I am looking for a query (lucene, fts-alfresco or ...) to return all the document which have a specific child association (that is not null).
Some context:
Documents of type abc:document have a child-association abc:linkedDocument.
Not all document have an other document linked to them, some have none some have one or multiple.
I need a fast and easy way to get an overview of all the documents that do have at least one document linked to them.
Currently I have a webscript that does what I need, but prefer not to have tons of webscripts which are not business related.
code:
SearchParameters sp = new SearchParameters();
String query = "TYPE:\"abc:document\"";
StoreRef store = StoreRef.STORE_REF_WORKSPACE_SPACESSTORE;
sp.addStore(store);
sp.setLanguage(SearchService.LANGUAGE_FTS_ALFRESCO);
sp.setQuery(query);
ResultSet rs = services.getSearchService().query(sp);
List<NodeRef> nodeRefs = rs.getNodeRefs();
for (NodeRef ref : nodeRefs) {
List<ChildAssociationRef> refs = services.getNodeService().getChildAssocs(ref);
for(ChildAssociationRef chref : refs){
if(chref.getQName().equals(AbcModel.ASSOC_LINKED_DOC)){
logger.debug("Document with linked doc: {}", ref);
break;
}
}
}
Associations aren't query-able so you'll have to do what you are doing, which is essentially checking every node in a result set for the presence of a desired association.
The only improvement I can suggest is that you can ask for the child associations of a specific type which would prevent you from having to check the type of every child association, see How to get all Child associations with a specific Association Type Alfresco (Java)
Related
In spring data neo4j I have simple one-to-many relationship: (:User)-[:EMPLOYEE_OF]->(:Company). User can be employee of only one company. Here are my entities:
class User(#Relationship(type = "EMPLOYEE_OF") var company: Company? = null, /* ids etc */)
class Company(/* ids etc */)
When I want to change target of that relationship or remove it neo4j keeps adding new relationships instead of replacing it.
val user = userRepository.findByName("user1")
val company = companyRepository.findByName("company1")
user.company = company
userRepository.save(user)
// 2nd case
user.company = null
userRepository.save(user)
In both cases, relationships are only added, never removed.
Is there a proper way to do it?
You have to put the load / find and the save in a transaction. The best way in a Spring project to do this is to extract the logic into a service layer method of your application and mark it as #Transactional.
Within this transaction, Spring Data Neo4j / Neo4j-OGM can track the changes that happen on the node and change or remove the relationships.
I have a document in RavenDB that looks looks like:
{
"ItemId": 1,
"Title": "Villa
}
With the following metadata:
Raven-Clr-Type: MyNamespace.Item, MyNamespace
Raven-Entity-Name: Doelkaarten
So I serialized with a type MyNamespace.Item, but gave it my own Raven-Entity-Name, so it get its own collection.
In my code I define an index:
public class DoelkaartenIndex : AbstractIndexCreationTask<Item>
{
public DoelkaartenIndex()
{
// MetadataFor(doc)["Raven-Entity-Name"].ToString() == "Doelkaarten"
Map = items => from item in items
where MetadataFor(item)["Raven-Entity-Name"].ToString() == "Doelkaarten"
select new {Id = item.ItemId, Name = item.Title};
}
}
In the Index it is translated in the "Maps" field to:
docs.Items
.Where(item => item["#metadata"]["Raven-Entity-Name"].ToString() == "Doelkaarten")
.Select(item => new {Id = item.ItemId, Name = item.Title})
A query on the index never gives results.
If the Maps field is manually changed to the code below it works...
from doc in docs
where doc["#metadata"]["Raven-Entity-Name"] == "Doelkaarten"
select new { Id = doc.ItemId, Name=doc.Title };
How is it possible to define in code the index that gives the required result?
RavenDB used: RavenHQ, Build #961
UPDATE:
What I'm doing is the following: I want to use SharePoint as a CMS, and use RavenDB as a ready-only replication of the SharePoint list data. I created a tool to sync from SharePoint lists to RavenDB. I have a generic type Item that I create from a SharePoint list item and that I serialize into RavenDB. So all my docs are of type Item. But they come from different lists with different properties, so I want to be able to differentiate. You propose to differentiate on an additional property, this would perfectly work. But then I will see all list items from all lists in one big Items collection... What would you think to be the best approach to this problem? Or just live with it? I want to use the indexes to create projections from all data in an Item to the actual data that I need.
