Good Morning.
I'm starting to learn some mongo right now.
I'm facing this problem right now, and i'm start to think if this is the best approach to resolve this "task", or if is bettert to turn around and write another way to solve this "problem".
My goal is to iterate a simple map of values (key) and vector\array (values)
My test map will be recived by a rest layer.
{
"1":["1","2","3"]
}
now after some logic, i need to use the Dao in order to look into db.
The Key will be "realm", the value inside vector are "castle".
Every Realm have some castle and every castle have some "rules".
I need to find every rules for each avaible combination of realm-castle.
AccessLevel is a pojo labeled by #Document annotation and it will have various params, such as castle and realm (both simple int)
So the idea will be to iterate a map and write a long query for every combination of key-value.
public AccessLevel searchAccessLevel(Map<String,Integer[]> request){
Query q = new Query();
Criteria c = new Criteria();
request.forEach((k,v)-> {
for (int i: Arrays.asList(v)
) {
q.addCriteria(c.andOperator(
Criteria.where("realm").is(k),
Criteria.where("castle").is(v))
);
}
});
List<AccessLevel> response=db.find(q,AccessLevel.class);
for (AccessLevel x: response
) {
System.out.println(x.toString());
}
As you can see i'm facing an error concerning $and.
Due to limitations of the org.bson.Document, you can't add a second '$and' expression specified as [...]
it seems mongo can't handle various $and, something i'm pretty used to abuse over sql
select * from a where id =1 and id=2 and id=3 and id=4
(not the best, sincei can use IN(), but sql allow me)
So, the point is: mongo can actualy work in this way and i need to dig more into the problem, or i need to do another approach, like using criterion.in(), and make N interrogation via mongotemplate one for every key in my Map?
Related
Is there a way to restrict the "columns" returned from a Realm Xamarin LINQ query?
For example, if I have a Customer RealmObject and I want a list of all customer names, do I have to query All<Customer> and then enumerate the results to build the names list? That seems cumbersome and inefficient. I am not seeing anything in the docs. Am I missing something obvious here? Thanks!
You have to remember that Realm is an object based store. In a RDBMS like Sqlite, restricting the return results to a sub-set of "columns" of an "record" makes sense, but in an object store, you would be removing attributes from the original class and thus creating a new dynamic class to then instantiate these new classes as objects.
Thus is you want just a List of strings representing the customer names you can do this:
List<string> names = theRealm.All<Customer>().ToList().Select(customer => customer.Name).ToList();
Note: That you take the Realm.All<> results to a List first and then using a Linq Select "filter" just the property that you want. Using a .Select directly on a RealmResults is not currently supported (v0.80.0).
If you need to return a complex type that is a subset of attributes from the original RealObject, assuming you have a matching POCO, you can use:
var custNames = theRealm.All<Customer>().ToList().Select((Customer c) => new Name() { firstName = c.firstName, lastName = c.lastName } );
Remember, once you convert a RealmResult to a static list of POCOs you do lose the liveliness of using RealmObjects.
Personally I avoid doing this whenever possible as Realm is so fast that using a RealmResult and thus the RealObjects directly is more efficient on processing time and memory overhead then converting those to POCOs everytime you need to new list...
I'm working on mongo with spring data and using the query "findBy" based on property fields.
My goal will be find same value across multiple properties by OR clause like this:
List<Event> findByCreatorOrOrganizersOrGuests(User user);
this query involves 3 properties: "creator", "organizers" and "guests" that are a single value (creator) and 2 lists (organizers and guests) that contains the same class type (User)
at compile time I receive this error:
org.springframework.data.repository.query.ParameterOutOfBoundsException: Invalid parameter index! You seem to have declare too little query method parameters!
Do I need to repeat the same parameter 3 times? There's no workaround?
thanks
The using of Mongo queries for lists are not so efficient even if you define it with an index.
Another important thing is that the query:
List<Event> findByCreatorOrOrganizersOrGuests(User user);
includes some syntax errors (The MongoDB expects to get 3 parameters as variables int the ( ) relatively to the findBy keys, the return value should be inserted into a list object, and I am not sure that the Or in the find query is legal syntax.
As a concept the DB documents should have a good ability to be searched, cause it is the most expensive action.
When find using OR in MongoDB the direct query should looks like that:
def events = find({ $or: [ { user.username: { $lt: 20 } }, { price: 10 } ] } )
While searching in a list this is should be different, so please follow the links I attached.
When I try to think of the use you are looking for, I would suggest a different aspect. If the events is what interest you please read about the AbstractPersistenceEventListener. By define the appropriate
void onPostInsert(entity) {}
void onPostUpdate(entity) {}
void onPostDelete(entity) {}
You get all the events for each of the objects you want to listen to.
