Limit results in a Mongo Aggregation [duplicate] - mongodb

I want to group all the documents according to a field but to restrict the number of documents grouped for each value.
Each message has a conversation_ID. I need to get 10 or lesser number of messages for each conversation_ID.
I am able to group according to the following command but can't figure out how to restrict the
number of grouped documents apart from slicing the results
Message.aggregate({'$group':{_id:'$conversation_ID',msgs:{'$push':{msgid:'$_id'}}}})
How to limit the length of msgs array for each conversation_ID to 10?

Modern
From MongoDB 3.6 there is a "novel" approach to this by using $lookup to perform a "self join" in much the same way as the original cursor processing demonstrated below.
Since in this release you can specify a "pipeline" argument to $lookup as a source for the "join", this essentially means you can use $match and $limit to gather and "limit" the entries for the array:
db.messages.aggregate([
{ "$group": { "_id": "$conversation_ID" } },
{ "$lookup": {
"from": "messages",
"let": { "conversation": "$_id" },
"pipeline": [
{ "$match": { "$expr": { "$eq": [ "$conversation_ID", "$$conversation" ] } }},
{ "$limit": 10 },
{ "$project": { "_id": 1 } }
],
"as": "msgs"
}}
])
You can optionally add additional projection after the $lookup in order to make the array items simply the values rather than documents with an _id key, but the basic result is there by simply doing the above.
There is still the outstanding SERVER-9277 which actually requests a "limit to push" directly, but using $lookup in this way is a viable alternative in the interim.
NOTE: There also is $slice which was introduced after writing the original answer and mentioned by "outstanding JIRA issue" in the original content. Whilst you can get the same result with small result sets, it does involve still "pushing everything" into the array and then later limiting the final array output to the desired length.
So that's the main distinction and why it's generally not practical to $slice for large results. But of course can be alternately used in cases where it is.
There are a few more details on mongodb group values by multiple fields about either alternate usage.
Original
As stated earlier, this is not impossible but certainly a horrible problem.
Actually if your main concern is that your resulting arrays are going to be exceptionally large, then you best approach is to submit for each distinct "conversation_ID" as an individual query and then combine your results. In very MongoDB 2.6 syntax which might need some tweaking depending on what your language implementation actually is:
var results = [];
db.messages.aggregate([
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$conversation_ID"
}}
]).forEach(function(doc) {
db.messages.aggregate([
{ "$match": { "conversation_ID": doc._id } },
{ "$limit": 10 },
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$conversation_ID",
"msgs": { "$push": "$_id" }
}}
]).forEach(function(res) {
results.push( res );
});
});
But it all depends on whether that is what you are trying to avoid. So on to the real answer:
The first issue here is that there is no function to "limit" the number of items that are "pushed" into an array. It is certainly something we would like, but the functionality does not presently exist.
The second issue is that even when pushing all items into an array, you cannot use $slice, or any similar operator in the aggregation pipeline. So there is no present way to get just the "top 10" results from a produced array with a simple operation.
But you can actually produce a set of operations to effectively "slice" on your grouping boundaries. It is fairly involved, and for example here I will reduce the array elements "sliced" to "six" only. The main reason here is to demonstrate the process and show how to do this without being destructive with arrays that do not contain the total you want to "slice" to.
Given a sample of documents:
{ "_id" : 1, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 2, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 3, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 4, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 5, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 6, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 7, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 8, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 9, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 10, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 11, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 12, "conversation_ID" : 456 }
{ "_id" : 13, "conversation_ID" : 456 }
{ "_id" : 14, "conversation_ID" : 456 }
{ "_id" : 15, "conversation_ID" : 456 }
{ "_id" : 16, "conversation_ID" : 456 }
You can see there that when grouping by your conditions you will get one array with ten elements and another with "five". What you want to do here reduce both to the top "six" without "destroying" the array that only will match to "five" elements.
And the following query:
db.messages.aggregate([
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$conversation_ID",
"first": { "$first": "$_id" },
"msgs": { "$push": "$_id" },
}},
{ "$unwind": "$msgs" },
{ "$project": {
"msgs": 1,
"first": 1,
"seen": { "$eq": [ "$first", "$msgs" ] }
}},
{ "$sort": { "seen": 1 }},
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": {
"$push": {
"$cond": [ { "$not": "$seen" }, "$msgs", false ]
}
},
"first": { "$first": "$first" },
"second": { "$first": "$msgs" }
}},
{ "$unwind": "$msgs" },
{ "$project": {
"msgs": 1,
"first": 1,
"second": 1,
"seen": { "$eq": [ "$second", "$msgs" ] }
}},
{ "$sort": { "seen": 1 }},
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": {
"$push": {
"$cond": [ { "$not": "$seen" }, "$msgs", false ]
}
},
"first": { "$first": "$first" },
"second": { "$first": "$second" },
"third": { "$first": "$msgs" }
}},
{ "$unwind": "$msgs" },
{ "$project": {
"msgs": 1,
"first": 1,
"second": 1,
"third": 1,
"seen": { "$eq": [ "$third", "$msgs" ] },
}},
{ "$sort": { "seen": 1 }},
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": {
"$push": {
"$cond": [ { "$not": "$seen" }, "$msgs", false ]
}
},
"first": { "$first": "$first" },
"second": { "$first": "$second" },
"third": { "$first": "$third" },
"forth": { "$first": "$msgs" }
}},
{ "$unwind": "$msgs" },
{ "$project": {
"msgs": 1,
"first": 1,
"second": 1,
"third": 1,
"forth": 1,
"seen": { "$eq": [ "$forth", "$msgs" ] }
}},
{ "$sort": { "seen": 1 }},
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": {
"$push": {
"$cond": [ { "$not": "$seen" }, "$msgs", false ]
}
},
"first": { "$first": "$first" },
"second": { "$first": "$second" },
"third": { "$first": "$third" },
"forth": { "$first": "$forth" },
