I have a collection of documents that follow this schema {label: String, status: Number}.
I want to introduce a new field, deleted_at: Date that will hold information if a document has already been deleted. Seems like a perfect use case for an index, to be able to search for all undeleted tasks.
CreateIndex({
name: "activeTasks",
source: Collection("tasks"),
terms: [
{ field: ["data", "deleted_at"] }
]
})
And then filter by undefined / null value in shell:
Paginate(Match(Index("activeTasks"), null))
Paginate(Match(Index("activeTasks"), undefined))
It returns nothing, even for documents where I explicitly set deleted_at to null.
That's not my point, though. I want to get documents that do not have the deleted_at defined at all, so that I do not have to update the whole collection.
PS. When I add document where deleted: "test" and query for it, the shell does return the expected result.
What do I don't get?
The reason is because FaunaDB doesn't support reading empty/null value the way you think it does. You need to use a special Bindings to do that.
Make sure to check out https://docs.fauna.com/fauna/current/tutorials/indexes/bindings.html#empty for a more thorough explanation and examples.
My understanding of how bindings work would yield the following code. I haven't tested it though and I'm not sure it works.
You need a special binding index:
CreateIndex({
name: "activeTasks",
source: [{
collection: Collection("tasks"),
fields: {
null_deleted_at: Query(
Lambda(
"doc",
Equals(Select(["data", "deleted_at"], Var("doc"), null), null)
)
)
}
}],
terms: [ {binding: "null_deleted_at"} ],
})
Usage:
Map(
Paginate(Match(Index("activeTasks"), true)),
Lambda("X", Get(Var("X")))
)
Related
Is there a way to sort documents by an integer with indexes using faunaDB? I have multiple documents with data.likes, which is an integer. Is it possible to simply get the documents by most likes sorted first, and the least sorted last? Thanks in advance
Yes.
To do this, make sure that your index includes the likes field in the values definition. If you specify reverse: true for that field, you'll see the results sorted in descending order.
For example:
CreateIndex({
name: 'popular-pets',
source: Collection('pets'),
values: [
{ field: ["data", "likes"], reverse: true },
{ field: ["ref"] },
],
})
Then you can do this:
Map(
Paginate(Match(Index("popular-pets"))),
Lambda(["likes", "ref"], Get(Var("ref")))
)
I'm looking to simulate a state where I have a specific _id field inside an index.
Let's assume I want to take the EXACT same log from index1 in my example and index it into index2.
Like so:
This is my index1
{
_index: "index-number-one",
_type: "doc",
_id: "S0meSpec!f!cID",
_score: 1,
_source: {
message: "message1",
type: "type1",
tags: [
"_bla"],
number: 3
}
}
Now I want that exact same log in my index2
{
_index: "index-number-two",
_type: "doc",
_id: "S0meSpec!f!cID",
_score: 1,
_source: {
message: "message1",
type: "type1",
tags: [
"_bla"],
number: 3
}
}
Couldn't find an API in Elasticsearch that can insert a doc to an Index with a specific _id field... (?)
If this action isn't possible so that the Elasticsearch cluster won't have duplications in the _id field, I can imagine it's because they want to keep the ability to search a doc by it's _id
field which needs to be unique, in that case, assume that I don't mind deleting the entire doc from index1 (maybe save it aside as some variable in my code), but in the end, I need the doc in index2, to have the EXACT _id as index1 once had.
And if there's a way to edit an existing _id field it would also solve my problem.
Can anyone please shed any light on how to achieve that goal?
answer to myself,
I found that it can be done in a POST request on the index like so:
POST twitter/test-index-1234/abctype/Som3Cust0mID
{
"user" : "kimchy",
"post_date" : "2009-11-15T14:12:12",
"message" : "trying out Elasticsearch"
}
And the outcome in ES:
{
_index: "test-index-1234",
_type: "abctype",
_id: "Som3Cust0mID",
_score: 1,
_source: {
user: "kimchy",
post_date: "2009-11-15T14:12:12",
message: "trying out Elasticsearch"
}
}
It is definitely possible to do this. IDs are unique per index, not per cluster.
Check the reindex API, it copies one index onto another and keeps the document IDs.
It is also possible to change the ID using a script inside the reindex call.
