I want to query object from Parse DB through javascript, that has only 1 of some specific relation object. How can this criteria be achieved?
So I tried something like this, the equalTo() acts as a "contains" and it's not what I'm looking for, my code so far, which doesn't work:
var query = new Parse.Query("Item");
query.equalTo("relatedItems", someItem);
query.lessThan("relatedItems", 2);
It seems Parse do not provide a easy way to do this.
Without any other fields, if you know all the items then you could do the following:
var innerQuery = new Parse.Query('Item');
innerQuery.containedIn('relatedItems', [all items except someItem]);
var query = new Parse.Query('Item');
query.equalTo('relatedItems', someItem);
query.doesNotMatchKeyInQuery('objectId', 'objectId', innerQuery);
...
Otherwise, you might need to get all records and do filtering.
Update
Because of the data type relation, there are no ways to include the relation content into the results, you need to do another query to get the relation content.
The workaround might add a itemCount column and keep it updated whenever the item relation is modified and do:
query.equalTo('relatedItems', someItem);
query.equalTo('itemCount', 1);
There are a couple of ways you could do this.
I'm working on a project now where I have cells composed of users.
I currently have an afterSave trigger that does this:
const count = await cell.relation("members").query().count();
cell.put("memberCount",count);
This works pretty well.
There are other ways that I've considered in theory, but I've not used
them yet.
The right way would be to hack the ability to use select with dot
notation to grab a virtual field called relatedItems.length in the
query, but that would probably only work for me because I use PostGres
... mongo seems to be extremely limited in its ability to do this sort
of thing, which is why I would never make a database out of blobs of
json in the first place.
You could do a similar thing with an afterFind trigger. I'm experimenting with that now. I'm not sure if it will confuse
parse to get an attribute back which does not exist in its schema, but
I'll find out, by the end of today. I have found that if I jam an artificial attribute into the objects in the trigger, they are returned
along with the other data. What I'm not sure about is whether Parse will decide that the object is dirty, or, worse, decide that I'm creating a new attribute and store it to the database ... which could be filtered out with a beforeSave trigger, but not until after the data had all been sent to the cloud.
There is also a place where i had to do several queries from several
tables, and would have ended up with a lot of redundant data. So I wrote a cloud function which did the queries, and then returned a couple of lists of objects, and a few lists of objectId strings which
served as indexes. This worked pretty well for me. And tracking the
last load time and sending it back when I needed up update my data allowed me to limit myself to objects which had changed since my last query.
Related
I would like to create two queries, with pagination option. On the first one I would like to get the first ten records and the second one I would like to get the other all records:
.startAt(0)
.limit(10)
.startAt(9)
.limit(null)
Can anyone confirm that above code is correct for both condition?
Firestore does not support index or offset based pagination. Your query will not work with these values.
Please read the documentation on pagination carefully. Pagination requires that you provide a document reference (or field values in that document) that defines the next page to query. This means that your pagination will typically start at the beginning of the query results, then progress through them using the last document you see in the prior page.
From CollectionReference:
offset(offset) → {Query}
Specifies the offset of the returned results.
As Doug mentioned, Firestore does not support Index/offset - BUT you can get similar effects using combinations of what it does support.
Firestore has it's own internal sort order (usually the document.id), but any query can be sorted .orderBy(), and the first document will be relative to that sorting - only an orderBy() query has a real concept of a "0" position.
Firestore also allows you to limit the number of documents returned .limit(n)
.endAt(), .endBefore(), .startAt(), .startBefore() all need either an object of the same fields as the orderBy, or a DocumentSnapshot - NOT an index
what I would do is create a Query:
const MyOrderedQuery = FirebaseInstance.collection().orderBy()
Then first execute
MyOrderedQuery.limit(n).get()
or
MyOrderedQuery.limit(n).get().onSnapshot()
which will return one way or the other a QuerySnapshot, which will contain an array of the DocumentSnapshots. Let's save that array
let ArrayOfDocumentSnapshots = QuerySnapshot.docs;
Warning Will Robinson! javascript settings is usually by reference,
and even with spread operator pretty shallow - make sure your code actually
copies the full deep structure or that the reference is kept around!
Then to get the "rest" of the documents as you ask above, I would do:
MyOrderedQuery.startAfter(ArrayOfDocumentSnapshots[n-1]).get()
or
MyOrderedQuery.startAfter(ArrayOfDocumentSnapshots[n-1]).onSnapshot()
which will start AFTER the last returned document snapshot of the FIRST query. Note the re-use of the MyOrderedQuery
You can get something like a "pagination" by saving the ordered Query as above, then repeatedly use the returned Snapshot and the original query
MyOrderedQuery.startAfter(ArrayOfDocumentSnapshots[n-1]).limit(n).get() // page forward
MyOrderedQuery.endBefore(ArrayOfDocumentSnapshots[0]).limit(n).get() // page back
This does make your state management more complex - you have to hold onto the ordered Query, and the last returned QuerySnapshot - but hey, now you're paginating.
