I want to get data form dynamoDB, shorted by timestamp. Anyone can help? My code is given below.
const AWS = require("aws-sdk");
const dynamoDbClient = new AWS.DynamoDB.DocumentClient();
const USERS_TABLE = process.env.USERS_TABLE;
const getNews = async (req, res) => {
try {
//dynamodb params
const params = {
TableName: USERS_TABLE,
FilterExpression: "PK = :this",
ExpressionAttributeValues: { ":this": "newsTable" },
};
//get dynamodb data
const data = await dynamoDbClient.scan(params).promise();
res.status(200).send({ data: data });
} catch (e) {
return res.status(400).send({ message: e.message });
}
};
module.exports = { getNews };
Option 1: Keep Scan; Sort client-side
Works for small tables only. Single Scan call will scan only the first 1 MB of data in the table.
If you're doing scan operation as in your code example, it's impossible to get results sorted from DynamoDB. The only way to sort them is on client-side after you download all your data from database.
Replace:
res.status(200).send({ data: data });
With:
res.status(200).send({data: data.sort((a, b) => b.date - a.date)});
However, this is not recommended, since Scan operation without pagination will scan only 1st MB of data in your table. So you could get partial results. Possible solutions are:
Option 2: (recommended) Don't use Scan; Use Query; Sort by secondary key
This will work if you have your timestamp in the secondary key of the table
Don't use Scan; Use Query -- that way you can sort your data by SK (secondary key) by passing the ScanIndexForward: false to get the most recent results first.
Assuming you have such a table schema, where a timestamp is in the secondary key:
PK
SK
email
newsTable
2022-01-01
some-1#example.com
newsTable
2022-02-01
some-2#example.com
newsTable
2022-03-01
some-3#example.com
You can change your code from:
const params = {
TableName: USERS_TABLE,
FilterExpression: 'PK = :this',
ExpressionAttributeValues: {':this': 'newsTable'},
};
//get dynamodb data
const data = await dynamoDbClient.scan(params).promise();
To:
const params = {
TableName: USERS_TABLE,
KeyConditionExpression: 'PK = :this',
ExpressionAttributeValues: {':this': 'newsTable'},
ScanIndexForward: false,
};
//get dynamodb data
const data = await dynamoDbClient.query(params).promise();
And it will return results sorted from database already.
If you don't have a timestamp in your secondary key, and you cannot add it, you can add Local Secondary Index or Global Secondary Index.
Option 3: Keep Scan, but paginate; Sort client-side
Works if you cannot change DB schema and cannot switch your code to the Query operation.
Beware, it will be much more expensive, much slower. The larger the table, the slower it gets.
If you absolutely need to use Scan, you need to paginate through all the pages of the Scan operation, and then sort results in the JS code, like I described before. I've developed a handy library that makes scanning in parallel and supports pagination.
Is it possible to use the nextval function in a pg-promise multirow insert?
I have a database (that I sadly can't change) where the id has to be inserted via the client like this:
INSERT INTO some_object (object_id, object_name)
VALUES (nextval('some_object_seq'), ${object_name})
RETURNING object_id;
This works fine for one insert. But now I have to insert multiple rows at once and tried pgp.helpers.insert:
const cs = pgp.helpers.ColumnSet(['object_id', 'object_name'], { table });
const query = pgp.helpers.insert(values, cs) + 'RETURNING object_id';
database.many(query).then(data => {
return data
}).catch(error => {
logger.error(error, query);
});
Is there any way to use nextval('some_object_seq') in this scenario? Sadly I can't change the default value of the id column in the table definition.
Your column should be defined as this:
{
name: `object_id`,
init: () => `nextval('some_object_seq')`,
mod: `:raw`
}
As opposed to the answer by #baal, you do not need to use def, because you are not providing a default value, rather a complete override for the value, which is what init for.
And it can be used within upsert queries too.
As Bergi wrote, it is possible to add a default expression to the column set like this:
const cs = pgp.helpers.ColumnSet(
[{
name: "object_id",
// setting the DEFAULT value for this column
def: "nextval('some_object_seq')",
// use raw-text modifier to inject string directly
mod: "^",
}, 'object_name'], { table });
I use firebase on node.js .