You can't easily change the name of a collection this way. The server-side will use the Raven-Entity-Name metadata, but the client side will determine the collection name via the conventions registered with the document store. The default convention being to use the type name of the entity.
You can provide your own custom convention by assigning a new function to DocumentStore.Conventions.FindTypeTagName - but it would probably be cumbersome to do that for every entity. You could create a custom attribute to apply to your entities and then write the function to look for and understand that attribute.
Really the simplest way is just to call your entity Doelkaarten instead of Item.
Regarding why the change in indexing works - it's not because of the switch in linq syntax. It's because you said from doc in docs instead of from doc in docs.Items. You probably could have done from doc in docs.Doelkaartens instead of using the where clause. They are equivalent. See this page in the docs for further examples.
how to display the some specific columns of table instead of whole table in entity framework.
using (DataEntities cxt = new DataEntities())
{
notes note = cxt.notes.Where(no => no.id == accID).SingleOrDefault();
return notes;
}
For this purpose, I would suggest you to make use of ViewModel like following :-
notes note = cxt.notes.SingleOrDefault(no => no.id == accID);
var model = new YourViewModel // Your viewModel class
{
ID = note.ID,
PropertyOne = note.PropertyOne, // your ViewModel Property
PropertyTwo = note.PropertyTwo
};
You can do this with QueryView.
This implies editing your model directly in XML as there is no designer support for this, but you will get an independant entity with less fields than the original one.
Advantages:
You can then query data base for this truncated entity directly (you will get only fields you need from the data base - no need to get whole entity from DB and trancate it in code)
It is good in scenarios where you want to send this truncated entity to the
client
with WCF to minimize traffic (e.g. when building big lists on client
that basically need only name and ID and no other entity specific
information).
Disadvantages:
This QueryView-based entity is read only. To make it writeable you will have to add r/w functionality yourself
Starting with a List of entities and needing all dependent entities through an association, is there a way to use the corresponding navigation-propertiy to load all child-entities with one db-round-trip? Ie. generate a single WHERE fkId IN (...) statement via navigation property?
More details
I've found these ways to load the children:
Keep the set of parent-entities as IQueriable<T>
Not good since the db will have to find the main set every time and join to get the requested data.
Put the parent-objects into an array or list, then get related data through navigation properties.
var children = parentArray.Select(p => p.Children).Distinct()
This is slow since it will generate a select for every main-entity.
Creates duplicate objects since each set of children is created independetly.
Put the foreign keys from the main entities into an array then filter the entire dependent-ObjectSet
var foreignKeyIds = parentArray.Select(p => p.Id).ToArray();
var children = Children.Where(d => foreignKeyIds.Contains(d.Id))
Linq then generates the desired "WHERE foreignKeyId IN (...)"-clause.
This is fast but only possible for 1:*-relations since linking-tables are mapped away.
Removes the readablity advantage of EF by using Ids after all
The navigation-properties of type EntityCollection<T> are not populated
Eager loading though the .Include()-methods, included for completeness (asking for lazy-loading)
Alledgedly joins everything included together and returns one giant flat result.
Have to decide up front which data to use
It there some way to get the simplicity of 2 with the performance of 3?
You could attach the parent object to your context and get the children when needed.
foreach (T parent in parents) {
_context.Attach(parent);
}
var children = parents.Select(p => p.Children);
Edit: for attaching multiple, just iterate.
I think finding a good answer is not possible or at least not worth the trouble. Instead a micro ORM like Dapper give the big benefit of removing the need to map between sql-columns and object-properties and does it without the need to create a model first. Also one simply writes the desired sql instead of understanding what linq to write to have it generated. IQueryable<T> will be missed though.
I use as a front-end sproutcore, and as back-end an nhibernate driven openrasta REST solution.
In sproutcore, references are actualy ID's / guid's. So an Address entity in the Sproutcore model could be:
// sproutcore code
App.Address = App.Base.extend(
street: SC.Record.attr(String, { defaultValue: "" }),
houseNumber: SC.Record.attr(String),
city: SC.Record.toOne('Funda.City')
);
with test data:
Funda.Address.FIXTURES = [
{ guid: "1",
street: "MyHomeStreet",
houseNumber: "34",
city: "6"
}
]
Here you see that the reference city has a value of 6. When, at some point in your program, you want to use that reference, it is done by:
myAddress.Get("city").MyCityName
So, Sproutcore automatically uses the supplied ID in a REST Get, and retrieves the needed record. If the record is available in de local memory of the client (previously loaded), then no round trip is made to the server, otherwise a http get is done for that ID : "http://servername/city/6". Very nice.