"fifth": { "$first": "$msgs" }
}},
{ "$unwind": "$msgs" },
{ "$project": {
"msgs": 1,
"first": 1,
"second": 1,
"third": 1,
"forth": 1,
"fifth": 1,
"seen": { "$eq": [ "$fifth", "$msgs" ] }
}},
{ "$sort": { "seen": 1 }},
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": {
"$push": {
"$cond": [ { "$not": "$seen" }, "$msgs", false ]
}
},
"first": { "$first": "$first" },
"second": { "$first": "$second" },
"third": { "$first": "$third" },
"forth": { "$first": "$forth" },
"fifth": { "$first": "$fifth" },
"sixth": { "$first": "$msgs" },
}},
{ "$project": {
"first": 1,
"second": 1,
"third": 1,
"forth": 1,
"fifth": 1,
"sixth": 1,
"pos": { "$const": [ 1,2,3,4,5,6 ] }
}},
{ "$unwind": "$pos" },
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": {
"$push": {
"$cond": [
{ "$eq": [ "$pos", 1 ] },
"$first",
{ "$cond": [
{ "$eq": [ "$pos", 2 ] },
"$second",
{ "$cond": [
{ "$eq": [ "$pos", 3 ] },
"$third",
{ "$cond": [
{ "$eq": [ "$pos", 4 ] },
"$forth",
{ "$cond": [
{ "$eq": [ "$pos", 5 ] },
"$fifth",
{ "$cond": [
{ "$eq": [ "$pos", 6 ] },
"$sixth",
false
]}
]}
]}
]}
]}
]
}
}
}},
{ "$unwind": "$msgs" },
{ "$match": { "msgs": { "$ne": false } }},
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": { "$push": "$msgs" }
}}
])
You get the top results in the array, up to six entries:
{ "_id" : 123, "msgs" : [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ] }
{ "_id" : 456, "msgs" : [ 12, 13, 14, 15 ] }
As you can see here, loads of fun.
After you have initially grouped you basically want to "pop" the $first value off of the stack for the array results. To make this process simplified a little, we actually do this in the initial operation. So the process becomes:
$unwind the array
Compare to the values already seen with an $eq equality match
$sort the results to "float" false unseen values to the top ( this still retains order )
$group back again and "pop" the $first unseen value as the next member on the stack. Also this uses the $cond operator to replace "seen" values in the array stack with false to help in the evaluation.
The final action with $cond is there to make sure that future iterations are not just adding the last value of the array over and over where the "slice" count is greater than the array members.
That whole process needs to be repeated for as many items as you wish to "slice". Since we already found the "first" item in the initial grouping, that means n-1 iterations for the desired slice result.
The final steps are really just an optional illustration of converting everything back into arrays for the result as finally shown. So really just conditionally pushing items or false back by their matching position and finally "filtering" out all the false values so the end arrays have "six" and "five" members respectively.
So there is not a standard operator to accommodate this, and you cannot just "limit" the push to 5 or 10 or whatever items in the array. But if you really have to do it, then this is your best approach.
You could possibly approach this with mapReduce and forsake the aggregation framework all together. The approach I would take ( within reasonable limits ) would be to effectively have an in-memory hash-map on the server and accumulate arrays to that, while using JavaScript slice to "limit" the results:
db.messages.mapReduce(
function () {
if ( !stash.hasOwnProperty(this.conversation_ID) ) {
stash[this.conversation_ID] = [];
}
if ( stash[this.conversation_ID.length < maxLen ) {
stash[this.conversation_ID].push( this._id );
emit( this.conversation_ID, 1 );
}
},
function(key,values) {
return 1; // really just want to keep the keys
},
{
"scope": { "stash": {}, "maxLen": 10 },
"finalize": function(key,value) {
return { "msgs": stash[key] };
},
"out": { "inline": 1 }
}
)
So that just basically builds up the "in-memory" object matching the emitted "keys" with an array never exceeding the maximum size you want to fetch from your results. Additionally this does not even bother to "emit" the item when the maximum stack is met.
The reduce part actually does nothing other than essentially just reduce to "key" and a single value. So just in case our reducer did not get called, as would be true if only 1 value existed for a key, the finalize function takes care of mapping the "stash" keys to the final output.
The effectiveness of this varies on the size of the output, and JavaScript evaluation is certainly not fast, but possibly faster than processing large arrays in a pipeline.
Vote up the JIRA issues to actually have a "slice" operator or even a "limit" on "$push" and "$addToSet", which would both be handy. Personally hoping that at least some modification can be made to the $map operator to expose the "current index" value when processing. That would effectively allow "slicing" and other operations.
Really you would want to code this up to "generate" all of the required iterations. If the answer here gets enough love and/or other time pending that I have in tuits, then I might add some code to demonstrate how to do this. It is already a reasonably long response.
Code to generate pipeline:
var key = "$conversation_ID";
var val = "$_id";
var maxLen = 10;
var stack = [];
var pipe = [];
var fproj = { "$project": { "pos": { "$const": [] } } };
for ( var x = 1; x <= maxLen; x++ ) {
fproj["$project"][""+x] = 1;
fproj["$project"]["pos"]["$const"].push( x );
var rec = {
"$cond": [ { "$eq": [ "$pos", x ] }, "$"+x ]
};
if ( stack.length == 0 ) {
rec["$cond"].push( false );
} else {
lval = stack.pop();
rec["$cond"].push( lval );
}
stack.push( rec );
if ( x == 1) {
pipe.push({ "$group": {
"_id": key,
"1": { "$first": val },
"msgs": { "$push": val }
}});
} else {
pipe.push({ "$unwind": "$msgs" });
var proj = {
"$project": {
"msgs": 1
}
};
proj["$project"]["seen"] = { "$eq": [ "$"+(x-1), "$msgs" ] };
var grp = {
"$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": {
"$push": {
"$cond": [ { "$not": "$seen" }, "$msgs", false ]
}
}
}
};
for ( n=x; n >= 1; n-- ) {
if ( n != x )
proj["$project"][""+n] = 1;
grp["$group"][""+n] = ( n == x ) ? { "$first": "$msgs" } : { "$first": "$"+n };
}
pipe.push( proj );
pipe.push({ "$sort": { "seen": 1 } });
pipe.push(grp);
}
}
pipe.push(fproj);
pipe.push({ "$unwind": "$pos" });
pipe.push({
"$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": { "$push": stack[0] }
}
});
pipe.push({ "$unwind": "$msgs" });
pipe.push({ "$match": { "msgs": { "$ne": false } }});
pipe.push({
"$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"msgs": { "$push": "$msgs" }
}
});
That builds the basic iterative approach up to maxLen with the steps from $unwind to $group. Also embedded in there are details of the final projections required and the "nested" conditional statement. The last is basically the approach taken on this question:
Does MongoDB's $in clause guarantee order?

