I use sunspot_rails gem in full text searching in Ruby on Rails,
I added boolean field ('show_facet') to my model Product,
and to solr index
Then I want to do next:
if 'show_facet' == true then show Product in search list and facets list
if 'show_facet' == false then show Product only in search list
I read all docs, forums and api but I can't find answer to this question
Could I do this with sunspot?
Model Code
searchable do
string :keywords, multiple: true
string :status
boolean :show
boolean :show_facet
time :updated_at
text :keyword_long, stored: true
text :jtitle, stored: true
integer :id
integer :company_id
end
Controller
def show
#product_search = OpenStruct.new(params[:product_search])
#search = search_plain
end
private
def search_plain
basic_search do |search|
search.fulltext(#product_search.fulltext) do
fields *(%w[jtitle keyword_long])
highlight :keyword_long
highlight :jtitle
end
end
end
def basic_search
Product.solr_search do |search|
yield search
search.with(:show, true)
search.order_by(:random)
search.paginate page: params[:page], per_page: 10
search.with(:keywords).all_of(#product_search.keywords)
search.facet :keywords
end
end
I need include in facet(:keywords) only facets from product with show_facet = true, but show all products in search (with show_facet true or false)
Related
I am listing users in a CustomScrollView/SliversList,ListTiles. I have a String field in my firestore and only want to return ListTile of a user, where his String field contains specific words (more than 2). For example, the users fields contain: "Apples, Ice, Bananas, Soup, Peaches, e.g...." and i want to list all users which have apples and bananas inside the field. how can i achieve this?
The only way to do it at the moment (with the way you have it set up) is actually pulling the value and doing a string "contains" or splitting the string into an array and check whether the value is within that array, otherwise I'd advise to refactor that field and make it into an array, that way you can perform a native arrayContainsAny against your field.
For you it will look like this (with your current implementation):
// ... after pulling all users' documents
// let's say your field is called 'foodField':
var criteria = 'Banana';
var fieldContent = doc.data()['foodField'];
// you can either do this:
if (fieldContent.toLowerCase().contains(criteria.toLowerCase())) {
// ...
}
// or you can tokenize it depending on your purposes...
var foodTokens = fieldContent.split(',').map((f) => f.toLowerCase());
if (foodTokens.contains(criteria.toLowerCase()) {
// ...
}
If your Firestore field was an array type, then you could've just done that, while querying:
FirebaseFirestore.instance.collection('users').where('foodField', arrayContainsAny: ['Banana', 'Apples'])
Which then would give you only the users whose foodField contain that value.
As you can see from previous questions on querying where text contains a substring, Firestore does not currently support such text searches. The typical solutions are to either perform part of your filtering in your application code as Roman answered, or to integrate a third-party full-text search solution.
In your specific case though, your string seems to be a list of words, so I'd recommend considering to change your data model to an array of the individual values in there:
"foodFields": ["Apples", "Ice", "Banana", "Soup", "Peaches"]
You can then use array field operators in the query.
While there is no array-contains-all operator, using array-contains you can at least filter on one value in the database, and with array-contains-any you can do on OR like condition.
Another data model would be to store the individual values in a map field with value true for each of them:
"foodFields": {
"Apples": true,
"Ice": true,
"Banana": true,
"Soup": true,
"Peaches": true
}
With such a structure you can perform an AND like query with:
collectionRef
.where('foodFields.Apples', isEqualTo: true)
.where('foodFields.Bananas', isEqualTo: true)
Is it possible to get ElasticSearch document fields inside of loaded AR records?
Here is a gist that illustrates what I mean: https://gist.github.com/allomov/39c30905e94c646fb11637b45f43445d
In this case I want to avoid additional computation of total_price after getting response from ES. The solution that I currently see is to include the relationship and run total_price computation for each record, which is not so optimal way to perform this operation, as I see it.
result = Product.search("test", includes: :product_components).response
products_with_total_prices = result.map do |product|
{
product: product
total_price: product.product_components.map(&:price).compact.sum
}
end
Could you please tell if it is possible to mix ES document fields into AR loaded record?
As far as I'm aware it isn't possible to get a response that merges the document fields into the loaded record.