Nhibernate (mapped using fluent-nhibernate):
public AddressMap()
{
Schema(Config.ConfigElement("nh_default_schema", "Funda"));
Not.LazyLoad();
//Cache.ReadWrite();
Id(x => x.guid).Unique().GeneratedBy.Identity();
Table("Address");
Map(x => x.street);
Map(x => x.houseNumber);
References(x => x.city,
"cityID").LazyLoad().ForeignKey("fk_Address_cityID_City_guid");
}
Here i specified the foreign key, and to map "cityID" on the database table. It works ok.
BUT (and these are my questions for the guru's):
You can specify to lazy load / eager load a reference (city). Off course you do not want to eager load all your references. SO generally your tied to lazy loading.
But when Openrast (or WCF or ...) serializes such an object, it iterates the properties, which causes all the get's of the properties to be fired, which causes all of the references to be lazy loaded.
SO if your entity has 5 references, 1 query for the base object, and 5 for the references will be done. You might better be off with eager loading then ....
This sucks... Or am i wrong?
As i showed how the model inside sproutcore works, i only want the ID's of the references. So i Don't want eagerloading, and also not lazy loading.
just a "Get * from Address where ID = %" and get that mapped to my Address entity.
THen i also have the ID's of the references which pleases Sproutcore and me (no loading of unneeded references). But.... can NHibernate map the ID's of the references only?
And can i later indicate nHibernate to fully load the reference?
One approach could be (but is not a nice one) to load all reference EAGER (with join) (what a waste of resources.. i know) and in my Sever-side Address entity:
// Note: NOT mapped as Datamember, is NOT serialized!
public virtual City city { get; set; }
Int32 _cityID;
[Datamember]
public virtual Int32 cityID
{
get
{
if (city != null)
return city .guid;
else
return _cityID;
}
set
{
if (city!= null && city.guid != value)
{
city= null;
_cityID = value;
}
else if (city == null)
{
_cityID = value;
}
}
}
So i get my ID property for Sproutcore, but on the downside all references are loaded.
A better idea for me???
nHibernate-to-linq
3a. I want to get my address without their references (but preferably with their id's)
Dao myDao = new Dao();
from p in myDao.All()
select p;
If cities are lazy loading in my mapping, how can i specify in the linq query that i want it also to include my city id only?
3b.
I want to get addresses with my cities loaded in 1 query: (which are mapped as lazyloaded)
Dao myDao = new Dao();
from p in myDao.All()
join p.city ???????
select p;
My Main Question:
As argued earlier, with lazy loading, all references are lazy loaded when serializing entities. How can I prevent this, and only get ID's of references in a more efficient way?
Thank you very much for reading, and hopefully you can help me and others with the same questions. Kind regards.
as a note you wrote you do this
myAddress.Get("city").MyCityName
when it should be
myAddress.get("city").get("MyCityName")
or
myAddress.getPath("city.MyCityName")
With that out of the way, I think your question is "How do I not load the city object until I want to?".
Assuming you are using datasources, you need to manage in your datasource when you request the city object. So in retrieveRecord in your datasource simply don't fire the request, and call dataSourceDidComplete with the appropriate arguments (look in the datasource.js file) so the city record is not in the BUSY state. You are basically telling the store the record was loaded, but you pass an empty hash, so the record has no data.
Of course the problem with this is at some point you will need to retrieve the record. You could define a global like App.WANTS_CITY and in retrieveRecords only do the retrieve when you want the city. You need to manage the value of that trigger; statecharts are a good place to do this.
Another part of your question was "How do I load a bunch of records at once, instead of one request for each record?"
Note on the datasource there is a method retrieveRecords. You can define your own implementation to this method, which would allow you to fetch any records you want -- that avoids N requests for N child records -- you can do them all in one request.
Finally, personally, I tend to write an API layer with methods like
getAddress
and
getCity
and invoke my API appropriately, when I actually want the objects. Part of this approach is I have a very light datasource -- I basically bail out of all the create/update/fetch methods depending on what my API layer handles. I use the pushRetrieve and related methods to update the store.
I do this because the store uses in datasources in a very rigid way. I like more flexibility; not all server APIs work in the same way.