Starting Mongo 4.4, the $group stage has a new aggregation operator $accumulator allowing custom accumulations of documents as they get grouped, via javascript user defined functions.
Thus, in order to only select n messages (for instance 2) for each conversation:
// { "conversationId" : 3, "messageId" : 14 }
// { "conversationId" : 5, "messageId" : 34 }
// { "conversationId" : 3, "messageId" : 39 }
// { "conversationId" : 3, "messageId" : 47 }
db.collection.aggregate([
{ $group: {
_id: "$conversationId",
messages: {
$accumulator: {
accumulateArgs: ["$messageId"],
init: function() { return [] },
accumulate:
function(messages, message) { return messages.concat(message).slice(0, 2); },
merge:
function(messages1, messages2) { return messages1.concat(messages2).slice(0, 2); },
lang: "js"
}
}
}}
])
// { "_id" : 5, "messages" : [ 34 ] }
// { "_id" : 3, "messages" : [ 14, 39 ] }
The accumulator:
accumulates on the field messageId (accumulateArgs)
is initialised to an empty array (init)
accumulates messageId items in an array and only keeps a maximum of 2 (accumulate and merge)

Starting in Mongo 5.2, it's a perfect use case for the new $topN aggregation accumulator:
// { "conversationId" : 3, "messageId" : 14 }
// { "conversationId" : 5, "messageId" : 34 }
// { "conversationId" : 3, "messageId" : 39 }
// { "conversationId" : 3, "messageId" : 47 }
db.collection.aggregate([
{ $group: {
_id: "$conversationId",
messages: { $topN: { n: 2, output: "$messageId", sortBy: { _id: 1 } } }
}}
])
// { "_id" : 5, "messages" : [ 34 ] }
// { "_id" : 3, "messages" : [ 14, 39 ] }
This applies a $topN group accumulation that:
takes for each group the top 2 (n: 2) elements
and for each grouped record extracts the field value (output: "$messageId")
the choice of the "top 2" is defined by sortBy: { _id: 1 } (that I chose to be _id since you didn't specify an order).

