I'm running into slow performance related to select N+1 issues when accessing the taxonomy terms associated with content items of a custom content type.
I've worked around issues like this in the past by getting all the related content ids up front and so I can use the ContentManager's GetMany method to get them all in one shot. For example, this has worked well for the MediaLibraryPickerField as I can easily get at the media content ids using the Ids property on the field. Here's an example similar to what I've done: Eager loading a field
I'd like to use a similar approach for getting taxonomy terms but I can't figure out how to get the term ids for a Taxonomy field on my content item. It seems that I can only access the lazy loaded term part which results in a select N+1 as they are retrieved for each content item.
Is there a way to get just the term ids for a taxonomy field without retrieving the whole term? I've spent some time digging around in the Taxonomy module source but I'm not finding any way to do it.
Any suggestions?
Try to inject IRepository<TermContentItem>. You should then be able to query over that, going beyond what the service offers natively.
Related
Can someone confirm the behaviour of the Smart search results webpart when using a Smart search filter on a particular field, documentation here, when the index, and the expected results, are compound of multiple page types?
In my scenario I have 2 page types, one is always a child of the other, my hypothetical scenario would be a Folder and File types as an example.
I've configured the index with Pages type and Standard analyzer to include all Folder and File types under the path /MyOS/% on the tree.
The search page, includes the Smart search results webpart and a Smart search filter, a checkbox for the File's field FileIsHidden.
What I'm trying to ascertain is the possibility for the results to include all folders that have a hidden field, as well as the files?
Client has a v8.2 license and now has a requirement similar to this scenario.
Thanks so much for any help in advance.
Firstly what i would do is download the latest version of LUKE, it's a lucene inspector that allows you to run queries, inspect the data, etc.
https://code.google.com/archive/p/luke/downloads
Your search indexes are in the App_Data/Modules/SmartSearch/[SearchName], now i am not sure if LUKE can query 2 indexes as the same time, however you can run hte same query against both and see if it's filtering out results one way or another.
If you are trying to query where a field must be a value, and the other page type does not have the field, it probably is filtered out. What you need to do is use the lucene syntax to say "(classname = 'cms.file' and fileonlyproperty = '' OR classname <> 'cms.file')" so to say.
You'll have to test, but say the class name is cms.file and cms.folder, and the property is FileIsHidden, i think the syntax would be:
+((FieldIsHidden:(true) and classname:('cms.file')) OR (NOT classname:('cms.file'))
But you'll have to test that.
I have a custom contentType "Project Info" and 'Title' property is derrived from "Item".
I want to sort via Title (I'm using rest).
I have created a result source and while using the content type the I get the desired "project-items":
ContentTypeId:0x0100A5C45A8A8F7F904EA9BDB82895CC00C6*
So far so good...
I've tried to use "Refinablestring00" and map properties similar to 'Title' managed property.
Then I try to sort the result source via "refinablestring00" and it doesnt work.
Am I missing a mapped property, or what am I doing wrong?
I think the issue is the Mappings to Crawled Properties setting that is forced on the OOTB RefineableStrings. The Title Managed Property is set Include content from the first crawled property that contains information, but the RefinableStrings all have the forced setting in SharePoint Online of Include Content From All Crawled Properties. Because of this, if a search result has data for more than one of the mapped crawled properties, this could affect your sort order.
Unfortunately I think this is a big short coming to SPO when it comes to Search customization that hopefully will be addressed in the future as they learn better ways to manage Search across multiple tenancies.
What I would suggest is altering the mappings to only include one crawled property (the one that corresponds with the SharePoint list item Title field) and this should give you a result that's closer to what you're looking for.
I'm new to Orchard but from various blog posts and SO answers it seems that Lists would help me achieve what I want. Unfortunately it seems that Lists have now been deprecated.
The documentation at http://docs.orchardproject.net/Documentation/Creating-lists suggests using Taxonomies instead. Is it possible to achieve the functionality of a List using Taxonomies?
You can use taxonomies to produce a list of content items. Create your taxonomy, add some items to it, attach the taxonomy field to your content type, and select the taxonomy you want to be displayed in the content type settings. Create a content item with a taxonomy selected then go to the url:
/taxonomy-name/*selected-taxonomy-item*
and it should display a list of all items with that taxonomy selected.
