I'm trying to understand arrays in Firebase a bit more. Currently, I'm storing maps in arrays, where one of the fields inside the map is a position that I can use in my mobile app to sort the array with on retrieval and show results in the order of position.
The docs on Firebase say:
Arrays are sorted by elements. If elements are equal, the arrays are sorted by length.
For example, [1, 2, 3] < [1, 2, 3, 1] < [2].
And then there's a section describing how maps are sorted as well:
Key ordering is always sorted. For example, if you write {c: "foo", a: "bar", b: "qux"} the map is sorted by key and saved as {a: "foo", b: "bar", c: "qux"}.
Map fields are sorted by key and compared by key-value pairs, first comparing the keys and then the values. If the first key-value pairs are equal, the next key-value pairs are compared, and so on. If two maps start with the same key-value pairs, then map length is considered. For example, the following maps are in ascending order:
{a: "aaa", b: "baz"}
{a: "foo", b: "bar"}
{a: "foo", b: "bar", c: "qux"}
{a: "foo", b: "baz"}
{b: "aaa", c: "baz"}
{c: "aaa"}
But then I tried this in Firestore: I jumbled up the order of the maps in the above example, and stored them in an array:
data= [{"c": "aaa"}, {"a": "aaa", "b": "baz"}, {"a": "foo", "b": "baz"}, {"b": "aaa", "c": "baz"}, {"a": "foo", "b": "bar", "c": "qux"}, {"a": "foo", "b": "bar"}]
And upon inserting into a Firestore document, the array did not get sorted! While the keys themselves do get sorted within a single Map, the elements in the array stay in the same order.
So does sorting in arrays even work when elements are Maps? Here's an example of what I'm storing in Firestore:
{
"car_collection": {
"models": {
data: [
{
"model": "Honda",
"color": "black",
"position": 0
},
{
"model": "Hyundai",
"color": "red",
"position": 1
},
{
"model": "Chevrolet",
"color": "yellow"
"position": 2
}
]
}
}
}
I'm storing an additional field called "position", and the order of maps stays the same on every retrieval. Wondering if I even need to store this field, or data will be sorted in the order that I store it in.
Submitted a ticket to Google to improve the documentation for Array type, and I think it's helpful and accurate as seen through some smoke testing.
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/data-types
Copy-pasting the current version here:
An array cannot contain another array value as one of its elements.
Within an array, elements maintain the position assigned to them. When sorting two or more arrays, arrays are ordered based on their element values.
When comparing two arrays, the first elements of each array are compared. If the first elements are equal, then the second elements are compared and so on until a difference is found. If an array runs out of elements to compare but is equal up to that point, then the shorter array is ordered before the longer array.
For example, [1, 2, 3] < [1, 2, 3, 1] < [2]. The array [2] has the greatest first element value. The array [1, 2, 3] has elements equal to the first three elements of [1, 2, 3, 1] but is shorter in length.
So it seems you can safely expect the order of elements to be maintained in Firestore, while understanding the effects of addition/removal as well.
You will have to sort your array before posting it to Firestore.
Arrays are not sorted in RTD nor Firestore objects however are sorted by it's keys.
Or sort the arrays on the client side.
Related
I need to parse the following hash of 2d arrays, where the first array has the keys and the rest of the arrays has the values.
input = {
"result": [
[
"id",
"name",
"address"
],
[
"1",
"Vishnu",
"abc"
],
[
"2",
"Arun",
"def"
],
[
"3",
"Arjun",
"ghi"
]
]
}
This is the result I came up with.
input[:result].drop(1).collect{|arr| Hash[input[:result].first.zip arr]}
Here I'm iterating through the result array ignoring its first sub array (the one that contains keys) then zip the key array and value array to make a hash afterwards I collect the hash to another array.
