I am using few StoredField and few TextField in my indexing (Lucene 6.2.1)
for every document I have my own unique ID
if I create field as
Field docID = new TextField("docID", docId, Field.Store.YES);
I am able to delet document like following
Field transactionIdField = new TextField("transactionId", transactionId, Field.Store.YES);
Term docIdTerm = new Term("docID", docId);
Analyzer analyzer = new StandardAnalyzer();
IndexWriterConfig iwc = new IndexWriterConfig(analyzer);
iwc.setOpenMode(OpenMode.CREATE_OR_APPEND);
IndexWriter writer = repositoryWriters.getTargetIndexWriter(repositoryUuid);
// 4. remove document with docId
writer.deleteDocuments(docIdTerm);
LOG.log(Level.INFO, "Document removed from Index, docID: {0}", docId);
writer.commit();
But if I create field as
Field docID = new SttoredField("docID", docId);
the document is not deleted
How can I delete a document based on a Stored Field Value?
I want to keep it a StoredField so tat users can not search teh document based on docID
Quoting StoredField documentation,
A field whose value is stored so that IndexSearcher.doc and
IndexReader.document() will return the field and its value.
i.e. it would simply be a stored field for a document and there would be no Terms or Indexing for this field.
Method, IndexWriter.deleteDocuments(Term...terms) wouldn't find that document since there will be no Term for a StoredField.
A TextField on the other hand is indexed and terms generated for it,
A field that is indexed and tokenized, without term vectors. For
example this would be used on a 'body' field, that contains the bulk
of a document's text.
A stored TextField is indexed as well as stored so terms are available and value is stored to re construct the document too.
So in sumamry, you can't delete a document on the basis of only a StoredField , you need an indexed field too - with same name to be able to delete it.
Related
I using firebase, nodejs and i have a question how to query field exist some document.
Example :
Collections : users => document : A with field {
....
is_correct: true
}
document : B with field {
.....
}
In my above example , i have two document in collection users. On document A i have field is_correct: true and on document B field is_correct not exist.
My collection users about 15.000 document and it have 50 document contain field is_correct: true
When i write code look like :
await firestore.collection('users').where('is_correct', '==', true).get();
it can get correct me 50 document. But i don't understand it can using index on field is_correct or not ? And it can query best performance ? I understand firebase can't get document if field undefined. It impart in case ? Please help ? Thanks you
For a simple query like
firestore.collection('users').where('is_correct', '==', true)
you don't need to configure any index, Firestore does it automatically.
As you mentioned, only documents where the given field exists can match the query.
And this is the case also for Not-equal (!=) and not-in queries: they exclude documents where the given field does not exist, as explained in the documentation.
Also, note that a field exists when it's set to any value, including an empty string (""), null, and NaN (not a number).
So, in conclusion, if you want to query for documents where is_correct is not true, you need to create this field in these documents with a value different than true.
Creating saved search in suitescript using nlapiSearchRecord. All the column value returns except one column which is type is custom list.
How could I get value of custom list?
To get the value I'm using code lines below.
columns[0] = new nlobjSearchColumn( 'customlist' );
var searchresults = nlapiSearchRecord( 'customrecord', null, filters, columns );
To get the column value
var listValue = searchresult.getListValue( 'customlist' );
I assume you've simplified your code in trying to be clear or confidential but there will never be fields or records with those ids.
from a search you would do:
var searchResult = searchResults[0];
searchResult.getValue(fieldId, joinName, summary)
// or in your case
searchResult.getValue('customlist'); //returns id of list value or simple result of non-list/record fields
or (and I think this is the one you want)
searchResult.getText('customlist'); // returns the display value of the list/record field.
In the past, I've added multi-value text data to a field putting the values into a simple JavaScript array. For example:
doc.replaceItemValue('AlwaysAccess', ["John Doe","Bob Smith"]);
Any recommendations on how to store a series of DATES in a multi-value, Time/Date field in a Notes document?
TL;DR: The concept should be almost identical to a multi-value Field of Strings, your Date(/Time) values need to be valid NotesDateTime values properly stored.
A Notes field can have multiple Date/Time values; you can see this in the Form, selecting a field of type Date/Time and checking "Allow multiple values".
You can also see that a multi-value of from the replaceItemValue page of the Domino Designer Knowledge Center.
To accomplish the same with the NotesDominoAPI (in SSJS), we'll need to:
get a handle on the NotesItem (the field, which I'll create)
create our values to put in the field (I'll create a couple using session.createDateTime)
add these values to a java.util.Vector, which will be interpreted as multi-value (you should also be able to use the SSJS Array, if you prefer)
set the values to the field
Sample code (I just ran it in the onClick event of an xp:button):
//create a new doc
var tmpDoc:NotesDocument = database.createDocument();
//give it a Form
tmpDoc.replaceItemValue("Form","MultiDateFieldForm");
//create a NotesItem
var itm:NotesItem = tmpDoc.replaceItemValue("DateFieldName",new java.util.Vector());
//create the Vector, our multi-value container
var vec:java.util.Vector = new java.util.Vector();
//create a couple NotesDateTime values to store
var first = session.createDateTime(new Date());
vec.add(first);
var second = session.createDateTime("Tomorrow");
vec.add(second);
//save the values to the item
itm.setValues(vec);
//save
tmpDoc.save();
//recycle!
first.recycle();
second.recylce();
itm.recycle();
tmpDoc.recylce();
[Edit]
As Frantisek Kossuth points out in the comments, be sure to recycle your NotesDomino API objects (especially the Date/Time ones). I've updated the code to reflect this.