Here are 2 a great examples:
Example 1
Example 2
Considering a Spring Boot, neo4j environment with Spring-Data-neo4j-4 I want to make a delete and get an error message when it fails to delete.
My problem is since the Repository.delete() returns void I have no ideia if the delete modified anything or not.
First question: is there any way to get the last query affected lines? for example in plsql I could do SQL%ROWCOUNT
So anyway, I tried the following code:
public void deletesomething(Long somethingId) {
somethingRepository.delete(getExistingsomething(somethingId).getId());
}
private something getExistingsomething(Long somethingId, int depth) {
return Optional.ofNullable(somethingRepository.findOne(somethingId, depth))
.orElseThrow(() -> new somethingNotFoundException(somethingId));
}
In the code above I query the database to check if the value exist before I delete it.
Second question: do you recommend any different approach?
So now, just to add some complexity, I have a cluster database and db1 can only Create, Update and Delete, and db2 and db3 can only Read (this is ensured by the cluster sockets). db2 and db3 will receive the data from db1 from the replication process.
For what I seen so far replication can take up to 90s and that means that up to 90s the database will have a different state.
Looking again to the code above:
public void deletesomething(Long somethingId) {
somethingRepository.delete(getExistingsomething(somethingId).getId());
}
in debug that means:
getExistingsomething(somethingId).getId() // will hit db2
somethingRepository.delete(...) // will hit db1
and so if replication has not inserted the value in db2 this code wil throw the exception.
the second question is: without changing those sockets is there any way for me to delete and give the correct response?
This is not currently supported in Spring Data Neo4j, if you wish please open a feature request.
In the meantime, perhaps the easiest work around is to fall down to the OGM level of abstraction.
Create a class that is injected with org.neo4j.ogm.session.Session
Use the following method on Session
Example: (example is in Kotlin, which was on hand)
fun deleteProfilesByColor(color : String)
{
var query = """
MATCH (n:Profile {color: {color}})
DETACH DELETE n;
"""
val params = mutableMapOf(
"color" to color
)
val result = session.query(query, params)
val statistics = result.queryStatistics() //Use these!
}
There is a table, it is a poco entity generated by entity framework.
class Log
{
int DoneByEmpId;
string DoneByEmpName
}
I am retrieving a list from the data base. I want distinct values based on donebyempid and order by those values empname.
I have tried lot of ways to do it but it is not working
var lstLogUsers = (context.Logs.GroupBy(logList => logList.DoneByEmpId).Select(item => item.First())).ToList(); // it gives error
this one get all the user.
var lstLogUsers = context.Logs.ToList().OrderBy(logList => logList.DoneByEmpName).Distinct();
Can any one suggest how to achieve this.
Can I just point out that you probably have a problem with your data model here? I would imagine you should just have DoneByEmpId here, and a separate table Employee which has EmpId and Name.
I think this is why you are needing to use Distinct/GroupBy (which doesn't really work for this scenario, as you are finding).
I'm not near a compiler, so i can't test it, but...
Use the other version of Distinct(), the one that takes an IEqualityComparer<TSource> argument, and then use OrderBy().
See here for example.
If I were to select some rows based on certain criteria I can use ICriterion object in NHibernate.Criterion, such as this:
public List<T> GetByCriteria()
{
SimpleExpression newJobCriterion =
NHibernate.Criterion.Expression.Eq("LkpStatu", statusObject);
ICriteria criteria = Session.GetISession().CreateCriteria(typeof(T)).SetMaxResults(maxResults);
criteria.Add(newJobCriterion );
return criteria.List<T>();
}
Or I can use LINQ's where clause to filter what I want:
public List<T> GetByCriteria_LINQ()
{
ICriteria criteria = Session.GetISession().CreateCriteria(typeof(T)).SetMaxResults(maxResults);
return criteria.Where(item=>item.LkpStatu=statusObject).ToList();
}
I would prefer the second one, of course. Because
It gives me strong typing
I don't need to learn yet-another-syntax in the form of NHibernate
The issue is is there any performance advantage of the first one over the second one? From what I know, the first one will create SQL queries, so it will filter the data before pass into the memory. Is this kind of performance saving big enough to justify its use?
As usual it depends. First note that in your second snippet there is .List() missing right after return criteria And also note that you won't get the same results on both examples. The first one does where and then return top maxResults, the second one however first selects top maxResults and then does where.
If your expected result set is relatively small and you are likely to use some of the results in lazy loads then it's actually better to take the second approach. Because all entities loaded through a session will stay in its first level cache.
Usually however you don't do it this way and use the first approach.
Perhaps you wanted to use NHibernate.Linq (located in Contrib project ). Which does linq translation to Criteria for you.
I combine the two and made this:
var crit = _session.CreateCriteria(typeof (T)).SetMaxResults(100);
return (from x in _session.Linq<T>(crit) where x.field == <something> select x).ToList();