Structural ordering for search - azure

I am looking for a way to implement a structural ordering for a search. I use Azure search and have indexes (simplified):
[
{
"id": Guid,
"name": string,
"folderId": Guid
}
]
name field is the field I am executing the search queries against. And the folder - obviously, the folder the object lives in.
Suppose I have a folder structure:
[
{
"id": "a595885e-520e-4fd2-9bdd-3f494f187b2e",
"name": "folder1"
"searchObjects": [],
"folders": [
{
"id": "f760f2bd-7291-49ed-9be2-9546ce57fb87",
"name": "subfolder1",
"searchObjects": [],
"folders": []
}
]
},
{
"id": "200ff3b6-310a-49d1-ad99-aed6f34a8f38",
"name": "folder2",
"searchObjects": [],
"folders": []
}
]
And each of these folders has 3000 searchable objects.
What I would like to achieve is I want to paginate the search results and retrieve these pages accordingly to the folders structure. For example, let's say I query 5000 objects with each request. In this case, I would get:
1 page - 3000 items from folder1 + 2000 items from subfolder1;
2 page - 1000 items from subfolder1 + 3000 items from folder2;
The initial thought was to calculate a certain folder index before putting the searchable objects into Azure Search. e.g. folder index:
[
{
"index": 1
"name": "folder1"
"folders": [
{
"index": 11,
"name": "subfolder1"
},
{
"index": 12,
"name": "subfolder2"
},
{
"index": 13,
"name": "subfolder3"
"folders": [
{
"index": 131,
"name": "subSubfolder1"
}
]
}
]
},
{
"index": 2
"name": "folder2"
"folders": [
{
"index": 21,
"name": "subfolder2"
}
]
}
]
Searchable objects:
[
{
"id": "3d4374ec-18a0-4e5b-bb55-e7576b475cdb",
"name": "this object is in folder1",
"folderIndex": 1
},
{
"id": "3d4374ec-18a0-4e5b-bb55-e7576b475cdb",
"name": "this object is in subSubfolder1",
"folderIndex": 131
},
{
"id": "2c2c02ec-3f57-4c85-886e-df6603718d44",
"name": "this object is in subfolder1",
"folderIndex": 11
},
...
]
This would allow me to search by the name and order by the folder structure:
search=this object&$top=5000&$searchFields=name&$orderby=folderIndex,name
When I put/change one or even a thousand of objects in a folder it works fine, I just index/reindex these objects on Azure Search side. But it doesn't work in scale. I may have hundreds of folders folded into each other and each of these folders may contain thousands of objects. So if I reorganize the folders it becomes a mess. I have to recalculate almost all of the objects starting from the top folder in the changing tree down to the bottom leaves.
This would be much easier with a relational structure where I could store folders with their indexes separately from the searchable objects, join them by folder IDs and order by the folder indexer all the same, but ...
Is there a way of doing this right?

Is the folder index being kept just for the reason of ordering the result set by folder path? If that's the case, why not keep full folder paths as a sortable field in the original index? This way you'll be able to order the result set by folder paths, assuming the folder path order you want is alphabetical.
For example:
Doc1: “field1”
Doc2: ”field1”
Doc3: “field1\subfield11\subfield111”
Doc4: ”field2”

Related

Can I index an array in a composite index in Azure Cosmos DB?

