How does one create a unique constraint with ServiceStack.OrmLite (using attributes, hopefully)? The documentation shows how to create a unique constraint only on a single column:
ServiceStack.OrmLite Docs
If it helps, I am using ServiceStack.OrmLite.SqlServer.
Service Stack appears to have a CompositeIndex attribute which takes multiple field names. Here's a look at the constructors...
CompositeIndexAttribute(params string[] fieldNames);
CompositeIndexAttribute(bool unique, params string[] fieldNames);
Related
Is it possible to have a OneToManyAssociationField as entity extension on for example ProductManufacturer without the ReferenceVersionField in my related custom entity?
If this is not possible, is it possible for the reference version field to have a custom name (so not product_manufacturer_version_id) On first sight, this also does not seem possible.
About the error
I am currently getting the following error when trying to search for manufacturers using $criteria->addAssociation('myCustomEntity'):
SQLSTATE[42S22]: Column not found: 1054 Unknown column 'product_manufacturer.myCustomEntity.product_manufacturer_version_id' in 'field list'
About the big picture
The use case is similar to the SeoUrl entity where there is a ‘foreign_key’ field which can have a relation to multiple entity types. My entity has not associations, but the other entities are extended to have an association to my entity. Just like the SeoUrl.
However, the DAL creates a query which uses the ‘product_manufacturer_version_id’ field, which does not exist on my custom entity…
Is it possible to have a OneToManyAssociationField as entity extension on for example ProductManufacturer without the ReferenceVersionField in my related custom entity?
No, you must set a ReferenceVersionField when adding associations to the definition of a versionized entity. This is too deeply rooted in the basic principles of the data abstraction layer to work around.
If this is not possible, is it possible for the reference version field to have a custom name (so not product_manufacturer_version_id) On first sight, this also does not seem possible.
You can change the storage name of the field. That is the name of the corresponding column within your database table. When you instantiate ReferenceVersionField you can use the second, optional argument to provide the storage name:
public function __construct(string $definition, ?string $storageName = null)
The storage name should be provided in snake case. The name of the object property for the field will then be derived from the storage name and converted to camel case. So given you provide my_version_custom_id for the storage name, the object property of the entity will be myVersionCustomId.
Your entity may have multiple associations to different entities, but if those entities are versionized your foreign key constraint has to be a combination of columns for both the foreign primary key as well as the foreign version id.
I have a service which consumes the database meta. It consumes the table names and alongwith it the respective column names. Now I can see there is a method called nullable() which can be used to check if the column is nullable or not. Similarly, i want to check if the column allows only unique values or not
Version used: 3.14.15
How to read database meta data with jOOQ
The API to use for this kind of schema introspection is org.jooq.Meta, which you can access via DSLContext.meta(). By default, it is backed by the JDBC DatabaseMetaData API, but you can replace that default to work with any of these instead:
Generated code
Interpreted DDL
XML
You can do that by passing a MetaProvider to your Configuration.
Once you reach a Table, do check these methods:
Table.getKeys() (primary keys and unique keys)
Table.getUniqueKeys() (unique keys only)
Table.getPrimaryKey() (primary key only)
I have created a Dynamodb model where I have set an attribute to a set using a combination of three separate id's and another attribute which takes in timestamp. The idea was to create a GIS index on these two with the set attribute as the primary key and timestamp as the sort key. While using the "equality" operator for KeyConditionExpression, I am unable to fetch the data. Not sure what the issue is. So if somebody can guide me whether I am following the right approach or I am missing something.
Below is the set attribute value sample
{ "291447cb-f7a5-4627-9a7e-ac7b4adf9xce", "21", "d2e5723a-437a-4517-9f4b-1a62575224d6" }
DynamoDB can only use keys of scalar types (single value string, number or binary). What you could do is concatenate the values into a string for your key (e.g. "291447cb-f7a5-4627-9a7e-ac7b4adf9xce:21:d2e5723a-437a-4517-9f4b-1a62575224d6").
Don't forget in your table you'd need to store this concatenated key so it can be used in your GSI. And you'd need to make sure it's updated / kept in sync with the set as per your requirements.
I have a single collection into which I am inserting documents of different types. I use the type parameter to distinguish between different datatypes in the collection. When I am inserting a document, I have created an Id field for every document, but Cosmosdb has a built-in id field.
How can I insert a new document and retrieve the id of the created Document all in one query?
The CreateDocumentAsync method returns the created document so you should be able to get the document id.
Document created = await client.CreateDocumentAsync(collectionLink, order);
I think you just need to .getResource() method to get the create document obj.
Please refer to the java code:
DocumentClient documentClient = new DocumentClient(END_POINT,
MASTER_KEY, ConnectionPolicy.GetDefault(),
ConsistencyLevel.Session);
Document document = new Document();
document.set("name","aaa");
document = documentClient.createDocument("dbs/db/colls/coll",document,null,false).getResource();
System.out.println(document.toString());
//then do your business logic with the document.....
C# code:
Parent p = new Parent
{
FamilyName = "Andersen.1",
FirstName = "Andersen",
};
Document doc = client.CreateDocumentAsync("dbs/db/colls/coll",p,null).Result.Resource;
Console.WriteLine(doc);
Hope it helps you.
Sure, you could always fetch the id from creation method response in your favorite API as already shown in other answers. You may have reasons why you want to delegate key-assigning to DocumentDB, but to be frank, I don't see any good ones.
If inserted document would have no id set DocumentDB would generate a GUID for you. There wouldn't be any notable difference compared to simply generating a new GUID yourself and assign it into id-field before save. Self-assigning the identity would let you simplify your code a bit and also let you use the identity not only after persisting but also BEFORE. Which could simplify a lot of scenarios you may have or run into in future.
Also, note that you don't have to use GUIDs as as id and could use any unique value you already have. Since you mentioned you have and Id field (which by name, I assume to be a primary key) then you should consider reusing this instead introducing another set of keys.
Self-assigned non-Guid key is usually a better choice since it can be designed to match your data and application needs better than a GUID. For example, in addition to being just unique, it may also be a natural key, narrower, human-readable, ordered, etc.
Something which acts as a lookup by key. I am trying to create collections which can be identified by a key and its properties retrieved.
Thanks
You can use combination of types:
IDictionary<int, Tuple<string, int, DateTime>>