I'm building a database with several collections. I have unique strings that I plan on using for all the documents in the main collection. Documents in other collections will reference documents in the main collection, which means I'll have to save said id's in the other collections. However, if _id's only need to be unique across a collection and not across an entire database, then I would just make the _id's in the other collections also use the aforementioned unique strings.
Also, I assume that in order to set my own _id's, all I have to do is have an "_id":"unique_string" property as part of the document that I insert, correct? I wouldn't need to convert the "unique_string" into another format, right?
Also, hypothetically speaking, would I be able to have a variable save the string "_id" and use that instead? Just to be clear, something as follows: var id = "_id" and then later on in the code (during an insert or a query for example) have id:"unique_string".
Best, and thanks,Sami
_ids have to be unique in a collection. You can quickly verify this by inserting two documents with the same _id in two different collections.
Your other assumptions are correct, just try them and see whether they work (they will). The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Note: use _id directly, var id = "_id" just compilcates the code.
Related
I have data across three collections and need to produce a data set which aggregates data from these collections, and filters by a date range.
The collections are:
db.games
{
_id : ObjectId,
startTime : MongoDateTime
}
db.entries
{
player_id : ObjectId, // refers to db.players['_id']
game_id : ObjectId // refers to db.games['_id']
}
db.players
{
_id : ObjectId,
screen_name,
email
}
I want to return a collection which is number of entries by player for games within a specified range. Where the output should look like:
output
{
player_id,
screen_name,
email,
sum_entries
}
I think I need to start by creating a collection of games within the date range, combined with all the entries and then aggregate over count of entries, and finally output collection with the player data, it's seems a lot of steps and I'm not sure how to go about this.
The reason why you have these problems is because you try to use MongoDB like a relational database, not like a document-oriented database. Normalizing your data over many collections is often counter-productive, because MongoDB can not perform any JOIN-operations. MongoDB works much better when you have nested documents which embed other objects in arrays instead of referencing them. A better way to organize that data in MongoDB would be to either have each game have an array of players which took part in it or to have an array in each player with the games they took part in. It's also not necessarily a mistake to have some redundant additional data in these arrays, like the names and not just the ID's.
But now you have the problem, so let's see how we can deal with it.
As I said, MongoDB doesn't do JOINs. There is no way to access data from more than one collection at a time.
One thing you can do is solving the problem programmatically. Create a program which fetches all players, then all entries for each player, and then the games referenced by the entries where startTimematches.
Another thing you could try is MapReduce. MapReduce can be used to append results to another collection. You could try to use one MapReduce job for each of the relevant collections into one and then query the resulting collection.
What's the easiest way to get all the documents from a collection that are unique based on a single field.
I know I can use db.collections.distrinct to get an array of all the distinct values of a field, but I want to get the first (or really any one) document for every distinct value of one field.
e.g. if the database contained:
{number:1, data:'Test 1'}
{number:1, data:'This is something else'}
{number:2, data:'I'm bad at examples'}
{number:3, data:'I guess there\'s room for one more'}
it would return (based on number being unique:
{number:1, data:'Test 1'}
{number:2, data:'I'm bad at examples'}
{number:3, data:'I guess there\'s room for one more'}
Edit: I should add that the server is running Mongo 2.0.8 so no aggregation and there's more results than group will support.
Update to 2.4 and use aggregation :)
When you really need to stick to the old version of MongoDB due to too much red tape involved, you could use MapReduce.
In MapReduce, the map function transforms each document of the collection into a new document and a distinctive key. The reduce function is used to merge documents with the same distincitve key into one.
Your map function would emit your documents as-is and with the number-field as unique key. It would look like this:
var mapFunction = function(document) {
emit(document.number, document);
}
Your reduce-function receives arrays of documents with the same key, and is supposed to somehow turn them into one document. In this case it would just discard all but the first document with the same key:
var reduceFunction = function(key, documents) {
return documents[0];
}
Unfortunately, MapReduce has some problems. It can't use indexes, so at least two javascript functions are executed for every single document in the collections (it can be limited by pre-excluding some documents with the query-argument to the mapReduce command). When you have a large collection, this can take a while. You also can't fully control how the docments created by MapReduce are formed. They always have two fields, _id with the key and value with the document you returned for the key.
MapReduce is also hard to debug an troubleshoot.
tl;dr: Update to 2.4
I am trying to fetch the documents from a collection based on the existence of a reference to these documents in another collection.
Let's say I have two collections Users and Courses and the models look like this:
User: {_id, name}
Course: {_id, name, user_id}
Note: this just a hypothetical example and not actual use case. So let's assume that duplicates are fine in the name field of Course. Let's thin Course as CourseRegistrations.
Here, I am maintaining a reference to User in the Course with the user_id holding the _Id of User. And note that its stored as a string.
Now I want to retrieve all users who are registered to a particular set of courses.
I know that it can be done with two queries. That is first run a query and get the users_id field from the Course collection for the set of courses. Then query the User collection by using $in and the user ids retrieved in the previous query. But this may not be good if the number of documents are in tens of thousands or more.
