conceptually what I am trying to figure out is if there is an alternative to accessing nested docs with mongo other than dot notation.
What I am trying to accomplish:
I have a user collection, and each user has a nested songVotes collection where the keys for this nested songVotes collection are the songIds and the value is their vote form the user -1,0, or 1.
I have a "room collection" where many users go and their collective votes for each song influence the room. A single room also has a nested songVotes collection with keys as songIds, however the value is the total number of accumulated votes for all the users in the room added up. For purposes of Meteor.js, its more efficient as users enter the room to add their votes to this nested cumulative vote collection.
Again because reactive joins in Meteor.js arent supported in any kind of efficient way, it also doesnt make sense to break out these nested collections to solve my problem.
So what I am having trouble with is this update operation when a user first enters the room where I take a single users nested songVotes collection and use the mongo $inc operator to apply it to the nested cumulative songVotes collection of the entire room.
The problem is that if you want to use the $inc operator with nested fields, you must use dot notation to access them. So what I am asking on a broad sense is if there is a nice way to apply updates like this to a nested object. Or perhaps specify a global dot notation prefix for $inc something like:
var userVotes = db.collection.users.findOne('user_id').songVotes
// userVotes --> { 'song1': 1, 'song2': -1 ... }
db.rooms.update({ _id: 'blah' }, { $set: { roomSongVotes: { $inc: userVotes } } })
You do need to use dot notation, but you can still do that in your case by programmatically building up the update object:
var userVotes = {'song1': 1, 'song2': -1};
var update = {$inc: {}};
for (var songId in userVotes) {
update.$inc['roomSongVotes.' + songId] = userVotes[songId];
}
db.rooms.update({ _id: 'blah' }, update);
This way, update gets built up as:
{ '$inc': { 'roomSongVotes.song1': 1, 'roomSongVotes.song2': -1 } }
Related
I'm not sure this is possible, but i'd like to create a single view or at least a single query that looks in different collections based on what's being queried.
for example, if the first character is an "A" look in the "Aresults" collection, if it's a "B" look in the "Bresults" collection, etc.
I could potentially create a "A-Z" collection with just those letters, and do a $lookup from there based on a condition, but i'm not sure how to do that either.
I am aware that i could create a view with a $unionWith having all the "*results" collections, but that seems very inefficient.
Any other ideas? Is there perhaps some type of dynamic query structure within mongodb like in MySQL (couldn't find any)?
Thanks
Something like this?
const prefix = db.meta_data.findOne({field: condition}).prefix ;
db.createView('view_name', prefix + 'results', [<your aggregation pipeline>]);
or this?
const pipeline = [];
db.meta_data.find({ field: condition }).forEach(x => {
pipeline.push({ $unionWith: { coll: prefix + 'results' } });
});
db.collection.aggregate([pipeline]);
I have a database like this:
{
"universe":"comics",
"saga":[
{
"name":"x-men",
"characters":[
{
"character":"wolverine",
"picture":"618035022351.png"
},
{
"character":"wolverine",
"picture":"618035022352.png"
}
]
}
]
},
{
"universe":"dc",
"saga":[
{
"name":"spiderman",
"characters":[
{
"character":"venom",
"picture":"618035022353.png"
}
]
}
]
}
And with this code, I update the field where name: wolverine:
db.getCollection('collection').findOneAndUpdate(
{
"universe": "comics"
},
{
$set: {
"saga.$[outer].characters.$[inner].character": "lobezno",
"saga.$[outer].characters.$[inner].picture": "618035022354.png"
}
},
/*{
"saga.characters": 1
},*/
{
"arrayFilters": [
{
"outer.name": "x-men"
},
{
"inner.character": "wolverine"
}
],
"multi":false
}
)
I want to just update the first object where there is a match, and stop it.
For example, if I have an array of 100,000 elements and the object where the match is, is in the tenth position, he will update that record, but he will continue going through the entire array and this seems ineffective to me even though he already did the update.
Note: if I did the update using an _id inside of universe.saga.characters instead of doing the update using the name, it would still loop through the rest of the elements.
How can I do it?
