I am attempting to do a query in RavenDB using the Search method, but I am running into an issue in that it completely ignores the KeywordAnalyzer set up. So in a situation where I have ...
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Trying to search for "Item 1" pulls up all three items, despite having set the analyzer on the name field to be the KeywordAnalyzer, like this ...
Map = items => from item in items
select new Result {
Id = item.Id,
Name = item.Name
};
Index(i => i.Name, FieldIndexing.Analyzed);
Analyze(n => n.Name, "KeywordAnalyzer");
At which point, I use the index like this;
var results = RavenSession
.Query<Models.Items.Item, Indexes.Item__ByName>()
.Customize(c => c.WaitForNonStaleResults())
.Search(n => n.Name, name)
.ToList();
My expectations are that when I search for "Item 1", I only get back "Item 1". Not all of the other items. But this just does not seem to be listening to me.
This is because you have 2 conflicting definitions:
Index(i => i.Name, FieldIndexing.Analyzed);
Analyze(n => n.Name, "KeywordAnalyzer");
The first tells it to use StandardAnalyzer, the second KeywordAnalyzer.
Remove the first line and you're set.
Related
I am using a LinqToSql-DataSource for a GridView in this way:
wsv.wsv2DataContext db = new wsv.wsv2DataContext();
e.KeyExpression = "id";
e.QueryableSource = (from mitgliedschaft in db.mitgliedschaft
join person in db.person on mitgliedschaft.person_id equals person.id
join institution in db.institution on mitgliedschaft.verein_id equals institution.id
select new
{
vorname = person.vorname,
nachname = person.nachname,
nameVerein = institution.name,
vereinid = mitgliedschaft.verein_id,
id = mitgliedschaft.id,
verbandsMitgliedsNummer = person.verbandsMitgliedsNummer,
strasse = person.strasse,
plz = person.plz,
ort = person.ort,
geburtsdatum = person.geburtsdatum,
geschlechtid = person.geschlechtid,
statusid = mitgliedschaft.statusid,
bezirk_id = mitgliedschaft.bezirk_id,
kreis_id = mitgliedschaft.kreis_id,
person_id = mitgliedschaft.person_id.Value,
deletedFlag = mitgliedschaft.deletedFlag,
stammverein = mitgliedschaft.stammVerein,
eintrittsdatum = mitgliedschaft.eintritt
}).GroupBy(p => p.person_id).Select(p => p.First());
}
Now i want to order the Selection. At first the "stammVerein"-Column of Table "mitgliedschaft" descending AND the Column "eintritt" of Table "mitgliedschaft". I have tried several ways:
wsv.wsv2DataContext db = new wsv.wsv2DataContext();
e.KeyExpression = "id";
e.QueryableSource = (from mitgliedschaft in db.mitgliedschaft
join person in db.person on mitgliedschaft.person_id equals person.id
join institution in db.institution on mitgliedschaft.verein_id equals institution.id
orderby mitgliedschaft.stammVerein descending, mitgliedschaft.eintritt
select new
{
...
}).GroupBy(p => p.person_id).Select(p => p.First());
}
AND:
wsv.wsv2DataContext db = new wsv.wsv2DataContext();
e.KeyExpression = "id";
e.QueryableSource = (from mitgliedschaft in db.mitgliedschaft
join person in db.person on mitgliedschaft.person_id equals person.id
join institution in db.institution on mitgliedschaft.verein_id equals institution.id
select new
{
...
}).GroupBy(p => p.person_id).Select(p => p.First()).OrderByDescending(stamm => stamm.stammverein).ThenBy(eintritt => eintritt.eintrittsdatum);
}
AND:
wsv.wsv2DataContext db = new wsv.wsv2DataContext();
e.KeyExpression = "id";
e.QueryableSource = (from mitgliedschaft in db.mitgliedschaft
join person in db.person on mitgliedschaft.person_id equals person.id
join institution in db.institution on mitgliedschaft.verein_id equals institution.id
select new
{
....
}).OrderByDescending(stamm => stamm.stammverein).ThenBy(eintritt => eintritt.eintrittsdatum).GroupBy(p => p.person_id).Select(p => p.First());
But nothing of this has any Effects ! I am very new in this kind of DataSource and Linq.