My given structure should look like this:
{
...
batch-1:
id-1(suppose):
name:...
phone:...
id-2:
...
id-3:
...
batch-2:
...
batch-3:
...
...
batch-n:
...
}
How can I get an id-1 object by its identifier in such an architecture?
Does the database have to go around all the batches?
Is there a better solution?
The main task: Create a batch with many objects that will have SHORT and a UNIQUE identifier and optimally receive data by this identifier
To search for a particular ID that is a child of a list of unknown IDs, you need to use orderByChild(). In your use case, you are looking for a particular ID in a list of batch IDs. If you used orderByChild() on this list, you would get back results for each and every batch ID, even if it didn't have the ID you wanted. This is because even null (non-existant) values are included (and sorted at the start) in the results. To get the data of the desired ID, you would get the data for the last result of the query, which if it existed, would be sorted to the end of the list. Note that if the desired ID doesn't exist, the last result (if there are any results) would have a null value. To return only the last result of the query, you would use limitToLast(1).
Putting this all together, gives the following code:
let idToFind = "unique-id-1";
let batchesRef = firebase.database().ref(); // parent key of "batch-1", "batch-2", etc.
// assumed to be the database root here
batchesRef.orderByChild(idToFind).limitToLast(1).once('value')
.then((querySnapshot) => {
if (!querySnapshot.numChildren()) { // handle rare no-results case
throw new Error('expected at least one result');
}
let dataSnapshot;
querySnapshot.forEach((snap) => dataSnapshot = snap); // get the snapshot we want out of the query's results list
if (!dataSnapshot.exists()) { // value may be null, meaning idToFind doesn't exist
throw new Error(`Entry ${idToFind} not found.`);
}
// do what you want with dataSnapshot
console.log(`Entry ${idToFind}'s data is:`, dataSnapshot.val());
})
.catch((error) => {
console.log("Unexpected error:", error);
})
For small data sets, the above code will work just fine. But if the list of batches starts growing quite large, you may wish to build an index that maps a particular ID to the batch ID that contains it.
Here is my method which allows you to search by id or to search by key value such as email uniqueemail
// gets primary key
const getSnapshotValKey = snapshot => (Object.keys(snapshot).length > 0 ? Object.keys(snapshot)[0] : null)
const getUser = async ({ id, key, value }) => {
let user = null
const ref = id ? '/users/' + id : 'users'
const userRef = admin.database().ref(ref)
const valueRef = id ? userRef : await userRef.orderByChild(key).equalTo(value)
const snapshot = await valueRef.once('value')
const val = snapshot.val()
if (val) {
const key = id || getSnapshotValKey(val)
user = {
id: key,
...(id ? val : val[key]),
}
}
return user
}
From the docs:
You can also chain multiple where() methods to create more specific queries (logical AND).
How can I perform an OR query?
Example:
Give me all documents where the field status is open OR upcoming
Give me all documents where the field status == open OR createdAt <= <somedatetime>
OR isn't supported as it's hard for the server to scale it (requires keeping state to dedup). The work around is to issue 2 queries, one for each condition, and dedup on the client.
Edit (Nov 2019):
Cloud Firestore now supports IN queries which are a limited type of OR query.
For the example above you could do:
// Get all documents in 'foo' where status is open or upcmoming
db.collection('foo').where('status','in',['open','upcoming']).get()
However it's still not possible to do a general OR condition involving multiple fields.
With the recent addition of IN queries, Firestore supports "up to 10 equality clauses on the same field with a logical OR"
A possible solution to (1) would be:
documents.where('status', 'in', ['open', 'upcoming']);
See Firebase Guides: Query Operators | in and array-contains-any
suggest to give value for status as well.
ex.
{ name: "a", statusValue = 10, status = 'open' }
{ name: "b", statusValue = 20, status = 'upcoming'}
{ name: "c", statusValue = 30, status = 'close'}
you can query by ref.where('statusValue', '<=', 20) then both 'a' and 'b' will found.
this can save your query cost and performance.
btw, it is not fix all case.