Update using arrayFilters conditions
I don't think it will find and update through loop, and It does not matter if collection have 100,000 sub documents, because here is nice explanation in $[<identifier>] and has mentioned:
The $[<identifier>] to define an identifier to update only those array elements that match the corresponding filter document in the arrayFilters
In the update document, use the $[<identifier>] filtered positional operator to define an identifier, which you then reference in the array filter documents. But make sure you cannot have an array filter document for an identifier if the identifier is not included in the update document.
Update using _id
Your point,
Note: if I did the update using an _id inside of universe.saga.characters instead of doing the update using the name, it would still loop through the rest of the elements.
MongoDB will certainly use the _id index. Here is the nice answer on question MongoDB Update Query Performance, from this you will get an better idea on above point
Update using indexed fields
You can create index according to your query section of update command, Here MongoDB Indexes and Indexing Strategies has explained why index is important,
In your example, lets see with examples:
Example 1: If document have 2 sub documents and when you update and check with explain("executionStats"), assume it will take 1 second to update,
quick use Mongo Playground (this platform will not support update query)
Example 2: If document have 1000 sub documents and when you update and check with explain("executionStats"), might be it will take more then 1 second,
If provide index on fields (universe, saga.characters.character and saga.characters.picture) then definitely it will take less time then usual without index, main benefit of index it will direct point to indexed fields.
quick use Mongo Playground (this platform will not support update query)
Create Index for your fields
db.maxData.createIndex({
"universe": 1,
"saga.characters.character": 1,
"saga.characters.picture": 1
})
For more experiment use above 2 examples data with index and without index and check executionStats you will get more clarity.
Kind of a complex one here and i'm pretty new to Mongo, so hopefully someone can help. I have a db of users. Each user has a state/province listed. I'm trying to create another collection of the total users in each state/province. Because users sign up pretty regularly, this will be an growing total i'm trying to generate and display on a map.
I'm able to query the database to find total number of users in a specific state, but i want to do this for all users and come out with a list of totals in all states/provinces and have a separate collection in the DB with all states/provinces listed and the field TOTAL to be dynamically populated with the count query of the other collection. But i'm not sure how to have a query be the result of a field in another collection.
used this to get users totals:
db.users.aggregate([
{"$group" : {_id:"$state", count:{$sum:1}}}
])
My main question is how to make the results of a query the value of a field in each corresponding record in another collection. Or if that's even possible.
Thanks for any help or guidance.
Looks like that On-Demand Materialized Views (just added on version 4.2 of MongoDB) should solve your problem!
You can create an On-Demand Materialized View using the $merge operator.
A possible definition of the Materialized View could be:
updateUsersLocationTotal = function() {
db.users.aggregate( [
{ $match: { <if you need to perform a match, like $state, otherwise remove it> } },
{ $group: { _id:"$state", users_quantity: { $sum: 1} } },
{ $merge: { into: "users_total", whenMatched: "replace" } }
] );
};
And then you perform updates just by calling updateUsersLocationTotal()
After that you can query the view just like a normal collection, using db.users_total.find() or db.users_total.aggregate().
So I have a document with an unknown number of objects in it, each with 2 properties. It's a collection of friend lists, and I'm trying to confirm if someone has a friend with a certain username before I allow a user to send a request. I'm keeping the list of friends in a subdocument, like this:
>>all the _id and other properties<<, "ownerFriends":[{"friendId":"an id goes here", "friendUsername": "username"}, {"friendId":"another id", "friendUsername":"username2"}]
I'm trying to do a query that will return username2 if given that as input, but I don't know how to do that with dot notation because I think you need to know the specific property to look for, and these are heterodox amounts of friend objects in the ownerFriends property.
If you want to select the ownerFriend object that has username as the friendUserName you can use the following selector (assuming your collection is called Friends):
Friends.find({
"ownerFriends.friendUsername": "username2"
}, {
fields: { "ownerFriends.$": 1}
});
You can find a detailed explanation of how to query an array of objects based on a property here:
http://www.curtismlarson.com/blog/2015/08/08/meteor-mongodb-array-property-selector/
In summary you have an object that contains keys, one of whose values is an array of objects. You can perform queries on the arrays using $elemMatch In your case:
MyCollection.find({ ownerFriends: { $elemMatch: { friendUsername: searchString }}});
Although I think you'll need to also query on the current user's _id. Not knowing the details of your collection, I can only speculate with:
MyCollection.find({ userId: Meteor.userId(), ownerFriends: { $elemMatch: { friendUsername: searchString }}});
What's a good way to store a set of documents in MongoDB where order is important? I need to easily insert documents at an arbitrary position and possibly reorder them later.