Is there a better way to do this in just one query?
What you are saying is a typical sql join. But thats not possible in mongodb. As you suggested already you can do that in 2 different queries.
There is one more way to handle it. Its not exactly a solution, but the valid workaround in NonSql databases. That is to store most frequently accessed fields inside the same collection.
You can store the some of the user collection fields, inside the course collection as embedded field.
Course : {
_id : 'xx',
name: 'yy'
user:{
fname : 'r',
lname :'v',
pic: 's'
}
}
This is a good approach if the subset of fields you intend to retrieve from user collection is less. You might be wondering the redundant user data stored in course collection, but that's exactly what makes mongodb powerful. Its a one time insert but your queries will be lot faster.
I wish to add an _id as property for objects in a mongo array.
Is this good practice ?
Are there any problems with indexing ?
I wish to add an _id as property for objects in a mongo array.
I assume:
{
g: [
{ _id: ObjectId(), property: '' },
// next
]
}
Type of structure for this question.
Is this good practice ?
Not normally. _ids are unique identifiers for entities. As such if you are looking to add _id within a sub-document object then you might not have normalised your data very well and it could be a sign of a fundamental flaw within your schema design.
Sub-documents are designed to contain repeating data for that document, i.e. the addresses or a user or something.
That being said _id is not always a bad thing to add. Take the example I just stated with addresses. Imagine you were to have a shopping cart system and (for some reason) you didn't replicate the address to the order document then you would use an _id or some other identifier to get that sub-document out.
Also you have to take into consideration linking documents. If that _id describes another document and the properties are custom attributes for that document in relation to that linked document then that's okay too.
Are there any problems with indexing ?
An ObjectId is still quite sizeable so that is something to take into consideration over a smaller, less unique id or not using an _id at all for sub-documents.
For indexes it doesn't really work any different to the standard _id field on the document itself and a unique index across the field should work across the collection (scenario dependant, test your queries).
NB: MongoDB will not add an _id to sub-documents for you.
My question may be not very good formulated because I haven't worked with MongoDB yet, so I'd want to know one thing.
I have an object (record/document/anything else) in my database - in global scope.
And have a really huge array of other objects in this object.
So, what about speed of search in global scope vs search "inside" object? Is it possible to index all "inner" records?
Thanks beforehand.
So, like this
users: {
..
user_maria:
{
age: "18",
best_comments :
{
goodnight:"23rr",
sleeptired:"dsf3"
..
}
}
user_ben:
{
age: "18",
best_comments :
{
one:"23rr",
two:"dsf3"
..
}
}
So, how can I make it fast to find user_maria->best_comments->goodnight (index context of collections "best_comment") ?
First of all, your example schema is very questionable. If you want to embed comments (which is a big if), you'd want to store them in an array for appropriate indexing. Also, post your schema in JSON format so we don't have to parse the whole name/value thing :
db.users {
name:"maria",
age: 18,
best_comments: [
{
title: "goodnight",
comment: "23rr"
},
{
title: "sleeptired",
comment: "dsf3"
}
]
}
With that schema in mind you can put an index on name and best_comments.title for example like so :
db.users.ensureIndex({name:1, 'best_comments.title:1})
Then, when you want the query you mentioned, simply do
db.users.find({name:"maria", 'best_comments.title':"first"})
And the database will hit the index and will return this document very fast.
Now, all that said. Your schema is very questionable. You mention you want to query specific comments but that requires either comments being in a seperate collection or you filtering the comments array app-side. Additionally having huge, ever growing embedded arrays in documents can become a problem. Documents have a 16mb limit and if document increase in size all the time mongo will have to continuously move them on disk.
My advice :
Put comments in a seperate collection
Either do document per comment or make comment bucket documents (say,
100 comments per document)
Read up on Mongo/NoSQL schema design. You always query for root documents so if you end up needing a small part of a large embedded structure you need to reexamine your schema or you'll be pumping huge documents over the connection and require app-side filtering.
I'm not sure I understand your question but it sounds like you have one record with many attributes.
record = {'attr1':1, 'attr2':2, etc.}
You can create an index on any single attribute or any combination of attributes. Also, you can create any number of indices on a single collection (MongoDB collection == MySQL table), whether or not each record in the collection has the attributes being indexed on.
edit: I don't know what you mean by 'global scope' within MongoDB. To insert any data, you must define a database and collection to insert that data into.
Database 'Example':
Collection 'table1':
records: {a:1,b:1,c:1}
{a:1,b:2,d:1}
{a:1,c:1,d:1}
indices:
ensureIndex({a:ascending, d:ascending}) <- this will index on a, then by d; the fact that record 1 doesn't have an attribute 'd' doesn't matter, and this will increase query performance
edit 2:
Well first of all, in your table here, you are assigning multiple values to the attribute "name" and "value". MongoDB will ignore/overwrite the original instantiations of them, so only the final ones will be included in the collection.
I think you need to reconsider your schema here. You're trying to use it as a series of key value pairs, and it is not specifically suited for this (if you really want key value pairs, check out Redis).
Check out: http://www.jonathanhui.com/mongodb-query