I have a problem indexing an array in Azure Cosmos DB
I am trying to save this indexing policy via the portal
{
"indexingMode": "consistent",
"automatic": true,
"includedPaths": [
{
"path": "/*"
}
],
"excludedPaths": [
{
"path": "/\"_etag\"/?"
}
],
"compositeIndexes": [
[
{
"path": "/DeviceId",
"order": "ascending"
},
{
"path": "/TimeStamp",
"order": "ascending"
},
{
"path": "/Items/[]/Name/?",
"order": "ascending"
},
{
"path": "/Items/[]/DoubleValue/?",
"order": "ascending"
}
]
]
}
I get the error "Failed to update container DeviceEvents:
Message: {"code":"BadRequest","message":"Message: {"Errors":["The indexing path '\/Items\/[]\/Name\/?' could not be accepted, failed near position '8'."
This seems to be the array [] syntax that is giving an error.
On a side note I am not sure what I am doing makes sense at all but I have a query that looks like this
SELECT SUM(de0["DoubleValue"])
FROM root JOIN de0 IN root["Items"]
WHERE root["ApplicationId"] = 57 AND root["DeviceId"] = 126 AND root["TimeStamp"] >= "2021-02-21T17:55:29.7389397Z" AND de0["Name"] = "Use Case"
Where ApplicationId is the partition key and the item saved looks like this
{
"id": "59ab9323-26ca-436f-8d29-e1ddd826f025",
"DeviceId": 3,
"ApplicationId": 3,
"RawData": "640F7A000A00E30142000000",
"TimeStamp": "2021-02-20T18:36:52.833174Z",
"Items": [
{
"Name": "Battery Status",
"StringValue": "Full",
"DoubleValue": null
},
{
"Name": "Use Case",
"StringValue": null,
"DoubleValue": 12
},
{
"Name": "Battery Voltage",
"StringValue": null,
"DoubleValue": 3.962
},
{
"Name": "Rain Gauge Count",
"StringValue": null,
"DoubleValue": 10
}
],
"_rid": "CgdVAO7B0DNkAAAAAAAAAA==",
"_self": "dbs/CgdVAA==/colls/CgdVAO7B0DM=/docs/CgdVAO7B0DNkAAAAAAAAAA==/",
"_etag": "\"61008771-0000-0d00-0000-603156c50000\"",
"_attachments": "attachments/",
"_ts": 1613846213
}
I need to aggregate on some of these items in the array like say get MAX on temperature or something like this (using Use Case for test although it doesn't make sense). I reasoned that if all the data in the query is in a single composite index the database would be able to do the aggregation without reading the documents themselves. However I can't seem to add a composite index containing an array at all.
Yes, composite index can't contain an array path. It should be a scalar value.
Unlike with included or excluded paths, you can't create a path with
the /* wildcard. Every composite path has an implicit /? at the end of
the path that you don't need to specify. Composite paths lead to a
scalar value and this is the only value that is included in the
composite index.
Reference:https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/index-policy#composite-indexes

Filtering Contentful Query on Linked Objects

I'm attempting to utilize Contentful on a current project of mine and I'm trying to understand how to filter my query results based on a field in a linked object.
My top level object contains a Link defined as such:
"name": "Service_Description",
"fields": [
{
"name": "Header",
"id": "header",
"type": "Link",
"linkType": "Entry",
"required": true,
"validations": [
{
"linkContentType": [
"offerGeneral"
]
}
],
"localized": false,
"disabled": false,
"omitted": false
},
This "header" field links to another content type that has this definition:
"fields": [
{
"name": "General",
"id": "general",
"type": "Link",
"linkType": "Entry",
"required": true,
"validations": [
{
"linkContentType": [
"genericGeneral"
]
}
],
"localized": false,
"disabled": false,
"omitted": false
},
which then links to the lowest level:
"fields": [{
"name": "TagList",
"id": "tagList",
"type": "Array",
"items": {
"type": "Link",
"linkType": "Entry",
"validations": [
{
"linkContentType": [
"tag"
]
}
]
},
"validations": []
}
where tagList is an array of tags this piece of content may have.
I want to be able to run a query from the top level object that says get me X number of these "Service_Description" content entries where it contains a tag from a supplied list of tags.
In PostMan, I've been running with this:
https://cdn.contentful.com/spaces/{SPACE_ID}/entries?access_token={ACCESS_TOKEN}&content_type=serviceDescription&include=3
I'm trying to add a filter something like so:
fields.header.fields.general.fields.tagList.sys.id%5Bin%5D={TAG_SYS_ID}
This is clearly incorrect, but I've been struggling with how to walk this relationship to achieve my goal. Perusing the documentation this seems to have something to do with includes, but I'm unsure of how to rectify the problem.
Any direction on how to achieve my goal or if this is possible?
This is now possible, something I believe was solved for in the API based on requests for this functionality. You can see the thread here.
This gist of it is that you have to query on the entries that have linked entries and then include the contentType for those linked entries in the query like so:
contentfulClient.getEntries({
'content_type': 'location',
'fields.market.fields.marketName': 'New York',
'fields.market.sys.contentType.sys.id': 'marketRegion'
})
Unfortunately what you are requesting is not currently possible in Contentful.
We were facing a very similar issue with nested/referenced content types and support said it wasn't possible.
We ended up writing a very complicated system that allowed us to do what you want. Essentially doing a full text search for the referenced content and then querying all of the parents entries. We then matched the relationships by iterating over the parents to find the relationship.
Sorry it couldn't be easier. Hopefully the devs work on something that improve this complication. We have brought this to their attention.