FaunaDB's documentation covers how to update a document, but their example assumes that I'll have the id to pass into Ref:
Ref(schema_ref, id)
client.query(
q.Update(
q.Ref(q.Collection('posts'), '192903209792046592'),
{ data: { text: "Example" },
)
)
However, I'm wondering if it's possible to update a document without knowing its id. For instance, if I have a collection of users, can I find a user by their email, and then update their record? I've tried this, but Fauna returns a 400 (Database Ref expected, String provided):
client
.query(
q.Update(
q.Match(
q.Index("users_by_email", "me#example.com")
),
{ name: "Em" }
)
)
Although Bens comments are correct, (that's the way you do it), I wanted to note that the error you are receiving is because you are missing a bracket here: "users_by_email"), "me#example.com"
The error is logical if you know that Index takes an optional database reference as second argument.
To clarify what Ben said:
If you do this you'll get another error:
Update(
Match(
Index("accounts_by_email"), "test#test.com"
),
{ data: { email: "test2#test.com"} }
)
Since Match could potentially return more then one element. It returns a set of references called a SetRef. Think of setrefs as lists that are not materialized yet. If you are certain there is only one match for that e-mail (e.g. if you set a uniqueness constraint) you can materialize it using Paginate or Get:
Get:
Update(
Select(['ref'], Get(Match(
Index("accounts_by_email"), "test#test.com"
))),
{ data: { email: 'test2#test.com'} }
)
The Get returns the complete document, we need to specify that we require the ref with Select(['ref']..
Paginate:
Update(
Select(['data', 0],
Paginate(Match(
Index("accounts_by_email"), "test#test.com"
))
),
{ data: { email: "testchanged#test.com"} }
)
You are very close! Update does require a ref. You can get one via your index though. Assuming your index has a default values setting (i.e. paging a match returns a page of refs) and you are confident that the there is a single match or the first match is the one you want then you can do Select(["ref"], Get(Match(Index("users_by_email"), "me#example.com"))) to transform your set ref to a document ref. This can then be passed into update (or to any other function that wants a document ref, like Delete).
I'm trying to use the pet-owner example to create some sort of playlist app where a playlist can be shared among different users.
I have read both links to understand how many-to-many relationship is created in Backand:
Link 1 -
Link 2
According to pet's example, to get all owners from one pet I should get the pet object (using its id field) and then filter its user_pets list matching the user id. That may work for small amount of users/pets but I'd rather prefer to query user_pets table directly by filtering by user_id and pet_id.
My approach has been this code without success:
$http({
method: 'GET',
url: getUrl(), // this maps to pets_owner "table"
params: {
deep: true,
exclude: 'metadata',
filter: [
{ fieldName: 'pet', operator: 'equals', value: pet_id },
{ fieldName: 'owner', operator: 'equals', value: user_id }
]
}
})
Any idea how to query/filter to get only related results?
Thanks in advance
Because user_id and pet_d are both object fields the operator should be "in"
From Backand docs :
following are the possible operators depending on the field type:
numeric or date fields:
-- equals
....
object fields:
-- in
Arangodb 2.8b3
Have document with some property "specification", can have 1-100 keys inside, like
document {
...
specification: {
key1: "value",
...
key10: "value"
}
}
Task fast query by specification.key
For Doc IN MyCollection FILTER Doc.specification['key1'] == "value" RETURN Doc
Tried create hash indexes with field: "specification", "specification.*", specification[*], specification[*].*
Index never used, any solution without reorganizing structure or plans for future exists?
No, we currently don't have any smart idea how to handle indices for structures like that. The memory usage would also increase since the attribute names would also have to be present in the index for each indexed value.
What we will release with 2.8 is the ability to use indices on array structures:
db.posts.ensureIndex({ type: "hash", fields: [ "tags[*]" ] });
with documents like:
{ tags: [ "foobar", "bar", "anotherTag" ] }
Using AQL queries like this:
FOR doc IN posts
FILTER 'foobar' IN doc.tags[*]
RETURN doc
You could also index documents under arrays:
db.posts.ensureIndex({ type: "hash", fields: [ "tags[*].value" ] });
db.posts.insert({
tags: [ { key: "key1", value: "foobar"},
{ key: "key2", value: "baz" },
{ key: "key3", value: "quux" }
] });
The following query will then use the array index:
FOR doc IN posts
FILTER 'foobar' IN doc.tags[*].value
RETURN doc
However, the asterisk can only be used for array accesses - it can't substitute key matches in objects.