The $slice operator is not an aggregation operator so you can't do this (like I suggested in this answer, before the edit):
db.messages.aggregate([
{ $group : {_id:'$conversation_ID',msgs: { $push: { msgid:'$_id' }}}},
{ $project : { _id : 1, msgs : { $slice : 10 }}}]);
Neil's answer is very detailed, but you can use a slightly different approach (if it fits your use case). You can aggregate your results and output them to a new collection:
db.messages.aggregate([
{ $group : {_id:'$conversation_ID',msgs: { $push: { msgid:'$_id' }}}},
{ $out : "msgs_agg" }
]);
The $out operator will write the results of the aggregation to a new collection. You can then use a regular find query project your results with the $slice operator:
db.msgs_agg.find({}, { msgs : { $slice : 10 }});
For this test documents:
> db.messages.find().pretty();
{ "_id" : 1, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 2, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 3, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 4, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 5, "conversation_ID" : 123 }
{ "_id" : 7, "conversation_ID" : 1234 }
{ "_id" : 8, "conversation_ID" : 1234 }
{ "_id" : 9, "conversation_ID" : 1234 }
The result will be:
> db.msgs_agg.find({}, { msgs : { $slice : 10 }});
{ "_id" : 1234, "msgs" : [ { "msgid" : 7 }, { "msgid" : 8 }, { "msgid" : 9 } ] }
{ "_id" : 123, "msgs" : [ { "msgid" : 1 }, { "msgid" : 2 }, { "msgid" : 3 },
{ "msgid" : 4 }, { "msgid" : 5 } ] }
Edit
I assume this would mean duplicating the whole messages collection.
Isn't that overkill?
Well, obviously this approach won't scale with huge collections. But, since you're considering using large aggregation pipelines or large map-reduce jobs you probably won't use this for "real-time" requests.
There are many cons of this approach: 16 MB BSON limit if you're creating huge documents with aggregation, wasting disk space / memory with duplication, increased disk IO...
The pros of this approach: its simple to implement and thus easy to change. If your collection is rarely updated you can use this "out" collection like a cache. This way you wouldn't have to perform the aggregation operation multiple times and you could then even support "real-time" client requests on the "out" collection. To refresh your data, you can periodically do aggregation (e.g. in a background job that runs nightly).
Like it was said in the comments this isn't an easy problem and there isn't a perfect solution for this (yet!). I showed you another approach you can use, it's up to you to benchmark and decide what's most appropriate for your use case.

I hope this will work as you wanted:
db.messages.aggregate([
{ $group : {_id:'$conversation_ID',msgs: { $push: { msgid:'$_id' }}}},
{ $project : { _id : 1, msgs : { $slice : ["$msgid",0,10] }}}
]);

Related

Count and group on occurrences of keys and their values

I have a MongoDB collection that looks like this:
[{
"installer": "anthony",
"tester": "bob"
}, {
"installer": "chris",
"tester": "anthony"
}, {
"installer": "bob",
"tester": "dave"
}, {
"installer": "anthony",
"tester": "chris"
}, {
"installer": "chris",
"tester": "dave"
}
]
I am trying to use aggregate so I can count how many times each name appears within each field and retrieve the following result:
[{
"name": "anthony",
"installer": 2,
"tester": 1
}, {
"name": "bob",
"installer": 1,
"tester": 1
}, {
"name": "chris",
"installer": 2,
"tester": 1
}, {
"name": "dave",
"installer": 0,
"tester": 2
}
]
This is the query that I have completed so far, the problem is that it returns only the name and installer count without the tester count. I could run this query twice (one for installer and one for tester) but I would like to find a way how to return both counts at once.
db.data.aggregate([
{
"$group": {
"_id": "$installer",
"installer": { "$sum": 1 }
},
"$project": {
"name": "$_id",
"installer": 1,
"_id": 0
}
}
])
What changes to my query are needed so I can get both the installer and tester counts of each person?
You basically want $cond to select whether to pass 1 or 0 to the $sum accumulator in the $group pipeline, and an initial value as an "array" for both fields using $unwind to create a copy of the document for each person.
db.data.aggregate([
{ "$addFields": {
"val": ["$installer","$tester"]
}},
{ "$unwind": "$val" },
{ "$group": {
"_id": { "_id": "$_id", "val": "$val" },
"installer": {
"$max": {
"$cond": [
{ "$eq": ["$installer","$val"] },
1,
0
]
}
},
"tester": {
"$max": {
"$cond": [
{ "$eq": ["$tester","$val"] },
1,
0
]
}
}
}},
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id.val",
"installer": { "$sum": "$installer" },
"tester": { "$sum": "$tester" }
}}
])
To counter the case where a given document could have both the same "installer" and "tester" values we actually should aggregate on the "document" per the emitted "val" as a first step. Using the $cond inside a $max accumulator makes this case a "single" document instead of "two", being one for each array entry.
The other case of course is to simply return the "set" of values by applying $setUnion against the initial list to avoid the duplication in such an instance:
db.data.aggregate([
{ "$addFields": {
"val": { "$setUnion": [["$installer","$tester"]] }
}},
{ "$unwind": "$val" },
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$val",
"installer": {
"$sum": {
"$cond": [
{ "$eq": ["$installer","$val"] },
1,
0
]
}
},
"tester": {
"$sum": {
"$cond": [
{ "$eq": ["$tester","$val"] },
1,
0
]
}
}
}}
])
I added a document to your source as :
{ "installer": "jack", "tester": "jack" }
In order to illustrate the result.
As for $cond, it is a "ternary" or if..then..else condition, where the arguments are "first" if for a condition to evaluate as Boolean, then being the value to return when true and else as a value to return when the condition is false.
It can be alternately written like:
"$cond": {
"if": { "$eq": ["$installer","$val"] },
"then": 1,
"else": 0
}
But the original "array" syntax is a bit more brief to write for simple expressions. Most people would still recognize the "ternary" for what it is, but if you think it makes the code clearer then you can used the "named keys" form instead.
The result of course is the 1 is only returned when the field is present in the document, giving the correct counts:
/* 1 */
{
"_id" : "jack",
"installer" : 1.0,
"tester" : 1.0
}
/* 2 */
{
"_id" : "dave",
"installer" : 0.0,
"tester" : 2.0
}
/* 3 */
{
"_id" : "bob",
"installer" : 1.0,
"tester" : 1.0
}
/* 4 */
{
"_id" : "chris",
"installer" : 2.0,
"tester" : 1.0
}
/* 5 */
{
"_id" : "anthony",
"installer" : 2.0,
"tester" : 1.0
}
Adding the initial "array" to the document can alternately be done using $project if your MongoDB version does not support $addFields. The only difference is "explicitly" including the other fields that are required later:
{ "$project": {
"tester": 1,
"installer": 1,
"val": { "$setUnion": [["$installer","$tester"]] }
}}
And if your MongoDB is still actually older than MongoDB 3.2 which allows that notation of an "array", then you can use $map instead from MongoDB 2.6 and upwards:
{ "$project": {
"tester": 1,
"installer": 1,
"val": {
"$setUnion": [
{ "$map": {
"input": ["A","B"],
"as": "a",
"in": {
"$cond": [{ "$eq": ["$$a", "A"] }, "$installer", "$tester"]
}
}
]
}
}}
Again using $cond to alternately select which value to present as the array elements.
Also, you really should avoid doing things like adding a $project to the end of statements. You can of course do it, but it does mean that all results of the previous pipeline stage are being "run through again" in order to make the additional changes. For something as trivial as changing "_id" to "name", it's generally better practice to simply accept that the "grouping key" is called _id and leave it at that.
As the result of $group, it actually is the "unique identifier" for which _id is the common nomenclature.