Marklogic 8 Node.js API - How can I scope a search on a property child of root?

[updated 17:15 on 28/09]
I'm manipulating json data of type:
[
{
"id": 1,
"title": "Sun",
"seeAlso": [
{
"id": 2,
"title": "Rain"
},
{
"id": 3,
"title": "Cloud"
}
]
},
{
"id": 2,
"title": "Rain",
"seeAlso": [
{
"id": 3,
"title": "Cloud"
}
]
},
{
"id": 3,
"title": "Cloud",
"seeAlso": [
{
"id": 1,
"title": "Sun"
}
]
},
];
After inclusion in the database, a node.js search using
db.documents.query(
q.where(
q.collection('test films'),
q.value('title','Sun')
).withOptions({categories: 'none'})
)
.result( function(results) {
console.log(JSON.stringify(results, null,2));
});
will return both the film titled 'Sun' and the films which have a seeAlso/title property (forgive the xpath syntax) = 'Sun'.
I need to find 1/ films with title = 'Sun' 2/ films with seeAlso/title = 'Sun'.
I tried a container query using q.scope() with no success; I don't find how to scope the root object node (first case) and for the second case,
q.where(q.scope(q.property('seeAlso'), q.value('title','Sun')))
returns as first result an item which matches all text inside the root object node
{
"index": 1,
"uri": "/1.json",
"path": "fn:doc(\"/1.json\")",
"score": 137216,
"confidence": 0.6202662,
"fitness": 0.6701325,
"href": "/v1/documents?uri=%2F1.json&database=Documents",
"mimetype": "application/json",
"format": "json",
"matches": [
{
"path": "fn:doc(\"/1.json\")/object-node()",
"match-text": [
"Sun Rain Cloud"
]
}
]
},
which seems crazy.
Any idea about how doing such searches on denormalized json data?
Laurent:
XPaths on JSON are supported by MarkLogic.
In particular, you might consider setting up a path range index to match /title at the root:
http://docs.marklogic.com/guide/admin/range_index#id_54948
Scoped property matching required either filtering or indexed positions to be accurate. An alternative is to set up another path range index on /seeAlso/title
For the match issue it would be useful to know the MarkLogic version and to see the entire query.
Hoping that helps,

How to search through data with arbitrary amount of fields?