Can anyone help me achieving this order ?
Items within a grouped result will not retain their order. Depending on how you want to factor in the ordering, you will need to do it after the group by, and before, and/or after your First...
To accomplish this, it will be easiest if you map the relationships in EF with navigation properties rather than substituting SQL with Linq QL (joins and such)
Using the following base query:
var query = db.mitgliedschaft
.GroupBy(m => m.Person); // Group by related entity, not ID
For instance, after the group by, you will have sets of records grouped by Person. If you want the first Person with an earliest related record:
var result = query.OrderByDescending(g => g.Key.mitgliedschafts.Max(stamm => stamm.stammverein)
.ThenBy(stamm => stamm.eintritt.eintrittsdatum)
.First();
This is taking a wild guess at your schema & entity relationships, but hopefully it will help you work out something that fits. I can only guess at what eintritt is and how it relates to your entity model.
The initial query takes just your base entities that you want to group, and groups them by the related entity. The result of that grouping will be a set of Grouped mitgliedschafts with a key being the Person. To Order those groups by the person with the most recent mitgliedschafts we use an orderby on the Key's associated mitgliedschafts using the Max value for the collection given a descending order request.
The First then gives us the first grouped collection of mitgliedschafts.
Then if you want to sort the resulting list of mitgliedschafts after getting the person with the most recent one:
var result = query.OrderByDescending(g => g.Key.mitgliedschafts.Max(stamm => stamm.stammverein)
.ThenBy(stamm => stamm.eintritt.eintrittsdatum)
.First().OrderByDescending(stamm => stamm.stammverein)
.ThenBy(stamm => stamm.eintritt.eintrittsdatum)
.ToList();
The 2nd set of OrderBy clauses apply to the selected group, or the mitgliedschafts.
To compose the desired view model, Insert a Select() to build the view model from the mitgliedschafts before the ToList().
With the navigation properties this can probably be done without resorting to a group by. On a hunch, something like this should return something similar:
var query = db.Person
.OrderByDescending(p => p.mitgliedschafts.Max(stamm => stamm.stammverien))
.ThenBy(stamm => stamm.eintritt.eintrittsdatum)
.SelectMany(p => p.mitgliedschafts)
.OrderByDescending(stamm => stamm.stammverien)
.ThenBy(stamm => stamm.eintritt.eintrittsdatum)
.Select(stamm => new { ... })
.ToList();
Anyhow, hopefully that gives you some ideas on things to try if you have the navigation properties mapped or can set those up.
I'm accustomed to GroupBy() being more of an art than a science, but maybe someone can help me with a very specific problem:
Given the following code
var results = session.Query<MyClass>()
.GroupBy(c => c.OtherPersistentObject)
.Select(group => new
{
key = group.Key,
count = group.Count()
})
.ToList();
The generated query comes out like this:
/* [expression] */select
otherclass_.ID as col_0_0_,
cast(count(*) as INT) as col_1_0_,
otherclass_.ID as id1_1_,
otherclass_.START_DATE as start2_1_,
otherclass_.END_DATE as end3_1_,
otherclass_.Zone as zone9_1_
from
mytable mytable0_
left outer join
otherclass otherclass_
on mytable0_.otherID=otherclass_.ID
group by
mytable0_.otherID
which gives me the SQL error "Column 'otherclass .ID' is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause"
Is there a way to get the Select to do what I want?
TIA
It's a known NHibernate issue NH-3027.
As a workaround you can use last approach described in this answer (rewrite GroupBy part as sub-query). So your query can be rewritten to something like:
var results = session.Query<MyClass>()
.Where(c => c == session.Query<MyClass>().First(cs => cs.OtherPersistentObject == c.OtherPersistentObject))
.Select(x => new
{
key = x.OtherPersistentObject,
count = session.Query<MyClass>().Count(cs => cs.OtherPersistentObject == x.OtherPersistentObject)
}).ToList();
Try this:
var results = session
.Query<MyClass>()
.GroupBy(c => c.OtherPersistentObject)
.Select(group => new
{
key = group.Key.Id,
count = group.Count()
})
.ToList();
Here you can find the reason for the error.