Group by day with Multiple Date Fields

I have documents stored into MongoDB like this :
{
"_id" : "XBpNKbdGSgGfnC2MJ",
"po" : 72134185,
"machine" : 40940,
"location" : "02A01",
"inDate" : ISODate("2017-07-19T06:10:13.059Z"),
"requestDate" : ISODate("2017-07-19T06:17:04.901Z"),
"outDate" : ISODate("2017-07-19T06:30:34Z")
}
And I want give the sum, by day, of inDate and outDate.
I can retrieve of both side the sum of documents by inDate day and, on other side, the sum of documents by outDate, but I would like the sum of each.
Currently, I use this pipeline :
$group: {
_id: {
yearA: { $year: '$inDate' },
monthA: { $month: '$inDate' },
dayA: { $dayOfMonth: '$inDate' },
},
count: { $sum: 1 },
},
and I give :
{ "_id" : { "year" : 2017, "month" : 7, "day" : 24 }, "count" : 1 }
{ "_id" : { "year" : 2017, "month" : 7, "day" : 21 }, "count" : 11 }
{ "_id" : { "year" : 2017, "month" : 7, "day" : 19 }, "count" : 20 }
But I would like, if it's possible :
{ "_id" : { "year" : 2017, "month" : 7, "day" : 24 }, "countIn" : 1, "countOut" : 4 }
{ "_id" : { "year" : 2017, "month" : 7, "day" : 21 }, "countIn" : 11, "countOut" : 23 }
{ "_id" : { "year" : 2017, "month" : 7, "day" : 19 }, "countIn" : 20, "countOut" : 18 }
Any idea ?
Many thanks :-)
You can also split the documents at the source, by essentially combining each value into an array of entries by "type" for "in" and "out". You can do this simply using $map and $cond to select the fields, then $unwind the array and then determine which field to "count" again by inspecting with $cond:
collection.aggregate([
{ "$project": {
"dates": {
"$filter": {
"input": {
"$map": {
"input": [ "in", "out" ],
"as": "type",
"in": {
"type": "$$type",
"date": {
"$cond": {
"if": { "$eq": [ "$$type", "in" ] },
"then": "$inDate",
"else": "$outDate"
}
}
}
}
},
"as": "dates",
"cond": { "$ne": [ "$$dates.date", null ] }
}
}
}},
{ "$unwind": "$dates" },
{ "$group": {
"_id": {
"year": { "$year": "$dates.date" },
"month": { "$month": "$dates.date" },
"day": { "$dayOfMonth": "$dates.date" }
},
"countIn": {
"$sum": {
"$cond": {
"if": { "$eq": [ "$dates.type", "in" ] },
"then": 1,
"else": 0
}
}
},
"countOut": {
"$sum": {
"$cond": {
"if": { "$eq": [ "$dates.type", "out" ] },
"then": 1,
"else": 0
}
}
}
}}
])
That's a safe way to do this that does not risk breaking the BSON limit, no matter what size of data you send at it.
Personally I would rather run as separate processes and "combine" the aggregated results separately, but that would depend on the environment you are running in, which is not mentioned in the question.
For an example of "parallel" execution, you can structure in Meteor somewhere along these lines:
import { Meteor } from 'meteor/meteor';
import { Source } from '../imports/source';
import { Target } from '../imports/target';
Meteor.startup(async () => {
// code to run on server at startup
await Source.remove({});
await Target.remove({});
console.log('Removed');
Source.insert({
"_id" : "XBpNKbdGSgGfnC2MJ",
"po" : 72134185,
"machine" : 40940,
"location" : "02A01",
"inDate" : new Date("2017-07-19T06:10:13.059Z"),
"requestDate" : new Date("2017-07-19T06:17:04.901Z"),
"outDate" : new Date("2017-07-19T06:30:34Z")
});
console.log('Inserted');
await Promise.all(
["In","Out"].map( f => new Promise((resolve,reject) => {
let cursor = Source.rawCollection().aggregate([
{ "$match": { [`${f.toLowerCase()}Date`]: { "$exists": true } } },
{ "$group": {
"_id": {
"year": { "$year": `$${f.toLowerCase()}Date` },
"month": { "$month": `$${f.toLowerCase()}Date` },
"day": { "$dayOfYear": `$${f.toLowerCase()}Date` }
},
[`count${f}`]: { "$sum": 1 }
}}
]);
cursor.on('data', async (data) => {
