I'm wondering the best way to query mongo db for many objects, where each one has an array of _id's that are attached to it. I want to grab the referenced objects as well. The objects' schemas looks like this:
var headlineSchema = new Schema({
title : String,
source : String,
edits : Array // list of edits, stored as an array of _id's
...
});
...and the one that's referenced, if needed:
var messageSchema = new Schema({
message : String,
user : String,
headlineID : ObjectId // also contains a ref. back to headline it's incl. in
...
});
One part of the problem (well, depending if I want to keep going this route) is that pushing the message id's is not working (edits remains an empty array [] afterwards) :
db.headline.update({_id : headlineid}, {$push: {edits : messageid} }, true);
When I do my query, I need to grab about 30 'headlines' at a time, and each one could contain references to up to 20 or 30 'messages'. My question is, what is the best way to fetch all of these things? I know mongo isn't a relational db, so what I'm intending is to first grab the headlines that I need, and then loop through all 30 of them to grab any attached messages.
db.headline.find({'date': {$gte: start, $lt: end} }, function (err, docs) {
if(err) { console.log(err.message); }
if(docs) {
docs.forEach(function(doc){
doc.edits.forEach(function(ed){
db.messages.find({_id:ed}, function (err, msg) {
// save stuff
});
});
});
}
});
This just seems wrong, but I'm unsure how else to proceed. Should I even bother with keeping an array of attached messages? I'm not married to the way I've set up my schema, either. If there is a better way to track relationships between them, or a better query to achieve this, please let me know.
Thanks
Does each message belong to only one headline? If so, you can store the headline id as part of each message. Then for each headline, do:
db.messages.find({headline_id: current-headline-id-here})
You could try using the $in operator for selecting a list of ObjectIds
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Advanced+Queries#AdvancedQueries-%24in
Related
Hey guys not giving an example since the question is pretty straightforward.
I have a mongodb schema in which I have a field called Teamnames which is an array so
Teamnames: [String]
I am using body parser middleware to accept data from a form on my client side. There are about 10 different text boxes each having name as teamname1, teamname2, etc etc .
Whats the right syntax to update the mongodb field? I am doing findOneAndUpdate to retrieve the record from my collection after submitting the update and I wanted to update the Teamname array with the values. But I am kind of confused with the syntax and whats the right way to approach this. Can someone please help?
Try this:
const value = await YourModel.findByIdAndUpdate(id, {
$set: { teamnames: yourFormData }
},
{
new: true,
upsert: true,
});
Although I think it is a general question, I could not find a solution that matches my needs.
I have 2 Mongo collections. The 'users' collection and the second one 'dbInfos'.
Now, I have a template called 'Infos' and want the already existing fields in the Mongo collections to be presented to the user in input fields in case there is data in the collection. When no data is provided in the database yet, it should be empty.
So here is my code, which works fine until I want to capture the fields from the second collection.
Template.Infos.onRendered(function() {
$('#txtName').val(Meteor.user().profile.name);
$('#txtEmail').val(Meteor.user().emails[0].address);
});
These 2 work great.
But I don´t know how to query the infos from the collection 'dbInfos', which is not the 'users' collection. Obviously Meteor.user().country does not work, because it is not in the 'users' collection. Maybe a find({}) query? However, I don´t know how to write it.
$('#txtCountry').val( ***query function***);
Regarding the structure of 'dbInfos': Every object has an _id which is equal to the userId plus more fields like country, city etc...
{
"_id": "12345",
"country": "countryX",
"city": "cityY"
}
Additionally, how can I guarantee that nothing is presented, when the field in the collection is empty? Or is this automatic, because it will just return an empty field?
Edit
I now tried this:
dbInfos.find({},{'country': 1, '_id': 0})
I think this is the correct syntax to retrieve the country field and suppress the output of the _id field. But I only get [object Object] as a return.
you're missing the idea of a foreign key. each item in a collection needs a unique key, assigned by mongo (usually). so the key of your country info being the same as the userId is not correct, but you're close. instead, you can reference the userId like this:
{
"_id": "abc123",
"userId": "12345",
"country": "countryX",
"city": "cityY"
}
here, "abc123" is unique to that collection and assigned by mongo, and "12345" is the _id of some record in Meteor.users.
so you can find it like this (this would be on the client, and you would have already subscribed to DBInfos collection):
let userId = Meteor.userId();
let matchingInfos = DBInfos.find({userId: userId});
the first userId is the name of the field in the collection, the second is the local variable that came from the logged in user.