I have a link field called lien. When I get it from the API through the Item it belongs to, I receive the following array:
[lien] => Array(
[0] => Array(
[embed] => 49935230
[file] => 129256002
)
)
I have no problem with the file.
How do you get the URL value?
The Embeds documentation: https://developers.podio.com/doc/embeds
A similar issue exists when getting the value of a category field through the Item object. It's an array of the selected option_id, it doesn't hold the option_text. The workaround is to get the corresponding App object and search for the option_text using the provided option_id.
The field's values are returned as a collection of embed objects. You can see documentation at: http://podio.github.io/podio-php/fields/#linkembed-field
E.g.:
$item = PodioItem::get_basic(123);
$field_id = 'embed';
$collection = $item->fields[$field_id]->values;
foreach ($collection as $embed) {
print "Embed id: ".$embed->embed_id;
print "Embed URL: ".$embed->original_url;
}
I have a main VendorProfile table and a 1-many VendorHistory table that contains status codes and date stamps. The query below works at retrieving only the latest status (status code and date) for each vendor. However, the view allows the user to select checkboxes of any of the status codes to filter the view. So I need to add a where clause that matches ANY of the checkbox StatusSelections.
Model Diagram
public IEnumerable<BrowseStatusModel> BrowseByStatus(int[] StatusSelections)
{
IQueryable<BrowseStatusModel> query = _db.VendorProfiles
.Include("VendorStatusHistory")
.Include("StatusCodes")
.Select(s => new BrowseStatusModel
{
ProfileID = s.ProfileID,
Name = s.Name,
CompanyName = s.CompanyName,
CompanyDBA = s.CompanyDBA,
DateCreated = s.DateCreated,
Status = s.VendorStatusHistories.OrderByDescending(o => o.DateCreated).FirstOrDefault().Id,
StatusDate = s.VendorStatusHistories.OrderByDescending(o => o.DateCreated).FirstOrDefault().DateCreated
})
.OrderBy(x => x.ProfileID);
foreach (int status in StatusSelections)
{
query = query.Where(x => x.Status == status);
}
return query;
}
The above foreach loop works but, unfortunately creates AND condition where ALL selections must be true instead of ANY. I figured I would have to use a where clause with the following in some way but have been unsuccessful at the correct syntax.
.AsQueryable().Any();
Use contains in the place of that foreach loop
query = query.Where(x => StatusSelections.Contains(x.Status))
I am trying to select a distinct list of values from a table whilst ordering on another column.
The only thing working for me so far uses magic strings and an object array. Any better (type-safe) way?
var projectionList = Projections.ProjectionList();
projectionList.Add(Projections.Property("FolderName"));
projectionList.Add(Projections.Property("FolderOrder"));
var list = Session.QueryOver<T>()
.Where(d => d.Company.Id == SharePointContextHelper.Current.CurrentCompanyId)
.OrderBy(t => t.FolderOrder).Asc
.Select(Projections.Distinct(projectionList))
.List<object[]>()
.ToList();
return list.Select(l => new Folder((string)l[0])).ToList();
btw, doing it with linq won't work, you must select FolderOrder otherwise you'll get a sql error (ORDER BY items must appear in the select list if SELECT DISTINCT is specified.
)
and then doing that gives a known error : Expression type 'NhDistinctExpression' is not supported by this SelectClauseVisitor. regarding using anonymous types with distinct
var q = Session.Query<T>()
.Where(d => d.Company.Id == SharePointContextHelper.Current.CurrentCompanyId)
.OrderBy(d => d.FolderOrder)
.Select(d => new {d.FolderName, d.FolderOrder})
.Distinct();
return q.ToList().Select(f => new Folder(f));
All seems a lot of hoops and complexity to do some sql basics....
To resolve the type-safety issue, the syntax is:
var projectionList = Projections.ProjectionList();
projectionList.Add(Projections.Property<T>(d => d.FolderName));
projectionList.Add(Projections.Property<T>(d => d.FolderOrder));
the object [] thing is unavoidable, unless you define a special class / struct to hold just FolderName and FolderOrder.
see this great introduction to QueryOver for type-saftey, which is most certainly supported.
best of luck.