This is more of a clarification type question rather than actual problem regarding LinqHelper.CreateQuery method.
So,
This method has 3 overloads. The 2 in question here, are:
1.LinqHelper.CreateQuery<SearchResultItem>(searchContext, searchStringModel)
2.LinqHelper.CreateQuery<SearchResultItem>(searchContext, searchStringModel, startLocationItem) [I haven't used any additional context here so used the default null]
Now,
In order to search for items with in a specific location of the content tree ( for example under a particular folder you have 1000 items) I can use method 1 using the query:
query = "location:{FOLDER_GUID};+custom:my_filed_name|bla_bla"
Which works perfectly.
But (from what I understood from the method signature is that) I should also be able to use method 2 like the following:
SitecoreIndexableItem folderID = SitecoreIndexableItem)contextDatabase.GetItem({FOLDER_GUID});
var index = ContentSearchManager.GetIndex(new SitecoreIndexableItem(Sitecore.Context.Item));
using (var context = index.CreateSearchContext())
{
List<SearchStringModel> searchStringModel = new List<SearchStringModel>();
searchStringModel.Add(new SearchStringModel("my_field_name", "bla_bla"));
List<Sitecore.Data.Items.Item> resultItems = LinqHelper.CreateQuery(context, searchStringModel, folderID).Select(toItem => toItem.GetItem()).ToList();
}
Problem is for the above method (method 2) the searching works fine, what doesn't work is the "startLocationItem" (folderID in this case).
FOR EXAMPLE,
IF in my entire sitecore tree has total 3 items containing "my_filed_name=bla_bla"
BUT, only 1 item contains "my_filed_name=bla_bla" in the Folder ({FOLDER_GUID}, "the perticular folder" in this case)
THEN,
Method 1 returns 1 item (WHICH IS CORRECT)
BUT, Method 2 returns 3 items, despite "startLocationItem = {FOLDER_GUID} ... (WHICH I DONT THINK IS CORRECT)
Question is :
1. What is the exact purpose of "startLocationItem" in Method 1 ?
2. And what's the benefit of using "location" filter or "startLocationItem for method 2" ?
LinqHelper is an internal helper class and should not be used in normal operation. It is to help the Sitecore UI talk to the search back-end. Its syntax could be changed at any time so could potentially break things based on it and it is also not documented.
You would be better to convert your query into a normal Linq query ie
using (var context = index.CreateSearchContext)
{
context.GetQueryable<SearchResultItem>().Where(x =>x.Paths.Contains(ID.Parse("your GUID Here")))
}
The 'location' in the LinqHelper string is equivalent to the Paths (or _path) field stored in the index.
This field contains a list of all the parent items of an item, held as a list of GUIDs.
By filtering by _path you restrict the query to a certain node of the tree without effecting the score, for example:
/home (id:1234)
/animals (id:5678 = path:1234 / 5678
/cats (id:1111) = path: 1234 / 5678 / 1111
/dogs (id:2222) = path: 1234 / 5678 / 2222
/cars (id:4567) = path: 1234 / 4567
/sports (id:3333) = path: 1234 / 4567 / 3333
If you filter on animals (ie 5678) you restrict the search only that item and its children.
Using a filter means you can restrict the context of a search without that part effecting the scoring of the main query, so you would end up with:
using (var context = index.CreateSearchContext)
{
context.GetQueryable<SearchResultItem>().Where(x =>Name.Contains("Exciting"))
.Filter(y => y.Paths.Contains(ID.Parse("your GUID Here")
}
This would search only inside the part of the tree you have filtered by for where name contains 'exciting'.
Hope that helps :)
Related
Update 2
Cama::PostType.first.posts.joins(:custom_field_values)
.where("cama_custom_fields_relationships.custom_field_slug = ? AND
cama_custom_fields_relationships.value LIKE ?","localization",
"%Paris%").merge(Cama::PostType.first.posts.joins(:custom_field_values)
.where("cama_custom_fields_relationships.custom_field_slug = ? AND cama_custom_fields_relationships.value = ?","type-localization", "2"))
Why this merge doesn't work ?
It returns me same result when executed seperately... Merge should work as intersection so common part should be result. I dont get it
Update
I will try to ask in more conceptual way.
