I begin with mongoose and I have to use watch() method on a collection.
When i want to catch insert, there are no problems.
Nevertheless, when I want to retrieve the changes of an update, I don't know why, in some cases, mongoose changes the name of my fields?
registration.watch(). on('change', data => {
if(data.operationType == "update") {
console.log(data.updateDescription.updatedFields);
}
)};
my registration's collection is made up of persons who can accept or decline an invitation, and a person can change they answer. So it's basically a removal of the person from one array of data to be put in the other one.
The only problem I have is my array's name sometimes "change" :
{
__v: 100,
accepted: [
{
_id: 5faa76d048dd6e0017e631d4,
user: 5faa752848dd6e0017e631d2
},
{
_id: 5faa9ab06048a20017774610,
user: 5fa8fabc60260ec31606d71e
},
],
'declined.1': { _id: 5faf037a141f030017863484, user: 5faa74de48dd6e0017e631d0 },
for example here, my field declined change to "declined.1", why it's happening ? and how to avoid this ? or at least, how can i get declined's array in this situation ?
When you update a document in MongoDB, it only writes the deltas to the operations log, which is what the watch function pulls from.
The dot notation declined.1 means index 1 of the declined array. The change document you provided would be expected from pushing a new object onto the declined array. Essentially, it is saving space by not repeating all of the array elements that didn't change.
If you need to retrieve the entire document, you could set the fullDocument to updateLookup. See http://mongodb.github.io/node-mongodb-native/3.0/api/Collection.html#watch
Related
I have a collection of documents which are being added as a result of users' interactions.
Those docs already have an _id field, but I also wanna add a unique human readable ID for every existing and newly created object, in a form of D123456
What is the best way of adding such an ID and being sure that all those IDs are unique?
MongoDB doesn't have an auto-increment option like relational databases.
You can implement something yourself: before you save your document, generate an ID. First, create a database collection whose sole purpose is to hold a counter:
const Counter = mongoose.model('Counter', new mongoose.schema({
current: Number
}));
Second, before you save your object, find and increment the number in the collection:
const humanReadableDocumentId = await Counter.findOneAndUpdate(
// If you give this record a name, you can have multiple counters.
{ _id: 'humanReadableDocumentId' },
{ $inc: { current: 1 } },
// If no record exists, create one. Return the new value after updating.
{ upsert: true, returnDocument: 'after' }
);
const yourDocument.set('prettyId', format(humanReadableDocumentId.current));
function format(id) {
// Just an example.
return 'D' + id.toString().padStart(6, '0');
}
Note: I've tested the query in MongoDB (except for the 'returnDocument' option, which is Mongoose-specific, but this should work)
Formatting is up to you. If you have more than 999999 documents, the 'nice looking ID' in the example will just get longer and be 7+ characters.
The following schema is intended to record total views and views for a very specific day only.
const usersSchema = new Schema({
totalProductsViews: {type: Number, default: 0},
productsViewsStatistics: [{
day: {type: String, default: new Date().toISOString().slice(0, 10), unique: true},
count: {type: Number, default: 0}
}],
});
So today views will be stored in another subdocument different from yesterday. To implement this I tried to use upsert so as subdocument will be created each day when product is viewed and counts will be incremented and recorded based on a particular day. I tried to use the following function but seems not to work the way I intended.
usersSchema.statics.increaseProductsViews = async function (id) {
//Based on day only.
const todayDate = new Date().toISOString().slice(0, 10);
const result = await this.findByIdAndUpdate(id, {
$inc: {
totalProductsViews: 1,
'productsViewsStatistics.$[sub].count': 1
},
},
{
upsert: true,
arrayFilters: [{'sub.day': todayDate}],
new: true
});
console.log(result);
return result;
};
What do I miss to get the functionality I want? Any help will be appreciated.
What you are trying to do here actually requires you to understand some concepts you may not have grasped yet. The two primary ones being:
You cannot use any positional update as part of an upsert since it requires data to be present
Adding items into arrays mixed with "upsert" is generally a problem that you cannot do in a single statement.
It's a little unclear if "upsert" is your actual intention anyway or if you just presumed that was what you had to add in order to get your statement to work. It does complicate things if that is your intent, even if it's unlikely give the finByIdAndUpdate() usage which would imply you were actually expecting the "document" to be always present.
At any rate, it's clear you actually expect to "Update the array element when found, OR insert a new array element where not found". This is actually a two write process, and three when you consider the "upsert" case as well.