cursor.pause();
data.date = data._id;
delete data._id;
await Target.upsert(
{ date: data.date },
{ "$set": data }
);
cursor.resume();
});
cursor.on('end', () => resolve('done'));
cursor.on('error', (err) => reject(err));
}))
);
console.log('Mapped');
let targets = await Target.find().fetch();
console.log(targets);
});
Which is essentially going to output to the target collection as was mentioned in comments like:
{
"_id" : "XdPGMkY24AcvTnKq7",
"date" : {
"year" : 2017,
"month" : 7,
"day" : 200
},
"countIn" : 1,
"countOut" : 1
}
Riiiight. I came up with the following query. Admittedly, I have seen simpler and nicer ones in my life but it certainly gets the job done:
db.getCollection('test').aggregate
(
{
$facet: // split aggregation into two pipelines
{
"in": [
{ "$match": { "inDate": { "$ne": null } } }, // get rid of null values
{ $group: { "_id": { "y": { "$year": "$inDate" }, "m": { "$month": "$inDate" }, "d": { "$dayOfMonth": "$inDate" } }, "cIn": { $sum : 1 } } }, // compute sum per inDate
],
"out": [
{ "$match": { "outDate": { "$ne": null } } }, // get rid of null values
{ $group: { "_id": { "y": { "$year": "$outDate" }, "m": { "$month": "$outDate" }, "d": { "$dayOfMonth": "$outDate" } }, "cOut": { $sum : 1 } } }, // compute sum per outDate
]
}
},
{ $project: { "result": { $setUnion: [ "$in", "$out" ] } } }, // merge results into new array
{ $unwind: "$result" }, // unwind array into individual documents
{ $replaceRoot: { newRoot: "$result" } }, // get rid of the additional field level
{ $group: { _id: { year: "$_id.y", "month": "$_id.m", "day": "$_id.d" }, "countIn": { $sum: "$cIn" }, "countOut": { $sum: "$cOut" } } } // group into final result
)
As always with MongoDB aggregations you can get an idea of what's going on by simply reducing the projection stages step by step starting from the end of the query.
EDIT:
As you can see in the comments below there was a bit of a discussion around document size limits and the general applicability of this solution.
So let's look at those aspects in greater detail and let's also compare the performance of the $facet based solution to the one based on $map (suggested by #NeilLunn to avoid potential document size issues).
I created 2 million test records that have random dates assigned to both the "inDate" and the "outDate" field:
{
"_id" : ObjectId("597857e0fa37b3f66959571a"),
"inDate" : ISODate("2016-07-29T22:00:00.000Z"),
"outDate" : ISODate("1988-07-14T22:00:00.000Z")
}
The data range covered was from 01.01.1970 all the way to 01.01.2050, that's a total of 29220 distinct days. Given the random distribution of the 2 million test records across this time range both queries can be expected to return the full 29220 possible results (which both did).
Then I ran both queries five times after restarting my single MongoDB instance freshly and the results in milliseconds I got looked like this:
$facet: 5663, 5400, 5380, 5460, 5520
$map: 9648, 9134, 9058, 9085, 9132
I also measured the size of the single document returned by the facet stage which was 3.19MB so reasonably far away from the MongoDB document size limit (16MB at the time of writing) which, however, only applies to the result document anyway and wouldn't be a problem during pipeline processing.
Bottom line: If you want performance, use the solution suggested here. Be careful about the document size limit, though, in particular if your use case is not the exact one described in the question above (e.g. when you need to collect even more/bigger data). Also, I am not sure if in a sharded scenario both solutions still expose the same performance characteristics...

