Let's say I have for example:
const Stats = Item({
name: String,
value: Number
})
const Player = Schema({
name: String,
objectInventory: [Item],
petInventory: [Item]
})
Would the items somehow get mixed up? Is this safe? Are all the items unique and know where they belong to? I don't want to write Player.objectInventory and get pets in there. I'm sorry if this seems like common sense but I had that doubt.
Yes there can be two documents in one schema. This items will not get mixed up. The mongoose is nothing more than just another layer on top of the database to help you with schema. So in your case, you would just put different ids for different properties (e.g. objectInventory and petInventory) and when you would populate them, the mongoose will just make correct queries to return the results.
Related
Here is my Mongoose Schema:
var SchemaA = new Schema({
field1: String,
.......
fieldB : { type: Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: 'SchemaB' }
});
var SchemaB = new Schema({
field1: String,
.......
fieldC : { type: Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: 'SchemaC' }
});
var SchemaC = new Schema({
field1: String,
.......
.......
.......
});
While i access schemaA using find query, i want to have fields/property
of SchemaA along with SchemaB and SchemaC in the same way as we apply join operation in SQL database.
This is my approach:
SchemaA.find({})
.populate('fieldB')
.exec(function (err, result){
SchemaB.populate(result.fieldC,{path:'fieldB'},function(err, result){
.............................
});
});
The above code is working perfectly, but the problem is:
I want to have information/properties/fields of SchemaC through SchemaA, and i don't want to populate fields/properties of SchemaB.
The reason for not wanting to get the properties of SchemaB is, extra population will slows the query unnecessary.
Long story short:
I want to populate SchemaC through SchemaA without populating SchemaB.
Can you please suggest any way/approach?
As an avid mongodb fan, I suggest you use a relational database for highly relational data - that's what it's built for. You are losing all the benefits of mongodb when you have to perform 3+ queries to get a single object.
Buuuuuut, I know that comment will fall on deaf ears. Your best bet is to be as conscious as you can about performance. Your first step is to limit the fields to the minimum required. This is just good practice even with basic queries and any database engine - only get the fields you need (eg. SELECT * FROM === bad... just stop doing it!). You can also try doing lean queries to help save a lot of post-processing work mongoose does with the data. I didn't test this, but it should work...
SchemaA.find({}, 'field1 fieldB', { lean: true })
.populate({
name: 'fieldB',
select: 'fieldC',
options: { lean: true }
}).exec(function (err, result) {
// not sure how you are populating "result" in your example, as it should be an array,
// but you said your code works... so I'll let you figure out what goes here.
});
Also, a very "mongo" way of doing what you want is to save a reference in SchemaC back to SchemaA. When I say "mongo" way of doing it, you have to break away from your years of thinking about relational data queries. Do whatever it takes to perform fewer queries on the database, even if it requires two-way references and/or data duplication.
For example, if I had a Book schema and Author schema, I would likely save the authors first and last name in the Books collection, along with an _id reference to the full profile in the Authors collection. That way I can load my Books in a single query, still display the author's name, and then generate a hyperlink to the author's profile: /author/{_id}. This is known as "data denormalization", and it has been known to give people heartburn. I try and use it on data that doesn't change very often - like people's names. In the occasion that a name does change, it's trivial to write a function to update all the names in multiple places.
SchemaA.find({})
.populate({
path: "fieldB",
populate:{path:"fieldC"}
}).exec(function (err, result) {
//this is how you can get all key value pair of SchemaA, SchemaB and SchemaC
//example: result.fieldB.fieldC._id(key of SchemaC)
});
why not add a ref to SchemaC on SchemaA? there will be no way to bridge to SchemaC from SchemaA if there is no SchemaB the way you currently have it unless you populate SchemaB with no other data than a ref to SchemaC
As explained in the docs under Field Selection, you can restrict what fields are returned.
.populate('fieldB') becomes populate('fieldB', 'fieldC -_id'). The -_id is required to omit the _id field just like when using select().
I think this is not possible.Because,when a document in A referring a document in B and that document is referring another document in C, how can document in A know which document to refer from C without any help from B.
The problem I have is a One to many mapping with mongoose(Mongodb). The one is the Order(buyer data) and the many is the Items(price,quantity,etc).
1) How I should create the Schema for the the Order and items, like should I put the items in an array in the order?
2) Would all the data be in one post function?
I herd you can use ObjectId to link the many to one but I am not sure how to.