I have model B that have slug:text, value:text, belongs_to: Model A
I have model A that have name:string, has_many: Model B
#posts_one = I search for model B where slug="something", value = "city"
#posts_two = I search for model B where slug="mood", value="good"
I have 2 results based on diffrent parameters. Both belongs_to: model A
Now I want to return only the common belongs_to.
so if
#posts_one will return me 20 results with model_a_ids
#posts_two will return me 20 results with model_a_ids
I want to return only common model_a_ids of those 2 queries and right away to find posts. I try to make it in one query but dont know if its possible
Oryginal post
I use Camaleon CMS and I try to create filters based on additional "custom fields". I think to answer this question you dont have to know this cms.
I want to find common part of 2 queries or make it in one query(that would be the best)
I have
#posts = Cama::PostType.first.posts.includes(:custom_field_values)
#param_localization = "Paris"
#param_type_localization = "House"
#posts_one = #posts.merge(CamaleonCms::CustomFieldsRelationship.
where("cama_custom_fields_relationships.custom_field_slug = ? AND
LOWER(cama_custom_fields_relationships.value) LIKE ?", "localization",
"%#{#param_localization}%"))
puts #posts_one.count => 2
#posts_two = #posts.merge(CamaleonCms::CustomFieldsRelationship.where(custom_field_slug:
"type-localization", value: #param_type_localization))
puts #posts_two.count => 2
Question is how can I merge it together or make it one query ? When I made it in one where clause it returns me 0 results since I need to find 2 diffrent custom fields relationships that has diffrent values and slugs but it have relations to posts throught :custom_fields_values, so I have to make 2 queries I guess(like I did). First I find customFieldRelationship with slug = localization and second with slug = type_localization and then I need to find common part
I tried to #result = #posts_one.merge(#posts_two) but I got no result then. I thought it will return me "common part" of association which means 2 results
How can I combine it to find me posts that fullfil both queries ?
Let me know if I explained my problem not well enought.
You'll want to combine it in SQL: (untested)
#posts_combined = #posts.merge(CamaleonCms::CustomFieldsRelationship.
where("(cama_custom_fields_relationships.custom_field_slug = ?
OR cama_custom_fields_relationships.custom_field_slug = 'type-localization')
AND LOWER(cama_custom_fields_relationships.value) LIKE ? ", "localization",
"%#{#param_localization}%"))
I'm currently trying to implement AJAX results filtering on a certain page.
I created the dropdowns(on the client side), so that they have the umbraco prevalue id as their value.
I will then send this id to the server, rather than the text value. Then I loop through my content to find items with this same id.
The problem, however, is that I can't figure out how to get the value id from the property. Everything either returns the text value, or just a 0 value.
This is being performed in an ApiController.
These are all of the options I've tried:
IPublishedContent root = Umbraco.TypedContentAtRoot().First();
var downloads = root.Children.Where(q => q.Name == "Downloads").SingleOrDefault();
foreach (var item in downloads.Children)
{
var test = item.GetPropertyValue<int>("classification");
var testing = item.GetProperty("classification");
var testVal = testing.DataValue;
var testValToo = testing.GetValue<int>();
var testThree = testing.Value;
}
These are the results in order:
- 0
- IPublishedProperty
- "textValue"
- 0
- "textValue"
Is it possible to get the selected value id from a dropdownlist property? Or is string matching my only option to compare values?
EDIT:
Nevermind, found the solution. Posting the answer here, in case someone else needs it.
I was using the data type dropdownlist. I should have been using dropdownlist:publishing keys.
dropdownlist only ever returns a value. dropdownlist:publishing keys, however, returns the prevalue id, rather than the text value.
Source
Something like this perhaps.
library.GetPreValueAsString(node.GetProperty<int>("sectionType")).ToLower()
I'm building a advanced search functionality and, thanks to the help of some ruby fellows on SO, I've been already able to combine AND and OR conditions programmatically on different fields of the same class.
I ended up writing something similar to the accepted answer mentioned above, which I report here:
query = criteria.each_with_object({}) do |(field, values), query|
field = field.in if(values.is_a?(Array))
query[field] = values
end
MyClass.where(query)
Now, what might happen is that someone wants to search on a certain field with multiple criteria, something like:
"all the users where names contains 'abc' but not contains 'def'"
How would you write the query above?