For this, you actually need to invoke the statements via bulkWrite():
usersSchema.statics.increaseProductsViews = async function (_id) {
//Based on day only.
const todayDate = new Date().toISOString().slice(0, 10);
await this.bulkWrite([
// Try to match an existing element and update it ( do NOT upsert )
{
"updateOne": {
"filter": { _id, "productViewStatistics.day": todayDate },
"update": {
"$inc": {
"totalProductsViews": 1,
"productViewStatistics.$.count": 1
}
}
}
},
// Try to $push where the element is not there but document is - ( do NOT upsert )
{
"updateOne": {
"filter": { _id, "productViewStatistics.day": { "$ne": todayDate } },
"update": {
"$inc": { "totalProductViews": 1 },
"$push": { "productViewStatistics": { "day": todayDate, "count": 1 } }
}
}
},
// Finally attempt upsert where the "document" was not there at all,
// only if you actually mean it - so optional
{
"updateOne": {
"filter": { _id },
"update": {
"$setOnInsert": {
"totalProductViews": 1,
"productViewStatistics": [{ "day": todayDate, "count": 1 }]
}
}
}
])
// return the modified document if you really must
return this.findById(_id); // Not atomic, but the lesser of all evils
}
So there's a real good reason here why the positional filtered [<identifier>] operator does not apply here. The main good reason is the intended purpose is to update multiple matching array elements, and you only ever want to update one. This actually has a specific operator in the positional $ operator which does exactly that. It's condition however must be included within the query predicate ( "filter" property in UpdateOne statements ) just as demonstrated in the first two statements of the bulkWrite() above.
So the main problems with using positional filtered [<identifier>] are that just as the first two statements show, you cannot actually alternate between the $inc or $push as would depend on if the document actually contained an array entry for the day. All that will happen is at best no update will be applied when the current day is not matched by the expression in arrayFilters.
The at worst case is an actual "upsert" will throw an error due to MongoDB not being able to decipher the "path name" from the statement, and of course you simply cannot $inc something that does not exist as a "new" array element. That needs a $push.
That leaves you with the mechanic that you also cannot do both the $inc and $push within a single statement. MongoDB will error that you are attempting to "modify the same path" as an illegal operation. Much the same applies to $setOnInsert since whilst that operator only applies to "upsert" operations, it does not preclude the other operations from happening.
Thus the logical steps fall back to what the comments in the code also describe:
Attempt to match where the document contains an existing array element, then update that element. Using $inc in this case
Attempt to match where the document exists but the array element is not present and then $push a new element for the given day with the default count, updating other elements appropriately
IF you actually did intend to upsert documents ( not array elements, because that's the above steps ) then finally actually attempt an upsert creating new properties including a new array.
Finally there is the issue of the bulkWrite(). Whilst this is a single request to the server with a single response, it still is effectively three ( or two if that's all you need ) operations. There is no way around that and it is better than issuing chained separate requests using findByIdAndUpdate() or even updateOne().
Of course the main operational difference from the perspective of code you attempted to implement is that method does not return the modified document. There is no way to get a "document response" from any "Bulk" operation at all.
As such the actual "bulk" process will only ever modify a document with one of the three statements submitted based on the presented logic and most importantly the order of those statements, which is important. But if you actually wanted to "return the document" after modification then the only way to do that is with a separate request to fetch the document.
The only caveat here is that there is the small possibility that other modifications could have occurred to the document other than the "array upsert" since the read and update are separated. There really is no way around that, without possibly "chaining" three separate requests to the server and then deciding which "response document" actually applied the update you wanted to achieve.
So with that context it's generally considered the lesser of evils to do the read separately. It's not ideal, but it's the best option available from a bad bunch.
As a final note, I would strongly suggest actually storing the the day property as a BSON Date instead of as a string. It actually takes less bytes to store and is far more useful in that form. As such the following constructor is probably the clearest and least hacky:
const todayDate = new Date(new Date().setUTCHours(0,0,0,0))
I have a collection in my database that contains a field which is composed of 3 arrays, like this :
use_homepage: {
home: [Array],
hidden: [Array],
archive: [Array]
}
This field represents the homepage of a user.
Each array contains an ObjectID that identifies projects shown on the user homepage.
I would like to check if my project id is in use_homepage.home or use_homepage.hidden, and if it is, remove the id from the array that match.
Can I do this with 1 (or 2 max) requests or do I have to make a request each time I have to check in another array ?
In case you expect to update one document at most, you can try this:
db.entities.findAndModify({
query: { $or : [
{ home: ObjectId('<HERE YOUR ID TO BE FOUND>') },
{ hidden: ObjectId('<HERE YOUR ID TO BE FOUND>') }
]},
update: { $pull: {
home: ObjectId('<HERE YOUR ID TO BE DELETED>'),
hidden: ObjectId('<HERE YOUR ID TO BE DELETED>')
}
}
});
As you can see, in general, you can search for some value and delete some other value.