I would have no "status" field, but status related fields, updating them to true or false based on request, like
{ name: "a", status_open: true, status_upcoming: false, status_closed: false}
However, check Firebase Cloud Functions. You could have a function listening status changes, updating status related properties like
{ name: "a", status: "open", status_open: true, status_upcoming: false, status_closed: false}
one or the other, your query could be just
...where('status_open','==',true)...
Hope it helps.
This doesn't solve all cases, but for "enum" fields, you can emulate an "OR" query by making a separate boolean field for each enum-value, then adding a where("enum_<value>", "==", false) for every value that isn't part of the "OR" clause you want.
For example, consider your first desired query:
Give me all documents where the field status is open OR upcoming
You can accomplish this by splitting the status: string field into multiple boolean fields, one for each enum-value:
status_open: bool
status_upcoming: bool
status_suspended: bool
status_closed: bool
To perform your "where status is open or upcoming" query, you then do this:
where("status_suspended", "==", false).where("status_closed", "==", false)
How does this work? Well, because it's an enum, you know one of the values must have true assigned. So if you can determine that all of the other values don't match for a given entry, then by deduction it must match one of the values you originally were looking for.
See also
in/not-in/array-contains-in: https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/query-data/queries#in_and_array-contains-any
!=: https://firebase.googleblog.com/2020/09/cloud-firestore-not-equal-queries.html
I don't like everyone saying it's not possible.
it is if you create another "hacky" field in the model to build a composite...
for instance, create an array for each document that has all logical or elements
then query for .where("field", arrayContains: [...]
you can bind two Observables using the rxjs merge operator.
Here you have an example.
import { Observable } from 'rxjs/Observable';
import 'rxjs/add/observable/merge';
...
getCombinatedStatus(): Observable<any> {
return Observable.merge(this.db.collection('foo', ref => ref.where('status','==','open')).valueChanges(),
this.db.collection('foo', ref => ref.where('status','==','upcoming')).valueChanges());
}
Then you can subscribe to the new Observable updates using the above method:
getCombinatedStatus.subscribe(results => console.log(results);
I hope this can help you, greetings from Chile!!
We have the same problem just now, luckily the only possible values for ours are A,B,C,D (4) so we have to query for things like A||B, A||C, A||B||C, D, etc
As of like a few months ago firebase supports a new query array-contains so what we do is make an array and we pre-process the OR values to the array
if (a) {
array addObject:#"a"
}
if (b) {
array addObject:#"b"
}
if (a||b) {
array addObject:#"a||b"
}
etc
And we do this for all 4! values or however many combos there are.
THEN we can simply check the query [document arrayContains:#"a||c"] or whatever type of condition we need.
So if something only qualified for conditional A of our 4 conditionals (A,B,C,D) then its array would contain the following literal strings: #["A", "A||B", "A||C", "A||D", "A||B||C", "A||B||D", "A||C||D", "A||B||C||D"]
Then for any of those OR combinations we can just search array-contains on whatever we may want (e.g. "A||C")
Note: This is only a reasonable approach if you have a few number of possible values to compare OR with.
More info on Array-contains here, since it's newish to firebase docs
If you have a limited number of fields, definitely create new fields with true and false like in the example above. However, if you don't know what the fields are until runtime, you have to just combine queries.
Here is a tags OR example...
// the ids of students in class
const students = [studentID1, studentID2,...];
// get all docs where student.studentID1 = true
const results = this.afs.collection('classes',
ref => ref.where(`students.${students[0]}`, '==', true)
).valueChanges({ idField: 'id' }).pipe(
switchMap((r: any) => {
// get all docs where student.studentID2...studentIDX = true
const docs = students.slice(1).map(
(student: any) => this.afs.collection('classes',
ref => ref.where(`students.${student}`, '==', true)
).valueChanges({ idField: 'id' })
);
return combineLatest(docs).pipe(
// combine results by reducing array
map((a: any[]) => {
const g: [] = a.reduce(
(acc: any[], cur: any) => acc.concat(cur)
).concat(r);
// filter out duplicates by 'id' field
return g.filter(
(b: any, n: number, a: any[]) => a.findIndex(
(v: any) => v.id === b.id) === n
);
}),
);
})
);
Unfortunately there is no other way to combine more than 10 items (use array-contains-any if < 10 items).
