I want perform a weighted search in cts:collection-query. Is there any way provided for this?
What exactly I want to do is I want to fetch documents from a collection and give them different weight in a similar way as we do in cts:element-range-query.
cts:collection-query does not have any scoring options, unlike cts:element-range-query. A document either matches a collection query or it doesn't.
One option for you is to move the information you're current modeling with collections into elements (or JSON properties) within the documents; then you'll be able to use cts:element-range-query.
You haven't specified what kind of information you're using the collections for; it's hard to picture typical collection names benefitting from this approach. Some more detail might make that more clear.
If documents in some collections are "better" (should score higher) than ones in other collections, and those valuations are static, you could set the document quality based on the collections it belongs to. Not exactly the same, but perhaps that accomplishes the goal.
Related
I'm currently deciding on my Firestore data structure.
I'll need a products collection, and the products items will live inside of it as documents.
Here are my product's fields:
uniqueKey: string
description: array of strings
images: array of objects
price: number
QUESTION
Should I use Firestore auto-generated ID's to be the ID of my documents, or is it better to use my uniqueKey (which I'll query for in many occasions) as the document ID? Is there a best option between the 2?
I imagine that if I use my uniqueKey, it will make my life easier when retrieving a single document, but I'll have to query for more than 1 product on many occasions too.
Using my uniqueKey as ID:
db.collection("products").doc("myUniqueKey").get();
Using my Firestore auto-generated ID:
db.collection("products").where("uniqueKey", "==", "myUniqueKey").get();
Is this enough of a reason to go with my uniqueKey instead of the auto-generated one? Is there a rule of thumb here? What's the best practice in this case?
In terms of making queries from a client, using only the information you've given in the question, I don't see that there's much practical difference between a document get using its known ID, or a query on a field that is also unique. Either way, an index is used on the server side, and it costs exactly 1 document read. The document get() might be marginally faster, but it's not worthwhile to optimize like this (in my opinion).
When making decision about data modeling like this, it's more important to think about things like system behavior under load and security rules.
If you're reading and writing a lot of documents whose IDs have a sequential property, you could run into hotspotting on those writes. So, if you want to use your own ID, and you expect to be reading and writing them in that sequence under heavy load, you could have a problem. If you don't anticipate this to be the situation, then it likely doesn't matter too much whose ID you use.
If you are going to use security rules to limit access to documents, and you use the contents of other documents to help with that, you'll need to be able to uniquely identify those documents in your rule. You can't perform a query against a collection in rules, so you might need meaningful IDs that will give direct access when used by rules. If your own IDs can be used easily this way in security rules, that might be more convenient overall. If you're force to used Firestore's generated IDs, it might become inconvenient, difficult, or expensive to try to maintain a relationship between your IDs and Firestore's IDs.
In any event, the decision you're making is not just about which ID is "better" in a general sense, but which ID is better for your specific, anticipated situation, under load, with security in mind.
First of, I know how Firestore works and have spent a lot of time, evaluating different approaches for a good structure. Still I am considering following scenario:
There is a database of known recipes. Users can add recipes, but they have to be confirmed to be real recipes and not just some variations. So every user can choose receipes from the user-generated list of recipes to state, that they know how to cook them (or add new ones).
Now I want users to share their list of receipes with others, but this is where I am not sure how this can be best accomplished using Firestore. The trick is, that I want to show all the recipes at once, and don't want to paginate them.
I am currently evaluating two possibilities:
Subcollections
Whenever a user shares his list, the user looking at said list will have to load the entire list of the recipes which can result in a high amount of document reads (I suppose realistically ~50, in very rare cases maybe 1000).
Pros:
More natural structure
Easier to maintain (e.g. deleting a recipe, checking if a specific one exists)
Easier to add fields (e.g. timeOfCreation, comment, personalRating, ...)
Cons:
Can result in a high amount of reads on the long run
Arrays
I could save every known recipe (the id and an imageURL) inside the user's document (or as a single subdocument "KnownRecipes") within an array. This array could be in form of
recipesKnown: [{rid: 293ndwa, imageURL: image1.com, timeAdded: 8371201332},
{rid: 9012831, imageURL: image1.com, timeAdded: 8371201871},
{rid: jd812da, imageURL: image1.com, timeAdded: 8371201118},
...