I have the web-form builder for science events. The event moderator creates registration form with arbitrary amount of boolean, integer, enum and text fields.
Created form is used for:
register a new member to event;
search through registered members.
What is the best search tool for second task (to search memebers of event)? Is ElasticSearch well for this task?
I wrote a post about how to index arbitrary data into Elasticsearch and then to search it by specific fields and values. All this, without blowing up your index mapping.
The post is here: http://smnh.me/indexing-and-searching-arbitrary-json-data-using-elasticsearch/
In short, you will need to do the following steps to get what you want:
Create a special index described in the post.
Flatten the data you want to index using the flattenData function:
https://gist.github.com/smnh/30f96028511e1440b7b02ea559858af4.
Create a document with the original and flattened data and index it into Elasticsearch:
{
"data": { ... },
"flatData": [ ... ]
}
Optional: use Elasticsearch aggregations to find which fields and types have been indexed.
Execute queries on the flatData object to find what you need.
Example
Basing on your original question, let's assume that the first event moderator created a form with following fields to register members for the science event:
name string
age long
sex long - 0 for male, 1 for female
In addition to this data, the related event probably has some sort of id, let's call it eventId. So the final document could look like this:
{
"eventId": "2T73ZT1R463DJNWE36IA8FEN",
"name": "Bob",
"age": 22,
"sex": 0
}
Now, before we index this document, we will flatten it using the flattenData function:
flattenData(document);
This will produce the following array:
[
{
"key": "eventId",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "eventId.string",
"value_string": "2T73ZT1R463DJNWE36IA8FEN"
},
{
"key": "name",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "name.string",
"value_string": "Bob"
},
{
"key": "age",
"type": "long",
"key_type": "age.long",
"value_long": 22
},
{
"key": "sex",
"type": "long",
"key_type": "sex.long",
"value_long": 0
}
]
Then we will wrap this data in a document as I've showed before and index it.
Then, the second event moderator, creates another form having a new field, field with same name and type, and also a field with same name but with different type:
name string
city string
sex string - "male" or "female"
This event moderator decided that instead of having 0 and 1 for male and female, his form will allow choosing between two strings - "male" and "female".
Let's try to flatten the data submitted by this form:
flattenData({
"eventId": "F1BU9GGK5IX3ZWOLGCE3I5ML",
"name": "Alice",
"city": "New York",
"sex": "female"
});
This will produce the following data:
[
{
"key": "eventId",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "eventId.string",
"value_string": "F1BU9GGK5IX3ZWOLGCE3I5ML"
},
{
"key": "name",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "name.string",
"value_string": "Alice"
},
{
"key": "city",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "city.string",
"value_string": "New York"
},
{
"key": "sex",
"type": "string",
"key_type": "sex.string",
"value_string": "female"
}
]
Then, after wrapping the flattened data in a document and indexing it into Elasticsearch we can execute complicated queries.
For example, to find members named "Bob" registered for the event with ID 2T73ZT1R463DJNWE36IA8FEN we can execute the following query:
{
"query": {
"bool": {
"must": [
{
"nested": {
"path": "flatData",
"query": {
"bool": {
"must": [
{"term": {"flatData.key": "eventId"}},
{"match": {"flatData.value_string.keyword": "2T73ZT1R463DJNWE36IA8FEN"}}
]
}
}
}
},
{
"nested": {
"path": "flatData",
"query": {
"bool": {
"must": [
{"term": {"flatData.key": "name"}},
{"match": {"flatData.value_string": "bob"}}
]
}
}
}
}
]
}
}
}
ElasticSearch automatically detects the field content in order to index it correctly, even if the mapping hasn't been defined previously. So, yes : ElasticSearch suits well these cases.
However, you may want to fine tune this behavior, or maybe the default mapping applied by ElasticSearch doesn't correspond to what you need : in this case, take a look at the default mapping or, for even further control, the dynamic templates feature.
If you let your end users decide the keys you store things in, you'll have an ever-growing mapping and cluster state, which is problematic.
This case and a suggested solution is covered in this article on common problems with Elasticsearch.
Essentially, you want to have everything that can possibly be user-defined as a value. Using nested documents, you can have a key-field and differently mapped value fields to achieve pretty much the same.

How do you partially-match IDs in CouchDB?

I have a set of ACLs in Couch and I want to create a view that matches applicable ones. So, given the data:
[
{
"_id": "/protected",
"type": "valid-user"
},
{
"_id": "/protected/group1",
"type": "require group group1"
},
{
"_id": "/protected/group1/public",
"type": "public"
},
{
"_id": "/protected/group2",
"type": "require group group2"
},
{
"_id": "/admin",
"type": "require user admin"
}
]
I'd like to create a view that'd allow me to pass in a string and have it find the "best" (that is to say the longest) match.
The best I've been able to do is to create a view that returns the ID split into an array and then spam queries trimming the last element off until I get a match. Surely there's a way to do this on the server side ...
You could create a list function to accomplish that.

Resources