I'm new to CouchDB and I know my mindset is probably still too much in the relational DB sphere, but here goes:
It appears that querying on Couch is all done via Views. I read that temporary views are very inefficient and should be avoided in production.
So my question really is how would one do effective querying with parameters (as the views do not accept them). For example if I were to use Couch to power a blog site would I have to create a new view for each post equivalent to 'select post from posts where id=1'.
I understand that I can use lucene along side the querying to perfom a full text search on the results, but this is only really useful for textual content not numbers.
Im happy creating a boat load of static views as they can be created very simply on the fly. My worry is that this is not how Couch was supposed to be used and I'm missing something. Feel free to enlighten me.
Cheers, Chris.
Views do accept url parameters, key being the one your are looking for. You can even limit how many rows you get and sort as well.
Your views can be indexed by arbitrary JSON keys. This means you can create a view that emits documents like so, [username docid] => doc. Then you can query this view with http://url/to/view?key=[username docid].
You could create a view that emits [username type date] => doc. Now you can get all documents of a certain between a certain date (using startKey and endKey url parameters).
Your example of the blog is one that CouchDB is particularly well suited for. In fact I believe it's an example in the upcoming CouchDB book from O'reilly.
That said, some kinds of queries are not easily handled by CouchDB alone. couchdb-lucene can help here. Don't assume that's it's only good for full text search. I've been using it to run general complex queries against the database to good effect.
Related
i'm working on a MEAN stack project, i use too many collections in my aggregation so i use a lot of lookup, and that impacts negatively the performance and makes the execution of aggregation very slow. i was wondering if you have any suggestions , i found that we can reduce lookup by creating for each collection i need an array of objects into a globale collection however, i'm looking for an optimale and secured solution.
As an information, i defined indexes on all collections into mongo.
Thanks for sharing your ideas!
This is a very involved question. Even if you gave all your schemas and queries, it would take too long to answer, and be very specific to your case (ie. not useful to anyone else coming along later).
Instead for a general answer, I'd advise you to read into denormalization and consider some database redesign if this query is core to your project.
Here is a good article to get you started.
Denormalization allows you to avoid some application-level joins, at the expense of having more complex and expensive updates. Denormalizing one or more fields makes sense if those fields are read much more often than they are updated.
A simple example to outline it:
Say you have a Blog with a comment collection, and a user collection
You want to display the comment with the name of the user. So you have to load the player for every comment.
Instead you could save the username on the comment collection as well as the user collection.
Then you will have a fast query to show comments, as you don't need to load the users too. But if the user changes their name, then you will have to update all of the comments with the new name. This is the main tradeoff.
If a DB redesign is too difficult, I suggest splitting into multiple aggregates and combining them in memory (ie. in your node server side code)
I'm learning node.js and mongodb. I'm learning by solving some problems. I want to make site that can search video database. Each video has title, description, author and a subarray of notes (you can think of it as a comments). Each note has a subarray of manual references to tags documents that exists in tags collection.
I need to search for some text in videos collection. For each resulting video I need to know if search criteria matches some of basic fields (author, title, description) or if some of its notes, including names of tags, matches criteria. Or both.
I know that this may not be right task for beginner but I would really like to make this work. I have some ideas about how to do this, but they probably are not good since I don't know much about mongo and it's capabilities.
What do you suggest, what should I use? Should I use text search capabilities + some aggregation? Should I offload some of work to be processed by application rather than mongo?
I probably don't need details, just directions.
Thank you.
Since nobody answers, I decided to share my idea and how I did it. There is probably better solution, that is way I asked this question.
I did two separate queries using regex, that I merged results in application code.
I used ES6 Map to make union of these two sets.
i am new with nosql concept, so when i start to learn PouchDB, i found this conversion chart. My confusion is, how PouchDB handle if lets say i have multiple table, does it mean that i need to create multiple databases? Because from my understanding in pouchdb a database can store a lot of documents, but a document mean a row in sql or am i misunderstood?
The answer to this question seems to be surprisingly under-documented. While #llabball clearly gave a decent answer, I don't think that views are always the way to go.