There is also no other way to avoid duplicate reads, as you don't know the ID fields that will be matched by the search. Luckily, Firebase has good caching.
For those of you that like promises...
const p = await results.pipe(take(1)).toPromise();
For more info on this, see this article I wrote.
J
OR isn't supported
But if you need that you can do It in your code
Ex : if i want query products where (Size Equal Xl OR XXL : AND Gender is Male)
productsCollectionRef
//1* first get query where can firestore handle it
.whereEqualTo("gender", "Male")
.addSnapshotListener((queryDocumentSnapshots, e) -> {
if (queryDocumentSnapshots == null)
return;
List<Product> productList = new ArrayList<>();
for (DocumentSnapshot snapshot : queryDocumentSnapshots.getDocuments()) {
Product product = snapshot.toObject(Product.class);
//2* then check your query OR Condition because firestore just support AND Condition
if (product.getSize().equals("XL") || product.getSize().equals("XXL"))
productList.add(product);
}
liveData.setValue(productList);
});
For Flutter dart language use this:
db.collection("projects").where("status", whereIn: ["public", "unlisted", "secret"]);
actually I found #Dan McGrath answer working here is a rewriting of his answer:
private void query() {
FirebaseFirestore db = FirebaseFirestore.getInstance();
db.collection("STATUS")
.whereIn("status", Arrays.asList("open", "upcoming")) // you can add up to 10 different values like : Arrays.asList("open", "upcoming", "Pending", "In Progress", ...)
.addSnapshotListener(new EventListener<QuerySnapshot>() {
#Override
public void onEvent(#Nullable QuerySnapshot queryDocumentSnapshots, #Nullable FirebaseFirestoreException e) {
for (DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot : queryDocumentSnapshots) {
// I assume you have a model class called MyStatus
MyStatus status= documentSnapshot.toObject(MyStatus.class);
if (status!= null) {
//do somthing...!
}
}
}
});
}
I am trying to do a "keys-only query" with Google Datastore API for Node.js, as exemplified in the documentation here.
I do that after having saved a number of records like this:
datastore.save(
records.map(
(record) => {
return {
key: datastore.key([kind, record.id]),
data: record,
};
}
)
The constant kind is a string. Each record has a valid unique id property (a number), which, as shown here, should also serve as the datastore key identifier.
The records are stored correctly. I can retrieve them all without problems through
datastore.runQuery(datastore.createQuery(kind))
.then( (results) => {
// whatever...
}
All the saved records are returned correctly.
But when I do a "keys-only query" like this (and as exemplified in the documentation):
const query = datastore.createQuery(kind)
.select('__key__');
datastore.runQuery(query)
.then( (results) => {
// whatever...
}
my results[0] return value is simply an array of empty objects like this:
results[0]: [ {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, ..., {}]
The number of empty objects returned here is the correct number of records of the given kind. But the problem is that they are empty objects. I expected to get the datastore key for each record here.
If, on the other hand, I do a "normal" projection query, on a "normal" property (like "id" - which should be identical with the datastore key, as far as I understand, after having defined the key through datastore.key[kind, record.id]), I retrieve the projected "id" properties correctly thus:
const query = datastore.createQuery(kind)
.select('id');
datastore.runQuery(query)
.then( (results) => {
// whatever...
}
Result:
results[0]: [
{ id: 5289385927 },
{ id: 5483575687 },
{ id: 5540575111 },
{ id: 5540622279 },
// ... and so on
]
So what is wrong with my "keys-only-query"? I have done it exactly in the way the documentation describes. But I get only empty results.
NOTE: I have tested this only in Datastore emulator. Same result in Datastore Emulator as in AppEngine.
The objects are not empty but contain only datastore keys, which are stored under a symbol property: datastore.KEY. In javascript, symbol properties might not output by default.
You can get entity key using symbol datastore.KEY
var keys = results.map(function(res) {
return res[datastore.KEY];
});