Weighted Average rating through mongodb

Is it possible to do a query to sort by "weighted average"
There is 5 values from 1-5 possible. Weighted average is
(n5*5 + n4*4 + n3*3 + n2*2 + n1*1) / (n5+n4+n3+n2+n1)
Where n5 would be the count of objects with rating: 5
I have the following example. If you find better structure to store I am happy to hear.
{
"_id" : "wPg4jzJsEFXNxR5Wf",
"caveId" : "56424a93819e7419112c883e",
"data" : [
{
"value" : 1
},
{
"value" : 3
},
{
"value" : 4
},
{
"value" : 2
}
]
}
{
"_id" : "oSrtv33MgnkJFvNan",
"caveId" : "56424a93819e7419112c949f",
"data" : [
{
"value" : 1
},
{
"value" : 4
},
{
"value" : 4
},
{
"value" : 2
}
]
}
{
"_id" : "gJRMMQPwDwjFrL7zz",
"caveId" : "56424a93819e7419112c8727",
"data" : [
{
"value" : 5
},
{
"value" : 1
},
{
"value" : 4
}
]
}
Example of _ID: oSrtv33MgnkJFvNan (Second one)
(2*4 + 1*2 + 1*1)/(2+1+1) = 2.75
Then I would want to sort all the documents by that value.
Order would be
gJRMMQPwDwjFrL7zz: value: 3.33
oSrtv33MgnkJFvNan: value 2.75
wPg4jzJsEFXNxR5Wf: value 2.5
Well the answer is really both "yes" and "no" in respect to can MongoDB sort data from calculation like this. It can of course do it, but possibly not in a practical way for your purpose.
The two tools MongoDB has to do any sort of calculation are the aggregation framework and mapReduce. The former currently lacks the operators to really handle this in a practical way. The second can be "tricked" into sorting, as an artifact of how mapReduce works, by putting the component to be sorted in the grouping key (even if there is no actual grouping).
So you can basically apply the math with something like this:
db.data.mapReduce(
function() {
var vals = this.data.map(function(el){ return el.value }),
uniq = {};
vals.forEach(function(el) {
if (!uniq.hasOwnProperty(el)) {
uniq[el] = 1;
} else {
uniq[el]++;
}
});
var weight = Array.sum(Object.keys(uniq).map(function(key) {
return uniq[key] * key
})) / Array.sum(Object.keys(uniq).map(function(key) {
return uniq[key];
}))
var id = this._id;
delete this._id;
emit({ "weight": weight, "orig": id },this);
},
function() {},
{ "out": { "inline": 1 } }
)
Which gives you this output:
{
"results" : [
{
"_id" : {
"weight" : 2.5,
"orig" : "wPg4jzJsEFXNxR5Wf"
},
"value" : {
"caveId" : "56424a93819e7419112c883e",
"data" : [
{
"value" : 1
},
{
"value" : 3
},
{
"value" : 4
},
{
"value" : 2
}
]
}
},
{
"_id" : {
"weight" : 2.75,
"orig" : "oSrtv33MgnkJFvNan"
},
"value" : {
"caveId" : "56424a93819e7419112c949f",
"data" : [
{
"value" : 1
},
{
"value" : 4
},
{
"value" : 4
},
{
"value" : 2
}
]
}
},
{
"_id" : {
"weight" : 3.3333333333333335,
"orig" : "gJRMMQPwDwjFrL7zz"
},
"value" : {
"caveId" : "56424a93819e7419112c8727",
"data" : [
{
"value" : 5
},
{
"value" : 1
},
{
"value" : 4
}
]
}
}
]
}
So all the results are sorted, but of course the restriction applies that mapReduce can only produce "inline" output that is under the 16MB BSON limit, or alternately write the results out to another collection.
Even with new features being added to the aggregation framework that can assist here ( from current development series 3.1.x ) this would still require some juggling with $unwind in order to get the "sum" of elements in any way ( no such feature as a "reduce" function yet ), which does not make it a stable or practical alternative.
So you can do it with mapReduce, but for my money I would have another process that calculates this to run periodicallly ( or triggered on updates ) and update a standard "weight" field on the document, that could then be used directly for sorting.
Having a value in place in your documents is always the most performant option.
For the curious, you can grab a development branch release of MongoDB ( 3.1.x series ), or any release after that and apply an aggregation pipeline like this:
db.data.aggregate([
{ "$project": {
"caveId": 1,
"data": 1,
"conv": {
"$setUnion": [
{ "$map": {
"input": "$data",
"as": "el",
"in": "$$el.value"
}},
[]
]
},
"orig": {
"$map": {
"input": "$data",
"as": "el",
"in": "$$el.value"
}
}
}},
{ "$project": {
"caveId": 1,
"data": 1,
"conv": 1,
"orig": 1,
"counts": { "$map": {
"input": "$conv",
"as": "el",
"in": {
"$size": {
"$filter": {
"input": "$orig",
"as": "o",
"cond": {
"$eq": [ "$$o", "$$el" ]
}
}
}
}
}}
}},
{ "$unwind": { "path": "$conv", "includeArrayIndex": true } },
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"caveId": { "$first": "$caveId" },
"data": { "$first": "$data" },
"counts": { "$first": "$counts" },
"mult": {
"$sum": {
"$multiply": [
"$conv.value",
{ "$arrayElemAt": [ "$counts", "$conv.index" ] }
]
}
}
}},
{ "$unwind": "$counts" },
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id",
"caveId": { "$first": "$caveId" },
"data": { "$first": "$data" },
"count": { "$sum": "$counts" },
"mult": { "$first": "$mult" }
}},
{ "$project": {
"data": 1,
"weight": { "$divide": [ "$mult", "$count" ] }
}},
{ "$sort": { "weight": 1 } }
])
But even with helpers like $filter and "includeArrayIndex" in $unwind and the $arrayElemAt operator using that index later to match up the distinct elements with their counts, the usage of $unwind in any way makes this a non-performant solution.
It may become practical in the future if operators like $map can produce index values needed for pairing and with the introduction of any methods to similarly do an "in-line sum" operation or other math on array results without processing $unwind. But as of writing this does not exist, even in development.