Since an Order sounds like it will have a relative small number of items, the simplest thing would probably be just a list of item Ids:
var OrderSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
items: [{type: mongoose.Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: 'Item'}]
});
var ItemSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
price: Number,
quantity: Number
});
Most UIs would not build an entire order in a single POST function, so it's probably best to allow creating an order and then separately adding items to it via order.items.push(itemId).
I am trying to create an array of nested objects. I am following an example from a book that does the following:
// Creates the Schema for the Features object (mimics ESRI)
var Phone = new Schema({
number: { type: Number, required: false },
...
personId: {type: Schema.Types.ObjectId}
}
);
// Creates the Schema for the Attachments object
var Person = new Schema({
name: { type: String },
phones: [Phone]
}
);
var Person = mongoose.model('Person', Person);
Which works just fine when storing multiple Phone #'s for a person. However I am not sure if there is a good/fast way to get a Phone object by _id. Since Phone is not a mongoose model you cannot go directly to Phone.findOne({...}); Right now I am stuck with getting a person by _id then looping over that persons phones and seeing if the id matches.
Then I stumbled upon this link:
http://mongoosejs.com/docs/populate.html
Is one way more right than the other? Currently when I delete a person his/her phones go away as well. Not really sure that works with 'populate', seems like I would need to delete Person and Phones.
Anyone want to attempt to explain the differences?
Thanks in advance
The general rule is that if you need to independently query Phones, then you should keep them in a separate collection and use populate to look them up from People when needed. Otherwise, embedding them is typically a better choice as it simplifies updates and deletion.
When using an embedded approach like you are now, note that Mongoose arrays provide an id method you can use to more easily look up an element by its _id value.
var phone = person.phones.id(id);
In my app, users have events and groups - and events can (but don't need to) belong to groups. I'm still new to non-relational DBs, so I'd like to know best practices for optimally structuring this.
var user = new mongoose.Schema({
name: { type: String },
events: [event],
groups: [group]
});
var group = new mongoose.Schema({
name: { type: String }
});
This is where I'm confused.
var event = new mongoose.Schema({
name: { type: String }
groups: ????
});
Do I just keep an array with references to the id of group?
If I do that, how would I find events by group?
And if a group is deleted, would I have to iterate over each event to remove the reference?
In mongodb, you have two choices. Embedding (subdocument) Vs Linking (another collection)
Embedding Vs Linking
There are pros and cons with each approach.
Embedding:
You nest it inside the document.
for instance, your document might look like
{
name : 'name',
events: [a,b,c],
groups: [1,2,3]
}
you get atomicity, since only one collection is involved.
however, values might be duplicated
Linking
Here you link with a kind of Foreign key. Refer to docs
Documents in one collection will reference documents in another collection. Disadvantage is that you lose atomic operations. However, you eliminate duplication.
If you want to update groups, and update events, and they are in separate collections, you'll have to handle atomic updates yourself. Mongodb will not guarantee it for you.
I am creaing schemas similar to newsposts with an option for users to like and dislike them.
Here are the schemas for same
Client= new mongoose.Schema({
ip:String
})
Rates = new mongoose.Schema({
client:ObjectId,
newsid:ObjectId,
rate:Number
})
News = new mongoose.Schema({
title: String,
body: String,
likes:{type:Number,default:0},
dislikes:{type:Number,default:0},
created:Date,
// tag:String,
client:ObjectId,
tag:String,
ff:{type:Number,default:20}
});
var newsm=mongoose.model('News', News);
var clientm=mongoose.model('Client', Client);
var ratesm=mongoose.model('Rates', Rates);
In order to retreive the ratingsgiven by a particular user having given a set of newsposts, I tried,
newsm.find({tag:tag[req.params.tag_id]},[],{ sort:{created:-1},limit: buffer+1 },function(err,news){
ratesm.find({
client:client._id,
newsid:{$lte:news[0]._id,$gte:news.slice(-1)[0]._id}
},
function(err,ratings){
})
})
This query returns empty list no matter what. I doubt whether $gte and $lte be used to compare objectIds. Am I right? How can I which posts a user has liked/disliked in a given set of newsposts?
Yes, ObjectIds can be queried with range queries like $gt/$lt etc. Can you post the exact values being used for news[0]._id and news.slice(-1)[0]._id that are giving you the empty result?
However, i'm not sure that $gt/$lt is what you want here. It seems like what you need to do is extract the _ids of the news items, and then use that in a $in filter in your query on ratesm.