BIG NOTE
This is not terribly efficient - setting up a listener is fairly "expensive" for Firestore, so you don't want to do it often. Depending on your document size(s), you may want to "listen" to larger sections of your collections, and handle more of the paging locally (Redux or whatever) - Firestore Documentation indicates you want your listeners around at least 30 seconds for efficiency. For some applications, even pages of 10 can be efficient; for others you may need 500 or more stored locally and paged in smaller chucks.
my receipe data in firebase
![my receipe data in firebase][1]
My receipe data looks like the following
receipe/1/12: "{"itemno":"1","receipeno":"12","receipedescript..."
How can I filter all receipes where receipeno = 12 or starting with receipeno = 12, irrespective of itemno?
I have tried the following, but got no results or errors?
Also tried startAt
this.query = this.db.database.ref("receipe").orderByChild("receipeno").equalTo("12").limitToFirst(100);
BTW: this.query = this.db.database.ref("receipe") this returns all data
and this.db.database.ref("receipe/1") returns all receipe for itemno == 1.
I have updated the data to not use opaque strings.
[Updated db so as not to use opaque strings][2]
and have tried the following.
this.query = this.db.database.ref("receipe").orderByChild("itemno").equalTo("1").limitToFirst(100);
And
this.query = this.db.database.ref("receipe").orderByChild("receipeno").equalTo("r1").limitToFirst(100);
Firebase is not going to help you with deep queries. It filters and sorts at one level. Therefore, there is no way to say, "find me all the recipes with an id (or recipeno) of 12, under any node under recipes.
If you had a single level, then you would do orderByKey().equalTo("12"). Of course this will limit you to one recipe per ID.
If you are going to have multiple recipes with the number 12 and want to do this kind of querying, you need to change your database structure--essentially getting rid of the intermediate level where you currently have keys of 1, 2 etc. Most likely in this case you would use automatically generated keys of the kind that result from push, such as:
+ recipes
+ autokey1: {itemno, recipeno, recipedescription}
+ autokey2: {itemno, recipeno, recipedescription}
Then you could say
orderByChild('recipeno').equalTo('12')
This assumes, of course, as pointed out in a comment, that you are saving the data as objects, not as stringified JSON, which Firebase will never be able to query against the insides of.
This is a good case study of the notion that you should design your Firebase database structure carefully in advance to allow you to do the kinds of querying you will need to do.
By the way, this question has nothing to do whatsoever with Angular.
I'm trying to set up a firebase query that will implement pagination for me. Similar to this: https://www.firebase.com/blog/2013-10-01-queries-part-one.html#paginate
My problem is when I try to combine the three methods mentioned above. For example, one of my ref's looks like this: userRef = ref.child('Users').orderByChild('email').startAt(null, end.id).limitToFirst(Number(limit))
So I have my Users list. I want it ordered alphabetically by email. I want this new query to start at the last entry of the old query. Lastly I want to limit the amount of children returned to a number like 4.
Now when I combine just two of these methods such as startAt and limitToFirst in other lists, the query works as expected. Unfortunately this depends on the list being presorted in firebase already. What happens with this user query is that firebase just returns the first limit number of children always. It's basically ignoring the startAt part. I've even tried hardcoding in keys to this and it just goes ignored.
I know that you can tell firebase to sort your entries by using indexOn rules and if I have to reconstruct my database I will as a last resort (I implemented the indexOn after I made some users). But I feel like this should be able to work without indexOn, I don't see why it shouldn't.
My data structure is going to look like:
Root:{
Users:{
01d1d38d-c780-4c5e-8537-a74432dea86e:{
email:example#gmail.com,
questions: {},
comments: {}
}
}
Is there a way of accomplishing this query properly? Is there a reason why I can't construct a query this way?
Ok, so I've been reading and reading and searching and searching and strangely it doesn't seem like my scenario has been really covered anywhere.
I have an app that creates a list of products. I want a simple view that can sort the products and page through them.
Fore reference here is a simple representation of the data in Firebase.
app
stock
unique_id
name
url
imageUrl
price
When creating the list I have multiple threads using the push method on my firebase references:
new Firebase(firebaseUrl).child('stock').push({
name: "name",
price: 123
});
This gives me a lovely "hash" collection on the stock property of the app.
So what I'd now like to do is have a table to sort and page through the records that were placed in the stock hash.
I make a GET request to my server to a url like /stock?limit=10&skip=10&sort=name%20asc. This particular url would be the second page where the table contained 10 records per page and was sorted by the name property in ascending order.
