I want to retrieve a large collection of documents from Cloudant via the Web interface, with no sort directive, in 200-document pages (using bookmarks). If I retrieve all of the pages, then retrieve them all again, will the documents in the two collections be in the same order?
for views, native UTF-8 sorting is applied to the key defined in the view function.
for search indexes, the default sort order is by relevance with the highest scoring matches first.
without making any changes that would impact the default sort order, subsequent retrievals should be in the same order.
Related
I am setting up a large (2000+ records) "task tracking register" using a SharePoint List, and intend to use Powerapps as the UI.
As you would imagine there numerous drop drown fields in the list which I would like to use as a filter within the Powerapp, but being that these are "Complex" fields, they are non-delegatable.
I'm lead to believe that I can avoid this by creating additional Columns in the SharePoint list that use a Flow that populates them with plain text based on the Drop-down selected.
This is a bit of pain, so I'd like to limit the quantity of these helper columns as much as possible.
Can anyone advise if a Powerapps Gallery will initially filter the results being returned using the delegateable functions first, and then perform the non-delegatable search functions on those items, or whether the inclusion of a non-delgatable search criteria means that the whole query is performed in a non-delegatable manner?
i.e.
Filter 3000 records down to 800 using delegatable search, then perform the additional filtering of those 800 on the app for the non-delegatable search criteria.
I understand that it may be possible to do this via loading the initial filtered results into a collection within the app and potentially filtering that list, but have read some conflicting information as to the efficacy of this method, so not such if this is the route I should take.
Delegation can be a challenge. Here are some methods for handling it:
Users rarely need more than a few dozen records at any time in a mobile app. Try to use delegable queries to create a Collection locally. From there, its lightning fast.
If you MUST pull in all 3k+ of your records, here's my favorite hack. Collect chunks of your data source then combine into a single collection.
If you want the function to scale (and the user's wait time) you can determine the first and last ID to dynamically build a function.
Good luck!
We have several Azure Search indexes that use a Cosmos DB collection of 25K documents as a source and each index has a large number of document properties that can be used for sorting and filtering.
We have a requirement to allow users to sort and filter the documents and then search and jump to a specific documents page in the paginated result set.
Is it possible to query an Azure Search index with sorting and filtering and get the position/rank of a specific document id from the result set? Would I need to look at an alternative option? I believe there could be a way of doing this with a SQL back-end but obviously that would be a major undertaking to implement.
I've yet to find a way of doing this other than writing a query to paginate through until I find the required document which would be a relatively expensive and possibly slow task in terms of processing on the server.
There is no mechanism in Azure Search for filtering within the resultset of another query. You'd have to page through results, looking for the document ID on the client side. If your queries aren't very selective and produce many pages of results, this can be slow as $skip actually re-evaluates all results up to the page you specify.
You could use caching to make this faster. At least one Azure Search customer is using Redis to cache search results. If your queries are selective enough, you could even cache the results in memory so you'd only pay the cost of paging once.
Trying this at the moment. I'm using a two step process:
Generate your query but set $count=true and $top=0. The query result should contain a field named #odata.count.
You can then pick an index, then use $top=1 and $skip=<index> to return a single entry. There is one caveat: $skip will only accept numbers less than 100000
Are Cloudant's concept of Indexes native to CouchDB? It appears the Cloudant has built their Index feature on top of CouchDB, is this correct? If so, what is the difference between an Index and a View?
The Query interface is (currently) a simplifying API for creating and accessing the undelying CouchDB views. The indexes you define via the _index endpoint are actually translated into views, and those views can be accessed and used in the same way as a normal CouchDB view, as well as via the _find endpoint (note: the inverse is not true - Query doesn't currently use existing javascript views). The views stay in the erlang layer so gives us the opportunity for performance enhancements etc.
You can also filter result data to only return document fields you're interested in, as opposed to hard coding the returned fields in the view or running the view result through a list function.
Cheers
Simon
take for instance an ecommerce store with catalog and price data in different web services. Now, we know that solr does not allow partial updates to a document field(JIRA bug), so how do you index these two services ?
I had three possibilities, but I'm not sure which one is correct:
Partial update - not possible
Solr join - have price and catalog in separate index and join them in solr. You cant join them in your client side code, without screwing up pagination and facet counts. I dont know if this is possible in pre-solr 4.0
have some sort of intermediate indexing service, which composes an entire document based on the results from both these services and sends this for indexing. however there are two problems with this approach:
3.1 You can still compose documents partially, and then when the document is complete, you can set a flag indicating that this is a complete document. However, to do this each time a document has to be indexed, it has to first check whether the document exists in the index, edit it and push it back. So, big performance hit.