Please note that I already have the regexes to do what I want to (see below), my question is mainly on how to combine them together.
#contains
Regex.new('.*' + val + '.*')
#not contains
Regex.new('^((?!'+ val +').)*$')
Thanks for your time!
* UPDATE *
I was playing with the console and this is working:
MyClass.where(name: /.*abc.*/).and(name: /^((?!def).)*$/)
My question remains: how do I do that programmatically? I shouldn't end up with more than two conditions on the same field but it's something I can't be sure of.
You could use an :$and operator to combine the individual queries:
MyClass.where(:$and => [
{ name: /.*abc.*/ },
{ name: /^((?!def).)*$/ }
])
That would change the overall query builder to something like this:
components = criteria.map do |field, value|
field = field.in if(value.is_a?(Array))
{ field => value }
end
query = components.length > 1 ? { :$and => components } : components.first
You build a list of the individual components and then, at the end, either combine them with :$and or, if there aren't enough components for :$and, just unwrap the single component and call that your query.
I would like to benchmark single TypoScript object generation to control the performance, is it possible, probably, with some stdWrap methods ?
Example of TS objects, which I would like to benchmark :
Test 1
page.10 = RECORDS
page.10 {
tables = pages
source = 1
dontCheckPid = 1
conf.pages = TEXT
conf.pages.field = title
}
Test 2
page.20 = CONTENT
page.20 {
table = tt_content
select {
pidInList = 0
recursive = 99
where = uid = 1
}
}
I need each object generation time and quantity of fired queries.
I guess it could be done via Extension. I guess there is a possibility to hook in (or xclass) the Database Layer (like DBAL does). In your extension you could then just test the different TypoScript setups via $this->cObj->cObjGetSingle($this->conf['test1'],$this->conf['test1.'],'test1');
Perhaps have a look at t3lib_timeTrack, may be it is enough what is tracked there. But AFAIK everything which is tracked is available via Admin-Panel (check all checkboxes).
I'm using NHibernate 3.2 and I have a repository method that looks like:
public IEnumerable<MyModel> GetActiveMyModel()
{
return from m in Session.Query<MyModel>()
where m.Active == true
select m;
}
Which works as expected. However, sometimes when I use this method I want to filter it further:
var models = MyRepository.GetActiveMyModel();
var filtered = from m in models
where m.ID < 100
select new { m.Name };
Which produces the same SQL as the first one and the second filter and select must be done after the fact. I thought the whole point in LINQ is that it formed an expression tree that was unravelled when it's needed and therefore the correct SQL for the job could be created, saving my database requests.
If not, it means all of my repository methods have to return exactly what is needed and I can't make use of LINQ further down the chain without taking a penalty.
Have I got this wrong?
Updated
In response to the comment below: I omitted the line where I iterate over the results, which causes the initial SQL to be run (WHERE Active = 1) and the second filter (ID < 100) is obviously done in .NET.
Also, If I replace the second chunk of code with
var models = MyRepository.GetActiveMyModel();
var filtered = from m in models
where m.Items.Count > 0
select new { m.Name };
It generates the initial SQL to retrieve the active records and then runs a separate SQL statement for each record to find out how many Items it has, rather than writing something like I'd expect:
SELECT Name
FROM MyModel m
WHERE Active = 1
AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Items WHERE MyModelID = m.ID) > 0
You are returning IEnumerable<MyModel> from the method, which will cause in-memory evaluation from that point on, even if the underlying sequence is IQueryable<MyModel>.
If you want to allow code after GetActiveMyModel to add to the SQL query, return IQueryable<MyModel> instead.
You're running IEnumerable's extension method "Where" instead of IQueryable's. It will still evaluate lazily and give the same output, however it evaluates the IQueryable on entry and you're filtering the collection in memory instead of against the database.
When you later add an extra condition on another table (the count), it has to lazily fetch each and every one of the Items collections from the database since it has already evaluated the IQueryable before it knew about the condition.
(Yes, I would also like to be the extensive extension methods on IEnumerable to instead be virtual members, but, alas, they're not)