However, lists were deprecated and replaced by Projections, I would recommend using these. They are part of core and can be enabled from the backend. You can then create a query with your projection uses. This query determines what items you want displaying. It is pretty nice and simple, just need to play around with it. Let me know if you need more details about it, or probably just googling Orchard Projections will produce some useful links if you need to do some more complex things with it
Searching Magento with fulltext search engine and like method , it will store results in catalogsearch_fulltext table in "data_index" field where it stores value in the format like
each searchable attribute is separated with |.
e.g
3003|Enabled|None||Product name|1.99|yellow|0
here it store sku,status,tax class, product name , price ,color etc etc
It stores all searchable attribute value.
Now the issue is for Configurable product , it will also store the associated products name ,price ,status in the same field like
3003|Enabled|Enabled|Enabled|Enabled|None|None|None|None|Product name|Product name|associted Product name1|associted Product name2|associted Product name3|1.99|2.00|2.99|3.99|yellow|black|yellow|green|0|0|0|0
So what happen is if i search for any word from associated product, it will also list the main configurable product as it has the word in its "data_index" field.
Need some suggestion how can i avoid associated products being included in data_index, So that i can have perfect search result.
thanks
We are looking into our search as well and it has been surprising to see the inefficiencies included in the fulltext table. We have some configurable products as well that have MANY variations and their population in the fulltext search is downright horrendous.
As for solutions, I can only offer my approach to fix the problem (not completed: but rather in the process).
I am extending Magento to include an event listener to the process of indexing the products (Because catalog search indexing is when the fulltext database is populated). Once that process occurs, I am writing my own module to remove duplicate entries from the associated products and also to add the functionality of adding additional search keyword terms as populated from a CSV file.
This should effectively increase search speed dramatically and also return more relevent search results. Because as of now, configurable products are getting "search bias" in the search results.
This isn't so much of an answer as a comment, but it was too lengthy to fit in the comments but I thought this might be beneficial to you. Once I get my module working, if you would like, I can possibly give you directions on how you could implement a similar module yourself.
Hope that helped (if only for moral support in magento's search struggle)
We have the sharepoint 2010 environment with Document ID's enabled.
Given (part of) a Doc ID, we want to programmatically retrieve the document(s) matching that ID. The problem seems to be that this column is rather special, in that it might need special handling.
Using an SPSiteDataQuery, fetching the _dlc_DocId field as part of the viewfields works fine. However, including it as part of the where query never results in any documents being fetched.
Using the Search API has gotten us nowhere at all.
Has anyone pulled this off, or any suggestions on how to tackle this problem?
[Update] Turns out we were fooled by subtle errors in the XML and bad debugging misinterpretations. This stuff just works fine.
I don't normally contribute to these sorts of things because cleverer people than I always get there before me, but as this is an old one with no proper answer I think I'll add my thoughts for those who find this page.
I was struggling with this but after a little digging around and learning a bit of Caml I got this working.
I am using the SharePoint Client Object Model against SharePoint 2010 and Office365 beta.
Start off your query by looking at the all list items query:
Microsoft.SharePoint.Client.CamlQuery.CreateAllItemsQuery().ViewXml
"<View Scope=\"RecursiveAll\">\r\n <Query>\r\n </Query>\r\n</View>"
Stick a where child inside the query
Then add in
<Eq><FieldRef Name="_dlc_DocId" /><Value Type="Text">MDXC2KE55ASN-3-80</Value></Eq>
replacing MDXC2KE55ASN-3-80 with the doc ID you are looking for inside the where.
Also don't forget you might want to make use of these too:
<ViewFields><FieldRef Name="_dlc_DocId" /></ViewFields>
<RowLimit>1</RowLimit>
Then use List.GetItems() method to bring back the ListItemCollection.
Just in case nobody comes with a slick solutions from the depths of the Sharepoint infrastructure:
What would Google Do?
Slice is, Dice it and dump it in a reverse index.
Solr and Lucene offer supreme tools for this. The idea is to cut the DocId's in small pieces and add the location of the document to the bucket for that piece.
Say We have "A real nice document" with Id ABCD123. You would add it to the buckets
ABCD, BCD1, CD12, D123
When searching for a partial ID (+ other data like dates, types, ...) you (well the search engine) creates the union of the buckets + applies additonal constraints.
To make this happen you need to write a spider for the sharepoint server and a routine which makes a record of data elements to be indexed.
Put a nice REST interface in frnt of it (actually SOLR already has that), integrate it in the main sharepoint server, and nobody needs to know there is something else running behind it.
These products can also incrementally update the indexes, so they can be kept up to date.
you could use the following to get the Document ID.
SPFile file = MethodToUploadFileToServer(web, filepath);
SPListItem item = file.Item;
string DocID = item.Properties["_dlc_DocId"].ToString();