Usually I prefer to completely rely on the data in the indexed document where possible (using load: false as a search option), and only load the AR record(s) as a second step if necessary. For example:
result = Product.search("test", load: false).response
# If you also need AR records, could do something like:
product_ids = result.map(&:id)
products_by_id = {}
Product.where(id: product_ids).find_each do |ar_product|
products_by_id[ar_product.id] = ar_product
end
merged_result = result.map do |es_product|
es_product[:ar_product] = products_by_id[es_product.id]}
end
Additionally, it may be helpful to retrieve the document stored in the ES index for a specific record, which I would normally do by defining the following method in your Product class:
def es_document
return nil unless doc = Product.search_index.retrieve(self).presence
Hashie::Mash.new doc
end
You can use select: true and the with_hit method to get the record and the search document together. For your example:
result = Product.search("test", select: true)
products_with_total_prices =
result.with_hit.map do |product, hit|
{
product: product,
total_price: hit["_source"]["total_price"]
}
end
How to update only one key in map, I would like to perform it by jsonb_set like here: stackoverflow example or in transaction to avoid potential conflicts in database, is it possible with Ecto?
defmodule MySuperApp.Profile do
use MySuperApp.Model
schema "profiles" do
field :name, :string
embeds_one :settigns, MySuperApp.Settigns
end
def changeset(struct, params) do
struct
|> change
|> put_embed(:settigns, MySuerApp.Settigns.changeset(model, params))
end
end
defmodule MySuperApp.Settigns do
use MySuperApp.Model
#settigns %{socket: true, page: true, android: false, ios: false}
embedded_schema do
field :follow, :boolean
field :action, :map, default: #settigns
end
def changeset(struct, _params) do
# I would like to update only web key and leave old keys
model |> change(action: %{web: false}) # this will override old map -> changes: %{action: %{web: false}
end
end
No. Ecto currently does not support partial updates of the embeds with the high-level API (like changesets).
You could achieve this by using raw SQL queries through Ecto.Adapters.SQL.query/4 or in more recent versions Repo.query/3.
I have a document with an embedded list of sub-docs. How do I update/change one particular document in the embedded list with Ecto?
defmodule MyApp.Thing do
use MyApp.Model
schema "things" do
embeds_many :users, User
end
end
defmodule MyApp.User do
use MyApp.Model
embedded_schema do
field :name, :string
field :email, :string
field :admin, :boolean, default: false
end
end
defmodule MyApp.Model do
defmacro __using__(_) do
quote do
use MyApp.Web, :model
#primary_key {:id, :binary_id, autogenerate: true}
#foreign_key_type :binary_id # For associations
end
end
end
My solution so far is to generate a list of all users except the one I want to update and make a new list of the one user's changeset and the other users and then put_embed this list on the thing. It works but it feels like there must be a more elegant solution to this.
user = Enum.find(thing.users, fn user -> user.id == user_id end)
other_users = Enum.filter(thing.users, fn user -> user.id != user_id end)
user_cs = User.changeset(user, %{email: email})
users = [user_cs | other_users]
thing
|> Ecto.Changeset.change
|> Ecto.Changeset.put_embed(:users, users)
|> Repo.update
EDIT: I just discovered a serious pitfall with this "solution". The untouched users get updated as well which can be a problem with concurring calls (race condition). So there has to be another solution.
I have model:
# encoding: utf-8
class Tag
include Mongoid::Document
field :name, type: String
field :count, type: Integer
index :name, unique: true
validates_uniqueness_of :name
def self.create_tag(name)
tag = Tag.new
tag.name = name
tag.count = 0
tag.save
end
def self.find_by_name(name)
Tag.where(name: name).entries
end
end
And I have test for the model:
describe Tag, "# simple database operations" do
it " - insert test records" do
Tag.create_tag("joe")
Tag.create_tag("joe")
p Tag.find_by_name("joe")
end
end
If I look at collection after test execution I'll find only one record, but I want to catch exception in the case of duplicate record insertion.
Is it possible?
By default Mongoid writes in "fire and forget" mode. It sends a write and returns immediately. To check for error, you should write in "safe mode". Try this.
def self.create_tag(name)
tag = Tag.new
tag.name = name
tag.count = 0
tag.safely.save! # <= note the 'safely' here. Also bang version of save is used.
end
Or, better yet,
def self.create_tag(name)
Tag.safely.create!(name: name, count: 0)
end
See the doc here.