I got simple scenario of two entities: post; bumps (ie upvote).
Example of a post:
{_id: 'happy_days', 'title': 'Happy days', text: '...', bumps: 2}
Example of a bump:
{_id: {user: 'jimmy', post: 'happy_days'}}
{_id: {user: 'hans', post: 'happy_days'}}
Question: how do I maintain correct bumps count in post under all circumstances (and failures)?
The method I have come up with so far is:
To bump, upsert and check for existence. Only if inserted, increase bumps count.
To unbump, delete and check for existence. Only if deleted, decrease bumps count.
Above fails if the app crashes between the two ops and the only way to correct the bumps stats is to query all documents in bump collection and recalculate everything offline (ie there is no way to know which post have incorrect bumps count).
I suggest that you stick with what you already have. The worst that can happen if there is a failover/connection issue between your two operations is that you bump count is wrong. So what? This is not the end of the world, and nobody is going to care too much if a bump count is either 812 or 813. You can always recreate the count anyway by checking how many bumps you have for each post by running an aggregation query if something went wrong. Embrace eventual consistency!
As an alternative to updating the data in multiple places (which, for read performance, will probably be the best but as you noticed will complicate updates) it may be worth considering storing uid's of the bumps in an array (here called bump_uids) directly on the post, and just count the bumps when needed using aggregate framework;
> db.test.aggregate( [ { $match: { _id:'happy_days' } },
{ $project: { bump_uids: 1 } },
{ $unwind: '$bump_uids' },
{ $group: {_id:'$_id', bumps: { $sum:1 } } } ] )
>>> { "result" : [ { "_id" : "happy_days", "bumps" : 3 } ], "ok" : 1 }
Since MongoDB does not yet support triggers ( https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-124 ) you have to do this the gritty way with application logic.
As a brief example:
db.follower.insert({fromId:u,toId:c});
db.user.update({_id:u},{$inc:{totalFollowing:1}});
db.user.update({_id:c},{$inc:{totalFollowers:1}});
Yes, it is not atomic etc etc however it is the way to do it. In reality many update counters like this, whether in MongoDB or not.
Related
we have a collection with big amount of documents, lets say around 100k. We now want to count the number of documents which has the key x set.
If I try it with Collection.countDocuments({ x: { $exists: true }}) I get the result, but it creates instantly a warning in the console: Query Targeting: Scanned Objects / Returned has gone above 1000.
So, is there a better way to count the documents? There is a Index on the field, is it possible to get the length of the index?
Thanks
Theres no real way of viewing the index trees in Mongo, what other people have linked you just returns the size of the tree, I'm not sure how useful that information is in this context.
Now to your question is this the best way to count?.
The answer is Yes ... -ish.
countDocuments is a wrapper function, it just simulates the following pipeline:
db.collection.aggregate([
{ $match: <query> },
{ $group: { _id: null, n: { $sum: 1 } } } )
])
This pipeline is the most efficient way to go, but the difference between running this aggregation and using the wrapper function is about 100-200 milliseconds, depending on your machine spec.
Meaning if you're looking for "way" better performance you're not going to find it.
With that said this warning is stupid, it just means you have more than 1000 documents with that field. The true purpose of it is to alert you in the case you're trying to query 1-20 documents without a proper index.
You can use the indexSizes field returned by the stats() method.
The stats() method "Returns statistics about the collection".
See example here :
https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/method/db.collection.stats/#basic-stats-lookup
{
...,
"indexSizes" : {
"_id_" : 237568,
"cuisine_1" : 143360,
"borough_1_cuisine_1" : 151552,
"borough_1_address.zipcode_1" : 151552
},
...