The statement returns the original matching document (i.e. before the deletion is performed). If you want the modified document you can add the following attribute:
new: true
In case you search for many documents to update, this solution does not work, since findAndModify() works just on the first document matching the query condition.
Finaly, i used to make 2 requests to do the job :
db.User.find({"use_homepage.home": id}, {_id: 1}).toArray(function(err, result) {
// If some users have the id in the array home
db.User.updateMany({_id: {$in: users_match_ids}}, {
$pull: {"use_homepage.home": id}
}
});
// Do the same with 'hidden' array
If anyone see this post and have a better solution, I take it :)
My post document looks like the following:
{
_id: ...,
type: 'post',
title: ...,
description: ...,
author: 'user_id'
}
And another user document:
{
_id: 'user_id',
type: 'user',
name: ...,
}
How do I fetch the post and the linked user document given that I only know post id?
Having user document inside the post document doesn't seems like a good solution as if the user changes his/her name or other details, I will have to update every post.
Another solution would be to include a posts array in the user document and use two emits in the view document. But with frequent posts and high number of posts, this looks a little inefficient.
You mentioned "linked documents" as if you were referencing this feature in CouchDB, but it doesn't appear like you meant it that way.
It turns out, this is totally supported. Your document structure doesn't need to change at all, you can use a map function like this:
function (doc) {
if (doc.type === 'post') {
emit(doc._id)
emit(doc._id, { _id: doc.author })
}
}
By emitting an object with an _id property as the value, it allows CouchDB to look up a different document (in this case, the user document) than the original when you add include_docs=true on your view query. This allows you to fetch an entire collection of related documents in a single query! I'd reference the documentation I linked to earlier for a complete example. (the rest of their docs are great too!)
I have two models in my app: Item and Comment. An Item can have many Comments, and a Comment instance contains a reference to an Item instance with key 'comment', to keep track of the relationship.
Now I have to send a JSON list of all Items with their Comment count when user requests on a particular URL.
function(req, res){
return Item.find()
.exec(function(err, items) {
return res.send(items);
});
};
I am not sure how can I "populate" comment count to the items. This seems to be a common problem and I tend to think there should be some nicer way of doing this job than brute force.
So please share your thoughts. How would you "populate" the Comment count to the Items?
check the MongoDB documentation and look for the method findAndModify() -- with it you can atomically update a document, e.g. add a comment and increment the document counter at the same time.
findAndModify
The findAndModify command atomically modifies and returns a single document. By default, the returned document does not include the modifications made on the update. To return the document with the modifications made on the update, use the new option.
Example
Use the update option, with update operators $inc for the counter, and $addToSet for adding the actual comment to an embedded array of comments.
db.runCommand(
{
findAndModify: "item",
query: { name: "MyItem", state: "active", rating: { $gt: 10 } },
sort: { rating: 1 },
update: { $inc: { commentCount: 1 },
$addToSet: {comments: new_comment} }
}
)
See:
MongoDB: findAndModify
MongoDB: Update Operators
I did some research on this issue and came up with following results. First, MongoDB docs suggest:
In general, use embedded data models when:
you have “contains” relationships between entities.
you have one-to-many relationships where the “many” objects always appear with or are viewed in the context of their parent documents.
So in my situation, it makes much more sense if Comments are embedded into Items, instead of having independent existence.
Nevertheless, I was curious to know the solution without changing my data model. As mentioned in MongoDB docs:
Referencing provides more flexibility than embedding; however, to
resolve the references, client-side applications must issue follow-up
queries. In other words, using references requires more roundtrips to
the server.
As multiple roundtrips are kosher now, I came up with following solution:
var showList = function(req, res){
// first DB roundtrip: fetch all items
return Item.find()
.exec(function(err, items) {
// second DB roundtrip: fetch comment counts grouped by item ids
Comment.aggregate({
$group: {
_id: '$item',
count: {
$sum: 1
}
}
}, function(err, agg){
// iterate over comment count groups (yes, that little dash is underscore.js)
_.each(agg, function( itr ){
// for each aggregated group, search for corresponding item and put commentCount in it
var item = _.find(items, function( item ){
return item._id.toString() == itr._id.toString();
});
if ( item ) {
item.set('commentCount', itr.count);
}
});
// send items to the client in JSON format
return res.send(items);
})
});
};
Agree? Disagree? Please enlighten me with your comments!
If you have a better answer, please post here, I'll accept it if I find it worthy.