. You would only require 1 call, but the username won't be in sync with user collection documents. For example lets say a user changes their name. A picture that was saved before may have the old user name.
2) You could design your User Collection as such:
User Document
{
_id: Objectid(342),
name: "Steve jobs",
last_assoc_img: {
img_id: Object(342)
url: 'img_one',
title: 'last image title
}
}
You could use the same principles as mentioned above.
Assuming that you have a user id associated with every user and you're also storing that id in the picture document, then your user <=> picture is a loosely coupled relationship.
In order to not have to make 50 separate calls, you can use the $in operator given that you are able to pull out those ids and put them into a list to run the second query. Your query will basically be in English: "Look at the collection, if it's in the list of ids, give it back to me."
If you intend on doing this a lot and intend for it to scale, I'd either recommend using a relational database or a NoSQL database that can handle joins to not force you into an embedded document schema.
I have a collection of users with the following schema:
{
_id:ObjectId("123...."),
name:"user_name",
field1:"field1 value",
field2:"field2 value",
etc...
}
The users are looked up by the user.name, which must be unique. When a new user is added, I first perform a search and if no such user is found, I add the new user document to the collection. The operations of searching for the user and adding a new user, if not found, are not atomic, so it's possible, when multiple application servers are connect to the DB server, for two add_user requests to be received at the same time with the same user name, resulting in no such user being found for both add_user requests, which in turn results with two documents having the same "user.name". In fact this happened (due to a bug on the client) with just a single app server running NodeJS and using Async library.
I was thinking of using findAndModify, but that doesn't work, since I'm not simply updating a field (that exists or doesn't exist) of a document that already exists and can use upsert, but want to insert a new document only if the search criteria fails. I can't make the query to be not equal to "user.name", since it will find other users.
First of all, you should maintain a unique index on the name field of the users collection. This can be specified in the schema if you are using Mongoose or by using the statement:
collection.ensureIndex('name', {unique: true}, callback);
This will make sure that the name field remains unique and will solve the problem of concurrent requests as you have specified in your question. You do not require searching when this index is set.
I am trying to fetch the documents from a collection based on the existence of a reference to these documents in another collection.
Let's say I have two collections Users and Courses and the models look like this:
User: {_id, name}
Course: {_id, name, user_id}
Note: this just a hypothetical example and not actual use case. So let's assume that duplicates are fine in the name field of Course. Let's thin Course as CourseRegistrations.
Here, I am maintaining a reference to User in the Course with the user_id holding the _Id of User. And note that its stored as a string.
Now I want to retrieve all users who are registered to a particular set of courses.
I know that it can be done with two queries. That is first run a query and get the users_id field from the Course collection for the set of courses. Then query the User collection by using $in and the user ids retrieved in the previous query. But this may not be good if the number of documents are in tens of thousands or more.
Is there a better way to do this in just one query?
What you are saying is a typical sql join. But thats not possible in mongodb. As you suggested already you can do that in 2 different queries.
There is one more way to handle it. Its not exactly a solution, but the valid workaround in NonSql databases. That is to store most frequently accessed fields inside the same collection.
You can store the some of the user collection fields, inside the course collection as embedded field.
Course : {
_id : 'xx',
name: 'yy'
user:{
fname : 'r',
lname :'v',
pic: 's'
}
}
This is a good approach if the subset of fields you intend to retrieve from user collection is less. You might be wondering the redundant user data stored in course collection, but that's exactly what makes mongodb powerful. Its a one time insert but your queries will be lot faster.
So this is Day 3 of learning Mongo Db. I'm coming from the MySql universe...
A lot of times when I need to write a query for a MySql table I'm unfamiliar with, I would use the "desc" command - basically telling me what fields I should include in my query.
How would I do that for a Mongo db? I know, I know...I'm searching for a schema in a schema-less database. =) But how else would users know what fields to use in their queries?
Am I going at this the wrong way? Obviously I'm trying to use a MySql way of doing things in a Mongo db. What's the Mongo way?
Type the below query in editor / mongoshell
var col_list= db.emp.findOne();
for (var col in col_list) { print (col) ; }
output will give you name of columns in collection :
_id
name
salary
There is no good answer here. Because there is no schema, you can't 'describe' the collection. In many (most?) MongoDb applications, however, the schema is defined by the structure of the object hierarchy used in the writing application (java or c# or whatever), so you may be able to reflect over the object library to get that information. Otherwise there is a bit of trial and error.
This is my day 30 or something like that of playing around with MongoDB. Unfortunately, we have switched back to MySQL after working with MongoDB because of my company's current infrastructure issues. But having implemented the same model on both MongoDB and MySQL, I can clearly see the difference now.