}
indexSize key return size as in space used in storing not count
Check With Explain if index getting used or not . (Update in question Also)
can use hint option to check the performance after specifying index
Or precalculate count by $inc operator might good option if possible in you use case
try cursor.count if its faster countDocument should been faster but no harm in checking
https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/method/cursor.count/
Say I have an entry in the inventory collection that looks like
{ _id: 1, item: "polarizing_filter", tags: [ "electronics", "camera" ]}
and I issue the command
db.inventory.update(
{ _id: 1 },
{ $addToSet: { tags: "accessories" } }
)
I have an oplog tailer, and would like to know that, specifically, "accessories" has been added to this document's tags field. As far as I can tell, the oplog always normalizes commands to use $set and $unset to maintain idempotency. In this case, the field of the entry describing the update would show something like
{$set : { tags : ["electronics", "camera", "accessories"] } }
which makes it impossible to know which tags were actually added by this update. Is there anyway to do this? I'm also curious about the analogous case in which fields are modified through deletion, e.g. through $pull. Solutions outside of the realm of an oplog tailer are welcome, as well as pointers to documentation of this command normalization process - I can't find it.
Thanks!
I'm trying to figure out if what I want to do is even possible in Mongodb. I'm open to all sorts of suggestions regarding more appropriate ways to achieve what I need.
Currently, I have 2 collections:
vehicles (Contains vehicle data such as make and model. This data can be highly unstructured, which is why I turned to Mongodb for this)
views (Simply contains an IP, a date/time that the vehicle was viewed and the vehicle_id. There could be thousands of views)
I need to return a list of vehicles that have views between 2 dates. The list should include the number of views. I need to be able to sort by the number of views in addition to any of the usual vehicle fields. So, to be clear, if a vehicle has had 1000 views, but only 500 of those between the given dates, the count should return 500.
I'm pretty sure I could perform this query without any issues in MySQL - however, trying to store the vehicle data in MySQL has been a real headache in the past and it has been great moving to Mongo where I can add new data fields with ease and not worry about the structure of my database.
What do you all think?? TIA!
As it turns out, it's totally possible. It took me a long while to get my head around this, so I'm posting it up for future google searches...
db.statistics.aggregate({
$match: {
branch_id: { $in: [14] }
}
}, {
$lookup: {
from: 'vehicles', localField: 'vehicle_id', foreignField: '_id', as: 'vehicle'
}
}, {
$group: {
_id: "$vehicle_id",
count: { $sum: 1 },
vehicleObject: { $first: "$vehicle" }
}
}, { $unwind: "$vehicleObject" }, {
$project: {
daysInStock: { $subtract: [ new Date(), "$vehicleObject.date_assigned" ] },
vehicleObject: 1,
count: 1
}
}, { $sort: { count: -1 } }, { $limit: 10 });
To explain the above:
The Mongodb aggregate framework is the way forward for complex queries like this. Firstly, I run a $match to filter the records. Then, we use $lookup to grab the vehicle record. Worth mentioning here that this is a Many to One relationship here (lots of stats, each having a single vehicle). I can then group on the vehicle_id field, which will enable me to return one record per vehicle with a count of the number of stats in the group. As it is a group, we technically have lots of copies of that same vehicle document now in each group, so I then add just the first one into the vehicleObject variable. This would be fine, but $first tends to return an array with a single entry (pointless in my opinion), so I added the $unwind stage to pull the actual vehicle out. I then added a $project stage to calculate an additional field, sorted by the count descending and limited the results to 10.
And take a breath :)
I hope that helps someone. If you know of a better way to do what I did, then I'm open to suggestions to improve.
I am parsing Wikipedia dumps in order to play with the link-oriented metadata. One of the collections is named articles and it is in the following form:
{
_id : "Tree",
id: "18955875",
linksFrom: " [
{
name: "Forest",
count: 6
},
[...]
],
categories: [
"Trees",
"Forest_ecology"
[...]