]
Pros:
I only need one document read whenever someone wants to see another user's list
Reading a user's list is probably faster
Cons:
It's hard to update a specific recipe (e.g. someone wants to change the imageURL: I need to change the list locally and send the entire document as an update to the server - since I cannot just change a single element in the array)
When a user decides to have around 1000 recipes (this will maybe never happen, but it could), the 1MiB limit of the Firestore limit could be reached. A possible workaround would be to create a seperate document and split those two arrays into these two documents.
For me, the idea with Subcollections seems to be the more "clean" solution to this problem, but maybe I am missing some arguments on why one of those solutions would be superior over the other.
My most common queries are as follows (ordered descending by importance):
Which recipes can a user cook
Add a recipe a user can cook to the user's list
Who can cook a specific recipe (there is a Recipe -> Cooks subcollection)
Update an existing recipe a user can cook
The answer to your question depends on the level of scalability you want to achieve.
If by design the amount of sub-data you want to store is limited and very low, you should use arrays, since you reduce the number of document reads, which means lower costs.
If your sub-data is supposed to increase "unlimitedly" over time, you should use sub-collections.
If you're building a database which is not supposed to scale in any direction (Proof of concept, very small business, etc.) just go with what you feel more comfortable with.
I'm researching the same question...
One of the questions is whether the data held in the document will be ever go pass 1MB that is the limit for a document. Researching a bit on how much it can be held in plain text in 1MB well it's a hell of a lot. Still if it were to be incredible bigger it would crash in the end. Thus if you think in a big-big way sub-collections.
If we had to use the Firebase element logic the answer would be sub-collections.
Still I guess the major point is the data pulled. If you call the user you will directly be pulling out that MB of data. Instead with a sub-collection it won't load, even if you loaded it you can still lazy-load.
I guess for the kind of setup you are doing sub-collections.
key is an additional collection's con/pro
key could help to avoid duplicates; but this requires thinking of what is duplicate's definition (which might change);
array's no-key behavior could be emulated via auto-id.
p.s. #Thomas's list of pros/cons in the question has been quite helpful.
Official recommendation from the team is, to my knowledge, to put all datatypes into single collection that have something like type=someType field on documents to distinguish types.
Now, if we assume large databases with partitioning where different object types can be:
Completely different fields (so no common field for partitioning)
Related (through reference)
How to organize things so that things that should go together end up in same partition?
For example, lets say we have:
User
BlogPost
BlogPostComment
If we store them as separate types with type=user|blogPost|blogPostComment, in same collection, how do we ensure that user, his blogposts and all the corresponding comments end up in same partition?
Is there some best practice for this?
[UPDATE]
Can you ever avoid cross-partition queries completely? Should that be a goal? Or you just try to minimize them?
For example, you can partition your data perfectly for 99% of cases/queries but then you need some dashboard to show aggregates from all-the-data. Is that something you just accept as inevitable and try to minimize or is it possible to avoid it completely?
I've written about this somewhat extensively in other similar questions regarding Cosmos.
Basically, when dealing with many different logical entity types in a single Cosmos collection the easiest option is to put a generic (or abstract, as you refer to it) partition key on all your documents. At this point it's the concern of the application to make sure that at runtime the appropriate value is chosen. I usually name this document property either partitionKey, routingKey or something similar.
This is extremely important when designing for optimal query efficiency as your choice of partition keys can have a huge impact on query and throughput performance. A generic key like this lets you design the optimal storage of your data as it benefits whatever application you're building.
Even something like tenant does not make sense as different tenants might have wildly different data size and access patterns. Instead you could include the tenantId at runtime as part of your partition key as a kind of composite.
UPDATE:
For certain query patterns it might be possible to serve them entirely out of a single partition. It's definitely not the end of the world if things end up going cross partition though. The system is still quick. If possible, limiting the amount of partitions that need to be touched for a given query is ideal but you're never going to get away from it 100% of the time.
A partition should hold data related to a group that is expected to grow, for instance a Tenant which will group many documents (which can be of different types as you have mentioned) So the Partition Key in this instance should be the TenantId. The partitioning is more about the data relating to a group than the type of data. If the data is related to a User then you could use the UserId, however many users may comment on the same posts so it doesn't seem like a good candidate for a partition key unless there is some de-normalization of the user info so it doest have to relate back to the other users directly.. if that makes sense?
I have a node type that has a string property that will have the same value really often. Etc. Millions of nodes with only 5 options of that string value. I will be doing searches by that property.
My question would be what is better in terms of performance and memory:
a) Implement it as a node property and have lots of duplicates (and search using WHERE).
b) Implement it as 5 additional nodes, where all original nodes reference one of them (and search using additional MATCH).
Without knowing further details it's hard to give a general purpose answer.
