I have a document where i am saving all the user registration information with a particular random id associated to it.
my document looks like:
_id:xyz
_rev:9-a4d476aa9f4b41879d21a7f475a2f1d5
-742566755
course:gg
passwdt:t
phone:1313
clgnme:hfhjf
address:fjhfj
-884381686
course:gg
passwdt:t
phone:1313
clgnme:hfhjf
address:fjhfj
Now, i Want to retrieve the document with all information as shown in the document.
I want that it should be shown individually as i have done with getting the values on console. but i want it acording to each id individually.
Like if i want to get data of -884381686 id and it can be anything name, address anything. it should fetch data accordingly.
**NOTE:**PROGRAMMING TO BE DONE IN GWT
You mean you want to access each document via its ID? You can just make an HTTP GET request to (assuming CouchDb is run locally):
GET localhost:5984/<database>/<id>
That will return the entire document
Based on your comment below, the best way to get each item in the document is to create a map view in Couch. Say your document looks like this:
{
_id: 123,
rev: 22,
posts: [{ id: 2, name: hello}, {id: 3, name: world}]
}
If you wanted to list all of the posts, your Map view would look like this:
function(doc){
for(var post in doc.posts){
emit([doc._id, post], 1);
}
}
That will emit all of the posts in every single document. If you have different types of documents, you can add code to only emit for certain types of documents. Then you can go to the URL for the view to see all of the posts: http://localhost:5984/database/_design/ViewCategory/_view/ViewName?reduce=false
Related
I'm regularly facing the similar problem on how to reference several different collections in the same property in MongoDB (or any other NoSQL database). Usually I use Meteor.js for my projects.
Let's take an example for a notes collection that includes some tagIds:
{
_id: "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
message: "This is an important message",
dateTime: "2018-03-01T00:00:00.000Z",
tagIds: [
"123456789012345678901234",
"abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef"
]
}
So a certain id referenced in tagIds might either be a person, a product or even another note.
Of course the most obvious solutions for this imo is to save the type as well:
...
tagIds: [
{
type: "note",
id: "123456789012345678901234",
},
{
type: "person",
id: "abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef",
}
]
...
Another solution I'm also thinking about is to use several fields for each collection, but I'm not sure if this has any other benefits (apart from the clear separation):
...
tagIdsNotes: ["123456789012345678901234"],
tagIdsPersons: ["abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef"],
...
But somehow both solutions feel strange to me as they need a lot of extra information (it would be nice to have this information implicit) and so I wanted to ask, if this is the way to go, or if you know any other solution for this?
If you use Meteor Methods to pull this data, you have a chance to run some code, get from DB, run some mappings, pull again from DB etc and return a result. However, if you use pub/sub, things are different, you need to keep it really simple and light.
So, first question: method or pub/sub?
Your question is really more like: should I embed and how much to embed, or should I not embed and build relations (only keep an id of a tag in the message object) and later use aggregations or should I denormalize (duplicate data): http://highscalability.com/building-scalable-databases-denormalization-nosql-movement-and-digg
All these are ok in Mongo depending on your case: https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/6-rules-of-thumb-for-mongodb-schema-design-part-3
The way I do this is to keep a tags Collection indexed by messageId and eventually date (for sorting). When you have a message, you get all tags by querying the Tags Collection rather than mapping over your tags in your message object and send 3 different queries to 3 different Collections (person, product, note).
If you embed your tags data in the message object, let's say in your UX you want to show there are 3 tags and on click you get those 3 tags. You can basically pull those tags when you pulled the message (and might not need that data) or pull the tags on an action such as click. So, you might want to consider what data you need in your view and only pull that. You could keep an Integer as number of tags on the message object and save the tags in either a tags Collection or embed in your message object.
Following the principles of NoSQL it is ok and advisable to save some data multiple times in different collections to make your queries super fast.
So in a Tags Collection you could save as well things related to your original objects. Let's say
// Tags
{
...
messageId: 'xxx',
createdAt: Date,
person: {
firstName: 'John',
lastName: 'Smith',
userId: 'yyyy',
...etc
},
{
...
messageId: 'xxy',
createdAt: Date,
product: {
name: 'product_name',
productId: 'yyzz',
...etc
},
}
I have a DB with a user collection, a book collection, and a comment collection.