[/Edit]
Checking a Form-based View after running, I'm giving this (field properties reflect the multi-value field of Date/Time values; two shots as it ran out of the box).
Essentially, I found that I needed to create a vector to store the list of dates, and populate it with NotesDateTime objects.
var vRepeatDates:java.util.Vector = new java.util.Vector();
In my case, I needed to increment the dates x amount of times. So, I used a for loop to add the NotesDateTime elements to the vector (while using .adjustDay(1) to increment the dates)
And finally store the vector in a field using replaceItemValue()
doc.replaceItemValue("RepeatInstanceDates",vRepeatDates);
How do you set a richText value with replaceItemValue from a rich tect control?
I found this bit of code here:
http://www.bleedyellow.com/blogs/martin/entry/save_a_richtext_field_from_a_xpage_to_a_document?lang=en_us
var doc = configuratieformulieren.getDocumentByKey("ConfiguratieIVNL", true);
if(doc == null){
return;
}else{
var titel = getComponent("inputTextIBPTitelIVNL").getValue();
doc.replaceItemValue("IBPTitel",titel);
var inhoud = getComponent("inputRichTextIBPInhoudIVNL").getValue();
if (inhoud != null){
var contentType = doc.getMIMEEntity("IBPInhoud").getContentType();
var encoding = doc.getMIMEEntity("IBPInhoud").getEncoding();
var str = session.createStream();
inhoud.toString();
str.writeText(inhoud.toString());
doc.getMIMEEntity("IBPInhoud").setContentFromText(str, contentType, encoding);
}
doc.save(true, true);
}
sessionScope.put("FormulierIVNLInfoBeschPG","Lezen");
Is it correct? It looks like this code depends on the fact that the field already exists. How id this handled if the field does not exist? Is there and easier way to set a field value to the contents of a rich text control?
Let data sources do the heavy lifting. For a long and boring (but thorough) explanation of why, read this article. But here's the quick version:
Don't use:
getComponent("someID").getValue()
Instead, use:
someDataSource.getValue("someFieldName")
This is always a more efficient way to access data: instead of having to spider through the component tree to locate a match, it goes straight to the data source, which the component would have to ask anyway if you asked it what its value is.
Similarly, don't use:
someDataSource.replaceItemValue("someFieldName", someValue)
Instead, use:
someDataSource.setValue("someFieldName", someValue)
The latter is much more flexible on input type. The data source already contains all the logic for determining what to do based on whether the value is text, date, number, rich text, file upload, etc. No need to duplicate any of that logic in your own code.
So if the goal is to update a separate document based on data in the current document, just define a separate document data source that points to the document you want to update. Then it's literally this simple:
configData.setValue("RichTextData", currentDocument.getValue("RichTextData"));
configData.save();
With the above code, if the field you specify on the current document is rich text, then the item it creates on the other document will be rich text. If it's any other type on the current document, it will be the same type on the other document. With getValue() and setValue(), you don't have to pay attention to the data type... the data source handles all of that for you.
For bonus points, scope configData to applicationScope so that any updates to it are immediately cached for all users... or sessionScope if the document you're updating is user-specific.
I was able to solve my orginal issue. To expand on my issue I was having problems with using a dialog box to create Form / Document B from Form / Document A using a dialog box on Form A. What was happening was any changes to Form B would be saved to Document A's datasource.
I found the ingoreRequestParams on Form B's datasource, set it and that solved my problem with Form B writing to Form A document.
I'm currently working with Sharepoint 2010 and Sharepoint API on creating a document library with some existing document lists.
I have created a WinForm that loops through a given doc lists and then add them to diffrent document libraries depending on 'Type(A metadata field)' of the document. Type is determined by reading the "Metadata fields" for the specific document. Metadata fields are read by creating Hashtable of SPFields
Question
When document metadata field is read to determin the 'Type', I have realised that the Metadatafield 'Type'(Key) actually pulls out as 'Type+TaxHTField0' and value for the Key pulls out as value|GUID
So for example if my Metadata field is called Doc_x0020_Type when it returns from the API it comes out as Doc_x0020_TypeTaxHTField0 the value for this should be just 'products' but it comes out as
products|21EC2020-3AEA-1069-A2DD-08002B30309D
Is there a setting we can set in sharepoint to eleminate adding extra charaters and GUID to both Key and Value for metadata fields?
Below is what I've done to rectify the issue, but wondered if it's a setting we can set in sharepoint
public String GetLibrary(Hashtable itemProperties)
{
String typeMetaField = "Doc_x0020_TypeTaxHTField0";
String sKey = String.Empty;
foreach (DictionaryEntry deEntry in itemProperties)
{
sKey = deEntry.Key.ToString();
if (sKey == typeMetaField){
_type = deEntry.Value.ToString();
string[] value = _type.Split('|');
_type = value[0].Trim();
}
}
return GetDocumentLibrary(_type);
}
This is by design.
If you add a taxonomy field to your own contenttype (for instance named 'MyTaxField') SharePoint will autogenerate a hidden 'Notes' field that contains the label and the guid of the values you select in the UI.
This is quite helpful when using SPSiteDataQuery since it will return empty values for taxonomy fields that allow multiple values (works with single value taxonomy fields though).
The only way to get the taxonomy values is to have a for the hidden field named 'MyTaxFieldTaxHTField0'.
But as you have discovered, this field might not be formatted as youd like :).
I have not tested this, but did you check if your contenttype contains a field called "Doc_x0020_Type" (possible of type TaxonomyFieldValue(Collection))?