I could assign each item an increasing number and sort by that, or I could sort by _id, but I don't know how I could then insert another document in between other documents. Say I want to insert something between an element with a sequence of 5 and an element with a sequence of 6?
My first guess would be to increment the sequence of all of the following elements so that there would be space for the new element using a query something like db.items.update({"sequence":{$gte:6}}, {$inc:{"sequence":1}}). My limited understanding of Database Administration tells me that a query like that would be slow and generally a bad idea, but I'm happy to be corrected.
I guess I could set the new element's sequence to 5.5, but I think that would get messy rather quickly. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)
I could use a capped collection, which has a guaranteed order, but then I'd run into issues if I needed to grow the collection. (Yet again, I might be wrong about that one too.)
I could have each document contain a reference to the next document, but that would require a query for each item in the list. (You'd get an item, push it onto the results array, and get another item based on the next field of the current item.) Aside from the obvious performance issues, I would also not be able to pass a sorted mongo cursor to my {#each} spacebars block expression and let it live update as the database changed. (I'm using the Meteor full-stack javascript framework.)
I know that everything has it's advantages and disadvantages, and I might just have to use one of the options listed above, but I'd like to know if there is a better way to do things.
Based on your requirement, one of the approaches could be to design your schema, in such a way that each document has the capability to hold more than one document and in itself act as a capped container.
{
"_id":Number,
"doc":Array
}
Each document in the collection will act as a capped container, and the documents will be stored as array in the doc field. The doc field being an array, will maintain the order of insertion.
You can limit the number of documents to n. So the _id field of each container document will be incremental by n, indicating the number of documents a container document can hold.
By doing these you avoid adding extra fields to the document, extra indices, unnecessary sorts.
Inserting the very first record
i.e when the collection is empty.
var record = {"name" : "first"};
db.col.insert({"_id":0,"doc":[record]});
Inserting subsequent records
Identify the last container document's _id, and the number of
documents it holds.
If the number of documents it holds is less than n, then update the
container document with the new document, else create a new container
document.
Say, that each container document can hold 5 documents at most,and we want to insert a new document.
var record = {"name" : "newlyAdded"};
// using aggregation, get the _id of the last inserted container, and the
// number of record it currently holds.
db.col.aggregate( [ {
$group : {
"_id" : null,
"max" : {
$max : "$_id"
},
"lastDocSize" : {
$last : "$doc"
}
}
}, {
$project : {
"currentMaxId" : "$max",
"capSize" : {
$size : "$lastDocSize"
},
"_id" : 0
}
// once obtained, check if you need to update the last container or
// create a new container and insert the document in it.
} ]).forEach( function(check) {
if (check.capSize < 5) {
print("updating");
// UPDATE
db.col.update( {
"_id" : check.currentMaxId
}, {
$push : {
"doc" : record
}
});
} else {
print("inserting");
//insert
db.col.insert( {
"_id" : check.currentMaxId + 5,
"doc" : [ record ]
});
}
})
Note that the aggregation, runs on the server side and is very efficient, also note that the aggregation would return you a document rather than a cursor in versions previous to 2.6. So you would need to modify the above code to just select from a single document rather than iterating a cursor.
Inserting a new document in between documents
Now, if you would like to insert a new document between documents 1 and 2, we know that the document should fall inside the container with _id=0 and should be placed in the second position in the doc array of that container.
so, we make use of the $each and $position operators for inserting into specific positions.
var record = {"name" : "insertInMiddle"};
db.col.update(
{
"_id" : 0
}, {
$push : {
"doc" : {
$each : [record],
$position : 1
}
}
}
);
Handling Over Flow
Now, we need to take care of documents overflowing in each container, say we insert a new document in between, in container with _id=0. If the container already has 5 documents, we need to move the last document to the next container and do so till all the containers hold documents within their capacity, if required at last we need to create a container to hold the overflowing documents.