]
}
The linksFrom field stores all articles this article points to, and how many times that happens. Next, I want to create another field linksTo with all the articles that point to this article. In the beginning, I went through the whole collection and updated every article, but since there's lots of them it takes too much time. I switched to aggregation for performance purposes and tried it on a smaller set - works like a charm and is super fast in comparison with the older method. The aggregation pipeline is as follows:
db.runCommand(
{
aggregate: "articles",
pipeline : [
{
$unwind: "$linksFrom"
},
{
$sort: { "linksFrom.count": -1 }
},
{
$project:
{
name: "$_id",
linksFrom: "$linksFrom"
}
},
{
$group:
{
_id: "$linksFrom.name",
linksTo: { $push: { name: "$name", count: { $sum : "$linksFrom.count" } } },
}
},
{
$out: "TEMPORARY"
}
] ,
allowDiskUse: true
}
)
However, on a large dataset being the english Wikipedia I get the following error after a few minutes:
{
"ok" : 0,
"errmsg" : "insert for $out failed: { connectionId: 24, err: \"BSONObj size: 24535193 (0x1766099) is invalid. Size must be between 0 and 16793600(16MB) First element: _id: \"United_States\"\", code: 10334, n: 0, ok: 1.0 }",
"code" : 16996
}
I understand that there are too many articles, which link to United_States article and the corresponding document's size grows above 16MB, currently almost 24MB. Unfortunately, I cannot even check if that's the case (error messages sometimes tend to lie)... Because of that, I'm trying to change the model so that the relationship between articles is stored with IDs rather than long names but I'm afraid that might not be enough - especially because my plan is to merge the two collections for every article later...
The question is: does anyone have a better idea? I don't want to try to increase the limit, I'm rather thinking about a different approach of storing this data in the database.
UPDATE after comment by Markus
Markus is correct, I am using a SAX parser and, as a matter of fact, I'm already storing all the links in a similar way. Apart from articles I have three more collections - one with links and two others, labels and stemmed-labels. The first one stores all links that occur in the dump in the following way:
{
_id : "tree",
stemmedName: "tree",
targetArticle: "Christmas_tree"
}
_id stores the text that is used to represent a given link, stemmedName represents stemmed _id and targetArticle marks what article this text pointed to. I'm in the middle of adding sourceArticle to this one, because it's obviously a good idea.
The second collection labels contains documents as follows:
{
_id : "tree",
targetArticles: [
{
name: "Christmas_tree",
count: 1
},
{
name: "Tree",
count: 166
}
[...]
]
}
The third stemmed-labels is analogous to the labels with its _id being a stemmed version of the root label.
So far, the first collection links serves as a baseline for the two other collections. I group the labels together by their name so that I only do one lookup for every phrase and then I can immiedately get all target articles with one query. Then I use the articles and labels collections in order to:
Look for label with a given name.
Get all articles it might
point to.
Compare the incoming and outcoming links for these
articles.
This is where the main question comes. I thought that it's better if I store all possible articles for a given phrase in one document rather than leave them scattered in the links collection. Only now did it occur to me, that - as long as the lookups are indexed - the overall performance might be the same for one big document or many smaller ones! Is this a correct assumption?
I think your data model is wrong. It may well be (albeit a bit theoretical) that individual articles (let's stick with the wikipedia example) are linked more often than you could store in a document. Embedding only works with One-To(-Very)-Few™ relationships.
So basically, I think you should change your model. I will show you how I would do it.
I will use the mongoshell and JavaScript in this example, since it is the lingua franca. You might need to translate accordingly.
The questions
Lets begin with the questions you want to have answered:
For a given article, which other articles link to that article?
For a given article, to which other articles does that article link to?
For a given article, how many articles link to it?
Optional: For a given article, to how many articles does it link to?
The crawling
What I would do basically is to implement a SAX parser on the articles, creating a new document for each article link you encounter. The document itself should be rather simple:
{
"_id": new ObjectId(),
// optional, for recrawling or pointing out a given state
"date": new ISODate(),
"article": wikiUrl,
"linksTo": otherWikiUrl
}
Note that you should not do an insert, but an upsert. The reason for this is that we do not want to document the number of links, but the articles linked to. If we did an insert, the same combination of article and linksTocould occur multiple times.