From a performance perspective it's better to limit the search as early as possible. Even more beneficial if you do not have to look into properties for a traversal.
Given that I assume it's better to move the lookup property into a seperate node and use the value as relationship type.
Use labels; this blog post is a good intro to this new Neo4j 2.0 feature:
Labels and Schema Indexes in Neo4j
I've thought about this problem a little as well. In my case, I had to represent state:
STARTED
IN_PROGRESS
SUBMITTED
COMPLETED
Overall the Node + Relationship approach looks more appealing in that only a single relationship reference needs to be maintained each time rather than a property string and you don't need to scan an extra additional index which has to be maintained on the property (memory and performance would intuitively be in favor of this approach).
Another advantage is that it easily supports the ability of a node being linked to multiple "special nodes". If you foresee a situation where this should be possible in your model, this is better than having to use a property array (and searching using "in").
In practice I found that the problem then became, how do you access these special nodes each time. Either you maintain some sort of constants reference where you have the node ID of these special nodes where you can jump right into them in your START statement (this is what we do) or you need to do a search against property of the special node each time (name, perhaps) and then traverse down it's relationships. This doesn't make for the prettiest of cypher queries.
Consider a set of data called Library, which contains a set of Books and each book contains a set of Pages.
Let's say you are using Riak to store this data, and you need to be access the data in two possible ways:
- Query for a particular page (with a unique id)
- Query for all pages in a particular book (with a unique name)
Additionally, you need to be able to easily update and delete pages of a particular Book.
What would be the best way to accomplish this in Riak?
Obviously Riak Search will do the trick, but maybe is inefficient for what I am trying to do. I am wondering if it makes sense to set up buckets where each bucket can be a Book (which would make for potentially millions of "Book" buckets). Maybe that is a bad idea...
Can this be accomplished with secondary indexes?
I am trying to keep this simple...
I am new to Riak and I am trying to find the best way to accomplish something that is probably relatively simple. I would appreciate any help from the Stack Overflow community. Thanks!
A common way to model master-detail relationships in Riak is to have the master record contain a list of detail record IDs, possibly together with some information about the detail record that may be useful when deciding which detail records to retrieve.
In your example, you could have two buckets called 'books' and 'pages'. The master record in the 'books' bucket will contain metadata and information about the book as a whole together with a list of pages that are included in the book. Each page would contain the ID of the 'pages' record holding the page data as well as the corresponding page number. If you e.g. wanted to be able to query by chapter, you could also add information about which chapters a certain page belongs to.
The 'pages' bucket would contain the text of the page and possibly links to images and other media data that are included on that page. This data could be stored in yet another bucket.
In order to get a specific page or a range of pages, one would first retrieve the master record from the 'books' bucket and then based on the contents of the record the appropriate pages. Even though this requires several GET operations, they are all direct lookups based on keys, which is the most efficient and scalable way to retrieve data from Riak, so it is will perform and scale well.
This approach also makes it simple to change the order of pages and/or chapters as only the master record needs to be updated. Adding, deleting or modifying pages would however require both the master record as well as one or more detail records to be updated, added or deleted.
You can most certainly also solve this problem by adding secondary indexes to the objects and query based on this. Secondary index queries in Riak does however have to include processing on a covering set (generally ring size / n_val) of partitions in order to fulfil the request, and therefore puts a bit more load on the system and generally results in higher latencies than retrieving a single object containing keys through a direct key lookup (which only needs to involve the partitions where the object is actually stored).
Although maintaining a separate object containing indexes adds a bit of extra work when inserting or deleting pages/entries, this approach will generally result in more efficient reads, as only direct key lookups are required. If your application is heavy on reads, it probably makes sense to use this approach, while secondary indexes could be more efficient for a write heavy application as inserts and modifications are made cheaper at the expense of more expensive reads. You can however always add secondary indexes just in case in order to keep your options open.
In cases like this I would usually recommend performing some benchmarks to test the solutions and chech which solution that best matches you particular performance and scaling requirements.
The most efficient way will be to store hole book as an one object, and duplicate it's pages as another separate objects.
Pros:
you will be able to select any object by its key(the most cheapest op
in riak is kv query)
any query will be predicted by latency
this is natural way of storing for riak
Cons:
If you need to update any page you must update whole book, and then page. As riak doesn't have atomic ops, you must to think how to recover any failure situation (like this: book was updated, but page was not).
Riak is about availability predictable latency, so if you will use something like 2i to collect results, it will make unpredictable time query, which will grow with page numbers