update:
ok, i think i see where you're getting tripped it. there's a difference between find() and findOne().
find() returns a cursor, and that might be where you're getting your [object object]. findOne() returns an actual object.
for both, the first argument is a filter, and the second argument is an options field. e.g.
let cursor = DBInfos.find({
userId: Meteor.userId()
},
{
fields: {
country: 1
}
});
this is going to:
find all records that belong to the logged in user
make only the country and _id fields available
make that data available in the form of a cursor
the cursor allows you to iterate over the results, but it is not a JSON object of your results. a cursor is handy if you want to use "{{#each}}" in the HTML, for example.
if you simply change the find() to a findOne():
let result = DBInfos.findOne({ /** and the rest **/
... now you actually have a JSON result object.
you can also do a combination of find/fetch, which works like a findOne():
let result = DBInfos.find({
userId: Meteor.userId()
},
{
fields: {
country: 1
}
}).fetch();
with that result, you can now get country:
let country = result.country;
btw, you don't need to use the options to get country. i've been assuming all this code is on the client (might be a bad assumption). so this will work to get the country as well:
let result = DBInfos.findOne({userId: Meteor.userId()});
let country = result.country;
what's going on here? it's just like above, but the result JSON might have more fields in it than just country and _id. (it depends on what was published).
i'll typically use the options field when doing a find() on the server, to limit what's being published to the client. on the client, if you just need to grab the country field, you don't really need to specify the options in that way.
in that options, you can also do things like sort the results. that can be handy on the client when you're going to iterate on a cursor and you want the results displayed in a certain order.
does all that make sense? is that what was tripping you up?
Consider mongodb or couchbase. What if I need a certain value to be unique (maybe incremental) within the range of UINT32?
Well, I guess I could add a field like another_id and use something like this to increment it (mongo).
function getNextSequence(name) {
var ret = db.counters.findAndModify(
{
query: { _id: name },
update: { $inc: { seq: 1 } },
new: true
}
);
return ret.seq;
}
db.users.insert(
{
another_id : getNextSequence("userid"),
name : "Stack O. Flow"
}
)
But really the question is,
Is this approach safe?
Should I even use NoSQL for this? (consider I only have around 50M rows of data but I really need fast read and writes because this 50M rows of data gets updated almost a few times in second.)
If I should stick with SQL which one should I use. I've used MySQL and it was too slow. (though non-optimization might be at fault) (joining quite a few tables)
Thank you for any suggestions.
There is a specific counter object in Couchbase that should do what you want. Here is an example of it with Node.js.
You could relate it to the main object you are using by doing an objectID such as:
original_objectID::counter.
Then when you go to get the original object, you just do another get for the counter object by ID and done. You can iterate it easily as well. So if you needed to get the object and the original objectID was
user::kirk
then that user's counter object would be:
user::kirk::counter
And you can get and set it by that ID. It works very well in Couchbase.
I want to make a publication with several additional fields, but I don't want to either use Collection.aggregate and lose my publication updates when the collection change (so I can't just use self.added in it either).
I plan to use Cursor.observeChanges in order to achieve that. I have two major constraints:
I don't want to publish all the documents fields
I want to use some of the unpublished fields to create new ones. For example, I have a field item where I store an array of item _id. I don't want to publish it, but I want to publish a item_count field with the length of my field array
Here comes the approach:
I plan to chain find queries. I never did that so I wonder if it possible. The general (simplified) query structure would be like this: http://jsfiddle.net/Billybobbonnet/1cgrqouj/ (I cant get the code properly displayed here)
Based on the count example in Meteor documentation, I store my query in a variable handle in order to stop the changes notification if a client unsubscribes:
self.onStop(function () {
handle.stop();
});
I add a flag initializing = true; before my query and I set it to true just before calling self.ready();. I use this flag to change my itemCount variable only if it is the publication is initialized. So basically, I change my switch like that:
switch (field) {
case "item"
if (!initializing)
itemCount = raw_document.item.length;
break;
default:
}
I wanted to check that this approach is good and possible before committing into big changes in my code. Can someone confirm me if this is the right way to go?
It's relatively easy to keep fields private even if they are part of the database query. The last argument to self.added is the object being passed to the client, so you can strip/modify/delete fields you are sending to the client.