So our statement when encountering a link would look like this for example:
db.links.update(
{ "article":"HMS_Warrior_(1860)", "linksTo":"Royal_Navy" },
{ "date": new ISODate(), "article":"HMS_Warrior_(1860)", "linksTo":"Royal_Navy" },
{ upsert:true }
)
Answering the questions
As you might already guess, answering the questions becomes pretty straightforward now. I have use the following statements for creating a few documents:
db.links.update(
{ "article":"HMS_Warrior_(1860)", "linksTo":"Royal_Navy" },
{ "date": new ISODate(), "article":"HMS_Warrior_(1860)", "linksTo":"Royal_Navy" },
{ upsert:true }
)
db.links.update(
{ "article":"Royal_Navy", "linksTo":"Mutiny_on_the_Bounty" },
{ "date":new ISODate(), "article":"Royal_Navy", "linksTo":"Mutiny_on_the_Bounty" },
{ upsert:true }
)
db.links.update(
{ "article":"Mutiny_on_the_Bounty", "linksTo":"Royal_Navy"},
{ "date":new ISODate(), "article":"Mutiny_on_the_Bounty", "linksTo":"Royal_Navy" },
{ upsert:true }
)
For a given article, which other articles link to that article?
We found out that we should not use an aggregation, since that might exceed the size limit. But we don't have to. We simply use a cursor and gather the results:
var toLinks =[]
var cursor = db.links.find({"linksTo":"Royal_Navy"},{"_id":0,"article":1})
cursor.forEach(
function(doc){
toLinks.push(doc.article);
}
)
printjson(toLinks)
// Output: [ "HMS_Warrior_(1860)", "Mutiny_on_the_Bounty" ]
For a given article, to which other articles does that article link to?
This works pretty much like the first question – we basically only change the query:
var fromLinks = []
var cursor = db.links.find({"article":"Royal_Navy"},{"_id":0,"linksTo":1})
cursor.forEach(
function(doc){
fromLinks.push(doc.linksTo)
}
)
printjson(fromLinks)
// Output: [ "Mutiny_on_the_Bounty" ]
For a given article, how many articles link to it?
It should be obvious that in case you already have answered question 1, you could simply check toLinks.length. But let's assume you haven't. There are two other ways of doing this
Using .count()
You can use this method on replica sets. On sharded clusters, this doesn't work well. But it is easy:
db.links.find({ "linksTo":"Royal_Navy" }).count()
// Output: 2
Using an aggregation
This works on any environment and isn't much more complicated:
db.links.aggregate([
{ "$match":{ "linksTo":"Royal_Navy" }},
{ "$group":{ "_id":"$linksTo", "isLinkedFrom":{ "$sum":1 }}}
])
// Output: { "_id" : "Royal_Navy", "isLinkedFrom" : 2 }
Optional: For a given article, to how many articles does it link to?
Again, you can answer this question by reading the length of the array from question 2 of use the .count()method. The aggregation again is simple
db.links.aggregate([
{ "$match":{ "article":"Royal_Navy" }},
{ "$group":{ "_id":"$article", "linksTo":{ "$sum":1 }}}
])
// Output: { "_id" : "Royal_Navy", "linksTo" : 1 }
Indices
As for the indices, I haven't really checked them, but individual indices on the fields is probably what you want:
db.links.createIndex({"article":1})
db.links.createIndex({"linksTo":1})
A compound index will not help much, since order matters and we do no always ask for the first field. So this is probably as optimized as it can get.
Conclusion
We are using an extremely simple, scalable model and rather simple queries and aggregations to get the questions answered you have to the data.
I have two collections - shoppers (everyone in shop on a given day) and beach-goers (everyone on beach on a given day). There are entries for each day, and person can be on a beach, or shopping or doing both, or doing neither on any day. I want to now do query - all shoppers in last 7 days who did not go to beach.