As you can read here in the section When not to use map/reduce, Nolan explains that for simpler applications, the key is to abuse _ids, and leverage the power of allDocs().
In other words, if you had two separate types (say artists, and albums), then you could prefix the id of each type to obtain an easily searchable data set. For example _id: 'artist_name' & _id: 'album_title', would allow you to easily retrieve artists in name order.
Laying out the data this way will result in better performance due to not requiring extra indexes, and less code. Clearly however, if your data requirements are more complex, then views are the way to go.
... does it mean that i need to create multiple databases?
No.
... a document mean a row in sql or am i misunderstood?
That's right. The SQL table defines column header (name and type) - that are the JSON property names of the doc.
So, all docs (rows) with the same properties (a so called "schema") are the equivalent of your SQL table. You can have as much different schemata in one database as you want (visit json-schema.org for some inspiration).
How to request them separately? Create CouchDB views! You can get all/some "rows" of your tabular data (docs with the same schema) with one request as you know it from SQL.
To write such views easily the property type is very common for CouchDB docs. Your known name from a SQL table can be your type like doc.type: "animal"
Your view names will be maybe animalByName or animalByWeight. Depends on your needs.
Sometimes multiple-databases plan is a good option, like a database per user or even a database per user-feature. Take a look at this conversation on CouchDB mailing list.
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...
I am just wondering if we could achieve some RDBMS capabilities in lucene.
Example:
1) I have 10,000 project documents (pdf files) which have to be indexed with their content to make them available for search.
2) Every document is related to a SINGLE PROJECT. The project can contain details like project name, number, start date, end date, location, type etc.
I have to search in the contents of the pdf files for a given keyword, but while displaying the results I want to display the project meta data as mentioned in point (2).
My idea is to associate a field called projectId with each pdf file while indexing. Once we get that, we will fire search again for getting project meta data.
This way we could avoid duplicated data. Also, if we want to update the project meta data we will end up updating at a SINGLE PLACE only. Otherwise if we store this meta data with all the pdf doument indexes, we will end up updating all of the documents, which is not the way I am looking for.
please advise.
If I understand you correctly, you have two questions:
Can I store a project id in Lucene and use it for further searches? Yes, you can. This is a common practice.
Can I use this project id to search Lucene for project meta data? Yes, you can. I do not know if this is a good idea. It depends on the frequency of your meta data updates and your access pattern. If the meta data is relatively static, and you only access it by id, Lucene may be a good place to store it. Otherwise, you can use the project id as a primary key to a database table, which could be a better fit.
Sounds like a perfectly good thing to do. The only limitation you'll have (by storing a reference to the project in Lucene rather than the project data itself) is that you won't be able to query both the document text and project metadata at the same time. For example, "documentText:foo OR projectName:bar" . If you have no such requirement, then seems like storing the ID in Lucene which refers to a database row is a fine thing to do.
I am not sure on your overall setup, but maybe Hibernate Search is for you. It would allow you to combine the benefits of a relational database with the power of a fulltext search engine like Lucene. The meta data could live in the database, maybe together with the original pdf documents, while the Lucene documents just contain the searchable data.
This is definitely possible. But always be aware of the fact that you're using Lucene for something that it was not intended for. In general, Lucene is designed for full-text search, not for mapping relational content. So the more complex your system your relational content becomes, the more you'll see a decrease in performance.
In particular, there are a few areas to keep a close eye on:
Storing the value of each field in your index will decrease performance. If you are not overly concerned with sub-second search results, or if your index is relatively small, then this may not be a problem.
Also, be aware that if you are not using the default ranking algorithm, and your custom algorithm requires information about the project in order to calculate the score for each document, this will have a dramatic impact on search performance, as well.
If you need a more powerful index that was designed for relational content, there are hierarchical indexing tools out there (one developed by Apache, called Jackrabbit) that are worth looking into.
As your project continues to grow, you might also check out Solr, also developed by Apache, which provides some added functionality, such as multi-faceted search.
You can use Lucene that way;
Pros:
Full-text search is easy to implement, which is not the case in an RDBMS.
Cons:
Referential integrity: you get it for free in an RDBMS, but in Lucene, you must implement it yourself.