I would like to perform a site-wide search capability and for that reason I would like to create a new collection of indexed content for search entries.
The new collection I imagine will look like this:
var indexContent= mongoose.Schema({
keyword:String //The keyword search
rank: Number //a ranking I give the matched document
refType: String //either "User", "Series", or "Episode"
ref: mongoose.Schema.Types.ObjectId //The id of the matched document,
date: Date // date when this entry was created
})
I feel like this is ideal because, whenever a keyword exists in the collection I can quickly retrieve the results, and if the keyword was never searched before, I generate the results for the first time, then save it to serve to other people.
The problem is, considering the site has a very high rate of updates, how often should I dump my cached results?
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 posts collection which stores posts related info and author information. This is a nested tree.
Then I have a postrating collection which stores which user has rated a particular post up or down.
When a request is made to get a nested tree for a particular post, I also need to return if the current user has voted, and if yes, up or down on each of the post being returned.
In SQL this would be something like "posts.*, postrating.vote from posts join postrating on postID and postrating.memberID=currentUser".
I know MongoDB does not support joins. What are my options with MongoDB?
use map reduce - performance for a simple query?
in the post document store the ratings - BSON size limit?
Get list of all required posts. Get list of all votes by current user. Loop on posts and if user has voted add that to output?
Is there any other way? Can this be done using aggregation?
NOTE: I started on MongoDB last week.
In MongoDB, the simplest way is probably to handle this with application-side logic and not to try this in a single query. There are many ways to structure your data, but here's one possibility:
user_document = {
name : "User1",
postsIhaveLiked : [ "post1", "post2" ... ]
}
post_document = {
postID : "post1",
content : "my awesome blog post"
}
With this structure, you would first query for the user's user_document. Then, for each post returned, you could check if the post's postID is in that user's "postsIhaveLiked" list.
The main idea with this is that you get your data in two steps, not one. This is different from a join, but based on the same underlying idea of using one key (in this case, the postID) to relate two different pieces of data.
In general, try to avoid using map-reduce for performance reasons. And for this simple use case, aggregation is not what you want.
Getting my head around MongoDB document design and trying to figure out how to do something or if I'm barking up the wrong tree.
I'm creating a mini CMS. The site will contains either documents or url's that are grouped by a category, i.e. There's a group called 'shop' that has a list of links to items on another site and there's a category called 'art' that has a list of works of art, each of which has a title, summary and images for a slideshow.
So one possible way to do this would be to have a collection that would look something like:
[{category: 'Products',
title: 'Thong',
href: 'http://www.thongs.com'
},{
category: 'Products',
title: 'Incredible Sulk',
href:'http://www.sulk.com'
},{
category: 'Art',
title: 'Cool art',
summary: 'This is a summary to display',
images: [...]
}]
But, and here's the question.... when I'm building the webpage this structure isn't much use to me. the homepage contains lists of 'things' grouped by their category, lists... menus.. stuff like that. To be able to easily do that I need to have something that looks more like:
[
{'Products':[
{title:'thong', href:'http://www.thongs.com'},
{title:'Incredible Sulk'}
]
},
{'Art':[
{title:'Cool art',summary:'This is a summary to display',images:[...]}
]
}
]
So the question is, can I somehow do this transformation in MondoDB? If I can't then is it bad to do this in my app server layer(I'd get a grouped list of unique categories and then loop through them querying Mongo for documents of that category)? I'm guessing app server layer is bad, after all mongodb has it all in memory if I'm lucky. If neither of these are good then am I doing it all wrong and should I actually store the structure like this in the first place?
I need to make it easy for the user to create categories on the fly and consider what happens if they start to add lots of documents and I either need to restrict how many documents I pull back for each category or somehow limit the fields returned so that when I query mongodb it doesn't return back a relatively big chunk of data which is slow and wasteful, but instead returns back the minimum I need to create the desired page.
I figured a group query that will give me almost the structure I want, but good enough to use for templates.
db.things.group({
key:{category:true},
initial:{articles:[]},
reduce: function(doc, aggregator) {
aggregator.articles.push(doc);
}
})