This complex operation should be done on the server side. To handle this, we can create a script such as the one below and register it with mongodb.
db.system.js.save( {
"_id" : "handleOverFlow",
"value" : function handleOverFlow(id) {
var currDocArr = db.col.find( {
"_id" : id
})[0].doc;
print(currDocArr);
var count = currDocArr.length;
var nextColId = id + 5;
// check if the collection size has exceeded
if (count <= 5)
return;
else {
// need to take the last doc and push it to the next capped
// container's array
print("updating collection: " + id);
var record = currDocArr.splice(currDocArr.length - 1, 1);
// update the next collection
db.col.update( {
"_id" : nextColId
}, {
$push : {
"doc" : {
$each : record,
$position : 0
}
}
});
// remove from original collection
db.col.update( {
"_id" : id
}, {
"doc" : currDocArr
});
// check overflow for the subsequent containers, recursively.
handleOverFlow(nextColId);
}
}
So that after every insertion in between , we can invoke this function by passing the container id, handleOverFlow(containerId).
Fetching all the records in order
Just use the $unwind operator in the aggregate pipeline.
db.col.aggregate([{$unwind:"$doc"},{$project:{"_id":0,"doc":1}}]);
Re-Ordering Documents
You can store each document in a capped container with an "_id" field:
.."doc":[{"_id":0,","name":"xyz",...}..]..
Get hold of the "doc" array of the capped container of which you want
to reorder items.
var docArray = db.col.find({"_id":0})[0];
Update their ids so that after sorting the order of the item will change.
Sort the array based on their _ids.
docArray.sort( function(a, b) {
return a._id - b._id;
});
update the capped container back, with the new doc array.
But then again, everything boils down to which approach is feasible and suits your requirement best.
Coming to your questions:
What's a good way to store a set of documents in MongoDB where order is important?I need to easily insert documents at an arbitrary
position and possibly reorder them later.
Documents as Arrays.
Say I want to insert something between an element with a sequence of 5 and an element with a sequence of 6?
use the $each and $position operators in the db.collection.update() function as depicted in my answer.
My limited understanding of Database Administration tells me that a
query like that would be slow and generally a bad idea, but I'm happy
to be corrected.
Yes. It would impact the performance, unless the collection has very less data.
I could use a capped collection, which has a guaranteed order, but then I'd run into issues if I needed to grow the collection. (Yet
again, I might be wrong about that one too.)
Yes. With Capped Collections, you may lose data.
An _id field in MongoDB is a unique, indexed key similar to a primary key in relational databases. If there is an inherent order in your documents, ideally you should be able to associate a unique key to each document, with the key value reflecting the order. So while preparing your document for insertion, explicitly add an _id field as this key (if you do not, mongo creates it automatically with a BSON objectid).
As far as retrieving the results are concerned, MongoDB does not guarantee the order of return documents unless you explicitly use .sort() . If you do not use .sort(), the results are usually returned in natural order (order of insertion).Again, there is no guarantee on this behavior.
I'd advise you to override _id with your order while inserting, and use a sort while retrieving. Since _id is a necessary and auto-indexed entity, you will not be wasting any space defining a sort key, and storing the index for it.
For abitrary sorting of any collection, you'll need a field to sort it on. I call mine "sequence".
schema:
{
_id: ObjectID,
sequence: Number,
...
}
db.items.ensureIndex({sequence:1});
db.items.find().sort({sequence:1})
Here is a link to some general sorting database answers that may be relevant:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/195308/storing-a-re-orderable-list-in-a-database/369754
I suggest going with Floating point solution - adding a position column:
Use a floating-point number for the position column.
You can then reorder the list changing only the position column in the "moved" row.
If your user wants to position "red" after "blue" but before "yellow" Then you just need to calculate
red.position = ((yellow.position - blue.position) / 2) + blue.position
After a few re-positions in the same place (Cuttin in half every time) - you might reach a wall - it's better that if you reach a certain threshold - to resort the list.
When retrieving it you can simply say col.sort() to get it sorted and no need for any client-side code (Like in the case of a Linked list solution)