3.2 Your intermediate service checks whether a particular id is available from all services - if not silently drops it and hopes that when it appears in the other service, the first service will already be populated. This is OK, but it means that an item is not available in search until all fields are available (not desirable always - if u dont have price, you can simply set it to out-of-stock and still have it available)
Of all these methods, only #3.2 looks viable to me - does anyone know how you do this kind of thing with DIH? Because now, you have two different entry points (2 different web services) into indexing and each has to check the other
The usual way to solve this is close to your 3.2: write code that creates the document you want to index from the different available services. The usual flow would be to fetch all the items from the catalog, then fetch the prices when indexing. Wether you want to have items in the search from the catalog that doesn't have prices available depends on your business rules for the service. If you want to speed up the process (fetch product, fetch price, repeat), expand the API to fetch 1000 products and then prices for all the products at the same time.
There is no reason why you should drop an item from the index if it doesn't have price, unless you don't want items without prices in your index. It's up to you and your particular need what kind of information you need to have available before indexing the document.
As far as I remember 4.0 will probably support partial updates as it moves to the new abstraction layer for the index files, although I'm not sure it'll make your situation that much more flexible.
Approach 3.2 is the most common, though I think about it slightly differently. First, think about what you want in your search results, then create one Solr document for each potential result, with as much information as you can get. If it is OK to have a missing price, then add the document that way.
You may also want to match the documents in Solr, but get the latest data for display from the web services. That gives fresh results and avoids skew between the batch updates to Solr and the live data.
Don't hold your breath for fine-grained updates to be added to Solr and Lucene. It gets a lot of its speed from not having record-level locking and update.
So for a new project, I'm building a system for an ecommerce site. The idea is to import products from suppliers and instead of inserting them directly into our catalog, we would store all the information in a staging area. Each supplier has their own stage (i.e. table in the database), and then I will flatten the multiple staging areas into a single entity (currently a single table but later on perhaps into Sphinx or Solr). Then our merchandisers would be able to search the staging products' relevant fields (name and description) and be shown a list of products that match and then choose to have those products pushed into the live catalog. The search will query on the single table (the flattened staging areas).
My design calls to only store searchable and filterable fields in the single flattened table - e.g. name, description, supplier_id, supplier_prod_id etc. And the search queries will return only the ID's of the items matching and a class (supplier_id) that would be used to identify which staging area the product is from.
Another senior engineer feels the flattened search table should include other meta fields (which would not be searched on), but could be used when 'pushing' the products from stage to live catalog. He also feels that the query should return all this other information.
I feel pretty strongly about only having searchable fields in the flattened table and having the search return only class/id pairs which could be used to fetch all the other necessary metadata about the product (simple select * from class_table where id in (1,2,3)).
Part of my reasoning is that this will make it easier later on to switch the flattened table from database to a search server like sphinx or solr and the rest of the code wouldn't have to be changed just because implementation of the search changed.
Am I on the right path? How can I convince the other engineer why it is important to keep only searchable fields and return only ID's? Or more specifically, why should a search application return only IDs of objects?
I think that you're on the right path. If those other fields provide no value to either uniquely identify a staged item or to allow the user to filter staged items, then the data is fundamentally useless until the item is pushed to the live environment. If the other engineer feels that the extra metadata will help the users make a more informed decision, then you might as well make those extra fields searchable (thereby meeting your stated purpose for the table(s).)
The only reason I could think of to pre-fetch that other, non-searchable data would be for a performance improvement on the push to the live environment.
You should use each tool for what it does best. A full text search engine, such as Solr or Sphinx, excels at searching textual fields and ranking the hits quickly. It has no special advantage in retrieving stored data in a select-like fashion. A database is optimized for that. So, yes, you are on the right path. Please see Search Engine versus DBMS for other issues involved in deciding what to store inside the search engine.
In the case of sphinx, it only returns document ids and named attributes back to you anyway (attributes being numerical data, for the most part). I'd say you've got the right idea as the other metadata is just a simple JOIN away from the flattened table if you need it.
You can regard Solr as a powerfull index, so as an index gives IDs back, it would be logical that solr does the same.
You can use the solr query parameter fl to ask for identifier only results, for instance fl=id.
However, there's a feature that needs solr to give you back some data too: the highlighting of search terms in the matched documents. If you don't need it, then using solr to retrieve the identifiers only is fine (I assume you need only the documents list, and no other features, like facets, related docs or spell checking).
That said, it should matter how you build your objects in your search function, either from the DB using uniquely solr to retrieve IDs or from solr returned fields (providing they're stored) or even a mix of both. Think solr to get the 'highlighted' content fields and DB for the other ones. Again if you don't need highlighting, this is not an issue.
I'm using Solr with thousands of documents but only return the ids for the following reasons :
For Solr :
- if some sync mistake append, it's not a big deal (especially in your case, displaying a different price can be a big issue... it's like the item will not be in the right place, but the data are right)
- you will save a lot of time because when you don't ask Solr to return the 'description' of documents (I mean many lines of text)
For your DB :
- you can cache your results, so it's even faster with an ID (you don't need all the data from Solr everytime !!!)
- you build you results in the same way (you don't need a specific method when you want to build html from Solr, and an other method from your DB)
I think there is a lot more...