Aggregate Query in Mongodb returns specific field

Document Sample:
{
"_id" : ObjectId("53329dfgg43771e49538b4567"),
"u" : {
"_id" : ObjectId("532a435gs4c771edb168c1bd7"),
"n" : "Salman khan",
"e" : "salman#gmail.com"
},
"ps" : 0,
"os" : 1,
"rs" : 0,
"cd" : 1395685800,
"ud" : 0
}
Query:
db.collectiontmp.aggregate([
{$match: {os:1}},
{$project : { name:{$toUpper:"$u.e"} , _id:0 } },
{$group: { _id: "$u._id",total: {$sum:1} }},
{$sort: {total: -1}}, { $limit: 10 }
]);
I need following things from the above query:
Group by u._id
Returns total number of records and email from the record, as shown below:
{
"result":
[
{
"email": "",
"total": ""
},
{
"email": "",
"total": ""
}
],
"ok":
1
}
The first thing you are doing wrong here is not understanding how $project is intended to work. Pipeline stages such as $project and $group will only output the fields that are "explicitly" identified. So only the fields you say to output will be available to the following pipeline stages.
Specifically here you "project" only part of the "u" field in your document and you therefore removed the other data from being available. The only present field here now is "name", which is the one you "projected".
Perhaps it was really your intention to do something like this:
db.collectiontmp.aggregate([
{ "$group": {
"_id": {
"_id": "$u._id",
"email": { "$toUpper": "$u.e" }
},
"total": { "$sum": 1 },
}},
{ "$project": {
"_id": 0,
"email": "$_id.email",
"total": 1
}},
{ "$sort": { "total": -1 } },
{ "$limit": 10 }
])
Or even:
db.collectiontmp.aggregate([
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$u._id",
"email": { "$first": { "$toUpper": "$u.e" } }
"total": { "$sum": 1 },
}},
{ "$project": {
"_id": 0,
"email": 1,
"total": 1
}},
{ "$sort": { "total": -1 } },
{ "$limit": 10 }
])
That gives you the sort of output you are looking for.
Remember that as this is a "pipeline", then only the "output" from a prior stage is available to the "next" stage. There is no "global" concept of the document as this is not a declarative statement such as in SQL, but a "pipeline".
So think Unix pipe "|" command, or otherwise look that up. Then your thinking will fall into place.

Sum array in aggregation query

I'm pretty new to MongoDB, and having some problems getting my query as I want it. The documents contain "errors" that have happened a specific time. The result I want from the query is an error count for each month per user. This I have already figured out, but additionally I want the total errorcount per user.
This is what I've got so far:
db.Logger.aggregate([
{ "$group": {
"_id": {
"name": "$name",
"month": { "$month": "$errorTime" }
},
"totalErrors": { "$sum": 1 }
}},
{ $group :
{ _id: { name : "$_id.name"},
errors: { $addToSet: { totalErrors: { errorsThisMonth: "$totalErrors", currentMonth : "$_id.month" } } },
}
}
])
The result is:
{
"_id" : {
"name" : "abhos"
},
"errors" : [
{
"totalErrors" : {
"errorsThisMonth" : 6,
"currentMonth" : 2
}
},
{
"totalErrors" : {
"errorsThisMonth" : 6,
"currentMonth" : 1
}
}
]
},
Will it be possible to get what I want by adding to that query?
All you need is an additional $sum in your second $group:
db.Logger.aggregate([
{ "$group": {
"_id": {
"name": "$name",
"month": { "$month": "$errorTime" }
},
"totalErrors": { "$sum": 1 }
}},
{ "$group": {
"_id": "$_id.name",
"errors": {
"$addToSet": {
"errorsThisMonth": "$totalErrors",
"currentMonth" : "$_id.month"
}
},
"totalErrors": { "$sum": "$totalErrors" }
}}
])
Also you have a few extra document levels you do not need in there, such as extra fields under the _id and the "errors" "set" produced in the grouping. This output is just a little different without those additional levels:
{
"_id": "abhos"
"errors" : [
{
"errorsThisMonth" : 6,
"currentMonth" : 2
},
{
"errorsThisMonth" : 6,
"currentMonth" : 1
}
],
"totalErrors": 12
},