Currently in my query handler I have this:
var firebaseRef = new Firebase(firebaseUrl).child('stock');
if (this.sortDesc) {
firebaseRef = firebaseRef
.orderByChild(this.sortProperty)
.endAt()
.limitToFirst(this.limitAmount);
} else {
firebaseRef = firebaseRef
.orderByChild(this.sortProperty)
.limitToFirst(this.limitAmount);
if (this.skipAmount > 0) {
firebaseRef = firebaseRef.startAt(this.skipAmount);
}
}
firebaseRef.once('value', function (snapshot) {
var results = [];
snapshot.forEach(function (childSnapshot) {
results.push(childSnapshot.val());
});
callback(null, results);
});
I'm running into a couple of problems. I'm going to split this into two cases, ascending and descending queries.
Ascending query
The orderByChild and limitToFirst seems to work correctly in the sorting ascending case. This means I can change which property has an ascending sort and how many results to return. What I am not able to get to work is skipping n records for paging to work. In the example query above I'm going to the second page. I do not get results 11-20, but I instead get the same 10 records as the first page.
Descending query
In this case I cannot begin to figure out how to tell Firebase to order by a property of the object identified by the unique key in a descending fashion. The closest I've read is to use endAt() and then limit. Docs say the limit is deprecated plus this still doesn't help me with any paging.
I tired to do doodles picturing how this would work. I came up with: order by the property, start at the 'end' of the collection, and then limit back to the page size. While this still wouldn't solve paging I would expect it to give me the last n records where n was the size of the page. I get no results.
I suppose I could say use firebaseRef = firebaseRef .orderByChild(this.sortProperty).limitToLast(this.limitAmount + this.skipAmount); and in the result callback use the forEach loop to take the first (or would it be the last; I'm not sure how that iteration would work) n records where n=this.limitAmount. This just seems inefficient. Wouldn't it be better to limit the query instead of using CPU cycles to limit data that had come over the wire or is this the relational DB query thought pattern overriding the correct thought process for NoSQL?
Further Confusion
After posting this I've still been working on a solution. I've had some things get close, but I'm also running into this filtering issue. How could I filter a set of items to one property by still sorting on another? Jeez! I want to have the ability for a user to get all the stock that isn't sold out and order it by price.
Finally
Why hasn't this basic example been fleshed out on any of the Firebase "Getting Started" pages? Being able to show tabular data, page through it, sort, and filter seem like something that EVERY web developer would come across. I'm using ng-table in an Angular app to drive the view, but it still seems that regardless of platform that the queries that I'm trying to generate would be practical on any platform that Firebase supports. Perhaps I'm missing something! Please educate me!
Firebase and NoSQL
I've come up with this simple scenario that I often run into with web applications. I want to show tabular data, filter, page, and sort it. Very simple. Very common. Writing a SQL statement for this would be dead easy. Why is the query so complicated for something like Firebase. Is this common with all NoSQL solutions? There is no relational data being stored thus the need for a relational database seems unnecessary. Yet, it seems like I could hack together a little flat file to do this storage since the ability to make Firebase do these simple tasks is not made clear in its API or Docs. FRUSTRATED!!!
I have a pretty big array of JSON objects (its a music library with properties like artist, album etc, feeding a jqgrid with loadonce=true) and I want to implement lucene-like (google-like) query through whole set - but locally, i.e. in the browser, without communication with web server. Are there any javascript frameworks that will help me?
Go through your records, to create a one time index by combining all search
able fields in a single string field called index.
Store these indexed records in an Array.
Partition the Array on index .. like all a's in one array and so on.
Use the javascript function indexOf() against the index to match the query entered by the user and find records from the partitioned Array.
That was the easy part but, it will support all simple queries in a very efficient manner because the index does not have to be re-created for every query and indexOf operation is very efficient. I have used it for searching up to 2000 records. I used a pre-sorted Array. Actually, that's how Gmail and yahoo mail work. They store your contacts on browser in a pre-sorted array with an index that allows you to see the contact names as you type.
This also gives you a base to build on. Now you can write an advanced query parsing logic on top of it. For example, to support a few simple conditional keywords like - AND OR NOT, will take about 20-30 lines of custom JavaScript code. Or you can find a JS library that will do the parsing for you the way Lucene does.
For a reference implementation of above logic, take a look at how ZmContactList.js sorts and searches the contacts for autocomplete.
You might want to check FullProof, it does exactly that:
https://github.com/reyesr/fullproof
Have you tried CouchDB?
Edit:
How about something along these lines (also see http://jsfiddle.net/7tV3A/1/):
var filtered_collection = [];
var query = 'foo';
$.each(collection, function(i,e){
$.each(e, function(ii, el){
if (el == query) {
filtered_collection.push(e);
}
});
});
The (el == query) part of course could/should be modified to allow more flexible search patterns than exact match.