Here's a modified version of your fiddle. This should do what you are asking for. (To be honest I'm not sure why you had anything chained after the observeChanges function in your fiddle, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but looking at the rest of your question this should be it. Sorry if I got it wrong.)
var self = this;
// Modify the document we are sending to the client.
function filter(doc) {
var length = doc.item.length;
// White list the fields you want to publish.
var docToPublish = _.pick(doc, [
'someOtherField'
]);
// Add your custom fields.
docToPublish.itemLength = length;
return docToPublish;
}
var handle = myCollection.find({}, {fields: {item:1, someOtherField:1}})
// Use observe since it gives us the the old and new document when something is changing.
// If this becomes a performance issue then consider using observeChanges,
// but its usually a lot simpler to use observe in cases like this.
.observe({
added: function(doc) {
self.added("myCollection", doc._id, filter(doc));
},
changed: function(newDocument, oldDocument)
// When the item count is changing, send update to client.
if (newDocument.item.length !== oldDocument.item.length)
self.changed("myCollection", newDocument._id, filter(newDocument));
},
removed: function(doc) {
self.removed("myCollection", doc._id);
});
self.ready();
self.onStop(function () {
handle.stop();
});
To solve your first problem, you need to tell MongoDB what fields it should return in the cursor. Leave out the fields you don't want:
MyCollection.find({}, {fields: {'a_field':1}});
Solving your second problem is also pretty easy, I would suggest using the collection helpers packages. You could accomplish this easily, like so:
// Add calculated fields to MyCollection.
MyCollection.helpers({
item_count: function() {
return this.items.length;
}
});
This will be run before an object is added to a cursor, and will create properties on the returned objects that are calculated dynamically, not stored in MongoDB.
For this app, I'm using Node.js, MongoDB, Mongoose & Express
So I have a Param Object that contains an array of Pivots, and I want to read certain data from the pivots as outlined below
---in models.js-------------------------
var Pivot = new Schema({
value : String
, destination : String
, counter : Number
});
var Param = new Schema({
title : String
, desc : String
, pivots : [Pivot]
});
------------- in main.js --------------
var Param = db.model('Param');
app.get('/:title/:value', function(req, res){
Param.findOne({"title":req.param('title')}, function(err, record){
console.log(record.pivots);
record.pivots.find({"value":req.param('value')}, function(err, m_pivot){
pivot.counter++;
res.redirect(m_pivot.destination);
});
record.save();
});
});
I know that the code works until console.log(record.pivots), since i got a doc collection with the right pivot documents inside.
However, there does not seem to be a find method to let me match an embedded document by the 'value' property defined in the schema. Is it possible to search through this array of embedded documents using .find() or .findOne() , and if not, is there some easy way to access it through mongoose?
varunsrin,
This should do it
app.get('/:title/:value', function(req, res) {
Param.findOne({'pivots.value': req.param('value'), "title":req.param('title')}},
function(err, record) {
record.pivot.counter++;
res.redirect(m_pivot.destination);
record.save();
});
});
Note the pluralization of the query to match the field name in your schema
You can querying using embedded document properties like this:
{'pivot.value': req.param('value')}}
Update in response to comment:
app.get('/:title/:value', function(req, res) {
Param.findOne({'pivot.value': req.param('value'), "title":req.param('title')}},
function(err, record) {
record.pivot.counter++;
res.redirect(m_pivot.destination);
record.save();
});
});
I solved it temporarily using a simple for loop to parse the object array as follows:
for (var i=0; i <record.pivots.length; i++){
if (record.pivots[i].value == req.param('value')){
res.redirect(record.pivots.destination);
}
}
However, I still think that Mongoose must have a simpler way of interacting with embedded documents - and this loop is somewhat slow, especially when the number of embedded documents grows large.
If anyone has any suggestions for a faster way to search this object array either in js or with a mongoose function, please post below.
the biggest problem with this is that if your req has some fields empty (that should act as wildcard), you will not find anything since mongo tries to match empty params as well, so searching for {"user":"bob", "color":""} is not the same as {"user":"bob", "color":"red"} or {"user":"bob"}. this means that you have to first create a query object and filter out any unused parameters before you pass it in, and if you create a query object, you can no longer do something like "user.name=..." because mongo interperets this as an error since it does not first resolve the object literal into a string.
Any ideas on this problem?
ps. You'd think it would be easy enough to make an object like:
user.name="bob"; user.color:"green"; user.signup.time="12342561"
and then just use user as a query object :/
I think you are looking for the "$in" keyword?
As in:
{a: {$in: [10, "hello"]}}
source: MongoDB Queries CheatSheet