I am new to Mongo, so it might be that my schema design is not appropriate for nosql DBs. I saw similar questions around join and in most cases it was suggested to denormalize. So one solution, I could think of is to create collection - activity, index on date, embed actions of user. So something like
{
user_id
date
actions {
[action_type, ..]
}
}
Insertion now becomes costly, as now I will have to query before insert.
A few of suggestions.
Figure out all the queries you'll be running, and all the types of data you will need to store. For example, do you expect to add activities in the future or will beach and shop be all?
Consider how many writes vs. reads you will have and which has to be faster.
Determine how your documents will grow over time to make sure your schema is scalable in the long term.
Here is one possible approach, if you will only have these two activities ever. One record per user per day.
{ user: "user1",
date: "2012-12-01",
shopped: 0,
beached: 1
}
Now your query becomes even simpler, whether you have two or ten activities.
When new activity comes in you always have to update the correct record based on it.
If you were thinking you could just append a record to your collection indicating user, date, activity then your inserts are much faster but your queries now have to do a LOT of work querying for both users, dates and activities.
With proposed schema, here is the insert/update statement:
db.coll.update({"user":"username", "date": "somedate"}, {"shopped":{$inc:1}}, true)
What that's saying is: "for username on somedate increment their shopped attribute by 1 and create it if it doesn't exist aka "upsert" (that's the last 'true' argument).
Here is the query for all users on a particular day who did activity1 more than once but didn't do any of activity2.
db.coll.find({"date":"somedate","shopped":0,"danced":{$gt:1}})
Be wary of picking a schema where a single document can have continuous and unbounded growth.
For example, storing everything in a users collection where the array of dates and activities keeps growing will run into this problem. See the highlighted section here for explanation of this - and keep in mind that large documents will keep getting into your working data set and if they are huge and have a lot of useless (old) data in them, that will hurt the performance of your application, as will fragmentation of data on disk.
Remember, you don't have to put all the data into a single collection. It may be best to have a users collection with a fixed set of attributes of that user where you track how many friends they have or other semi-stable information about them and also have a user_activity collection where you add records for each day per user what activities they did. The amount or normalizing or denormalizing of your data is very tightly coupled to the types of queries you will be running on it, which is why figure out what those are is the first suggestion I made.
Insertion now becomes costly, as now I will have to query before insert.
Keep in mind that even with RDBMS, insertion can be (relatively) costly when there are indices in place on the table (ie, usually). I don't think using embedded documents in Mongo is much different in this respect.
For the query, as Asya Kamsky suggest you can use the $nin operator to find everyone who didn't go to the beach. Eg:
db.people.find({
actions: { $nin: ["beach"] }
});
Using embedded documents probably isn't the best approach in this case though. I think the best would be to have a "flat" activities collection with documents like this:
{
user_id
date
action
}
Then you could run a query like this:
var start = new Date(2012, 6, 3);
var end = new Date(2012, 5, 27);
db.activities.find({
date: {$gte: start, $lt: end },
action: { $in: ["beach", "shopping" ] }
});
The last step would be on your client driver, to find user ids where records exist for "shopping", but not for "beach" activities.
One possible structure is to use an embedded array of documents (a users collection):
{
user_id: 1234,
actions: [
{ action_type: "beach", date: "6/1/2012" },
{ action_type: "shopping", date: "6/2/2012" }
]
},
{ another user }
Then you can do a query like this, using $elemMatch to find users matching certain criteria (in this case, people who went shopping in the last three days:
var start = new Date(2012, 6, 1);
db.people.find( {
actions : {
$elemMatch : {
action_type : { $in: ["shopping"] },
date : { $gt : start }
}
}
});
Expanding on this, you can use the $and operator to find all people went shopping, but did not go to the beach in the past three days:
var start = new Date(2012, 6, 1);
db.people.find( {
$and: [
actions : {
$elemMatch : {
action_type : { $in: ["shopping"] },
date : { $gt : start }
}
},
actions : {
$not: {
$elemMatch : {
action_type : { $in: ["beach"] },
date : { $gt : start }
}
}
}
]
});