Of course, there is a schema involved when dealing with schema-less databases like MongoDB, but the schema is dictated by the application, not the database. The database will shove in whatever it is given. As long as you know that admins are not secretly logging into Mongo and making changes, and all access to the database is controller through some wrapper, the only place you should look at for the schema is your model classes. For instance, in our Rails application, these are two of the models we have in Mongo,
class Consumer
include MongoMapper::Document
key :name, String
key :phone_number, String
one :address
end
class Address
include MongoMapper::EmbeddedDocument
key :street, String
key :city, String
key :state, String
key :zip, String
key :state, String
key :country, String
end
Now after switching to MySQL, our classes look like this,
class Consumer < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :address
end
class Address < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :consumer
end
Don't get fooled by the brevity of the classes. In the latter version with MySQL, the fields are being pulled from the database directly. In the former example, the fields are right there in front of our eyes.
With MongoDB, if we had to change a particular model, we simply add, remove, or modify the fields in the class itself and it works right off the bat. We don't have to worry about keeping the database tables/columns in-sync with the class structure. So if you're looking for the schema in MongoDB, look towards your application for answers and not the database.
Essentially I am saying the exactly same thing as #Chris Shain :)
While factually correct, you're all making this too complex. I think the OP just wants to know what his/her data looks like. If that's the case, you can just
db.collectionName.findOne()
This will show one document (aka. record) in the database in a pretty format.
I had this need too, Cavachon. So I created an open source tool called Variety which does exactly this: link
Hopefully you'll find it to be useful. Let me know if you have questions, or any issues using it.
Good luck!
AFAIK, there isn't a way and it is logical for it to be so.
MongoDB being schema-less allows a single collection to have a documents with different fields. So there can't really be a description of a collection, like the description of a table in the relational databases.
Though this is the case, most applications do maintain a schema for their collections and as said by Chris this is enforced by your application.
As such you wouldn't have to worry about first fetching the available keys to make a query. You can just ask MongoDB for any set of keys (i.e the projection part of the query) or query on any set of keys. In both cases if the keys specified exist on a document they are used, otherwise they aren't. You will not get any error.
For instance (On the mongo shell) :
If this is a sample document in your people collection and all documents follow the same schema:
{
name : "My Name"
place : "My Place"
city : "My City"
}
The following are perfectly valid queries :
These two will return the above document :
db.people.find({name : "My Name"})
db.people.find({name : "My Name"}, {name : 1, place :1})
This will not return anything, but will not raise an error either :
db.people.find({first_name : "My Name"})
This will match the above document, but you will have only the default "_id" property on the returned document.
db.people.find({name : "My Name"}, {first_name : 1, location :1})
print('\n--->', Object.getOwnPropertyNames(db.users.findOne())
.toString()
.replace(/,/g, '\n---> ') + '\n');
---> _id
---> firstName
---> lastName
---> email
---> password
---> terms
---> confirmed
---> userAgent
---> createdAt
This is an incomplete solution because it doesn't give you the exact types, but useful for a quick view.
const doc = db.collectionName.findOne();
for (x in doc) {
print(`${x}: ${typeof doc[x]}`)
};
If you're OK with running a Map / Reduce, you can gather all of the possible document fields.
Start with this post.
The only problem here is that you're running a Map / Reduce on which can be resource intensive. Instead, as others have suggested, you'll want to look at the code that writes the actual data.
Just because the database doesn't have a schema doesn't mean that there is no schema. Generally speaking the schema information will be in the code.
I wrote a small mongo shell script that may help you.
https://gist.github.com/hkasera/9386709
Let me know if it helps.
You can use a UI tool mongo compass for mongoDb. This shows all the fields in that collection and also shows the variation of data in it.
If you are using NodeJS and want to get the all the field names using the API request, this code works for me-
let arrayResult = [];
db.findOne().exec(function (err, docs)){
if(err)
//show error
const JSONobj = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(docs));
for(let key in JSONobj) {
arrayResult.push(key);
}
return callback(null, arrayResult);
}
The arrayResult will give you entire field/ column names
Output-
[
"_id",
"emp_id",
"emp_type",
"emp_status",
"emp_payment"
]
Hope this works for you!
Consider you have collection called people and you want to find the fields and it's data-types. you can use below query
function printSchema(obj) {
for (var key in obj) {
print( key, typeof obj[key]) ;
}
};
var obj = db.people.findOne();
printSchema(obj)
The result of this query will be like below,
you can use Object.keys like in JavaScript
Object.keys(db.movies.findOne())