The above solution gives me what I want which is a hash
[{"id"=>"1", "name"=>"Vishnu", "address"=>"abc"}, {"id"=>"2", "name"=>"Arun", "address"=>"def"}, {"id"=>"3", "name"=>"Arjun", "address"=>"ghi"}]
Is there a better way to achieve the same result?
zip is the correct tool here, so your code is fine.
I'd use Ruby's array decomposition feature to extract keys and values, and to_h instead of Hash[]:
keys, *values = input[:result]
values.map { |v| keys.zip(v).to_h }
Or, if you prefer a "one-liner": (harder to understand IMO)
input[:result].yield_self { |k, *vs| vs.map { |v| k.zip(v).to_h } }
I'm using Rails 5 and Ruby 2.4 I have an array of objects, each object having the fields
name
member_id
I wish to scan through my array and eliminate duplicate items, taht is, items whose fields "name" and "member_id" already match something else in teh array. How do I do this? I realize I can check if the array already contains an item by using
results.any?{|a| a.name.eql?(name) && a.member_id == member_id}
But I'm unsure how to use the above to eliminate duplicates. Also, if there are duplicates, I still want to keep one of the items with the unique name/member_id combination.
Ruby's uniq is an option. For instance, suppose I want to compare the subarray elements in the following by their values at subindices 0 and 2. I can create a comparison object comprised of those items and use it with uniq's block option:
a = [
['one', 1, 1],
['two', 2, 2],
['one', 2, 1],
['two', 2, 2],
['one', 1, 2],
]
p a.uniq { |elt| [elt[0], elt[2]] } # => [["one", 1, 1], ["two", 2, 2], ["one", 1, 2]]
I have a keyword array field (say f) and I want to filter documents with an exact array (e.g. filter docs with f = [1, 3, 6] exactly, same order and number of terms).
What is the best way of doing this?
Regards
One way to achieve this is to add a script to the query which would also check the number of elements in the array.
it script would be something like
"filters": [
{
"script": {
"script": "doc['f'].values.length == 3"
}
},
{
"terms": {
"f": [
1,
3,
6
],
"execution": "and"
}
}
]
Hope you get the idea.
I think an even better idea would be to store the array as a string (if there are not many changes to the structure of the graph) and matching the string directly. This would be much faster too.
I need to retrieve documents that contain at least one value inside an array. The structure of my document is:
{ "_id": 3,
"username": "111111",
"name": "XPTO 1",
"codes": [ 2, 4, 5 ],
"available": true }
{ "_id": 4,
"username": "22222",
"name": "XPTO 2",
"codes": [ 3, 5 ],
"available": true }
I need to do a find by "codes" and if i search for value "5", i need to retrieve all documents that contains this value inside their array.
I've tried to use #elemMatch but no success...
db.user.find({codes: {"$elemMatch": {codes: [2,8]}}}, {"codes":1})
How can i do this?
Thanks in advance.
You can check for values inside an array just like you compare the values for some field.
So, you would need to do it like this, without using $elemMatch: -
If you want to check whether an array contain a single value 5: -
db.user.find({codes: 5}, {codes:1})
This will return all the document, where codes array contain 5.
If you want to check whether an array contain a value out of given set of values: -
db.user.find({codes: {$in: [2, 8]}}, {codes:1})
This will return documents with array containing either 2 or 8
If you want to check whether an array contain all the values in a list: -
db.user.find({codes: {$all: [2, 5]}}, {codes:1})
This will return all document with array containing both 2 and 5.
I'd like to convert this JSON to a data model in Cassandra, where each of the arrays is a set with no duplicates:
var data = {
"data1": {
"100": [1, 2, 3],
"200": [3, 4]
},
"data2": {
"k1", [1],
"k2", [4, 5]
}
}
I'd like to query like this: data["data1"]["100"] to retrieve the sets. Anyone know how you might model this in Cassandra? (The only thing I came up with was columns whose name was a set value and the value of the column was an empty string, but that felt wrong.)
It's not OK to serialize the sets as JSON or some other string, which would make this much easier.
Also, I should note that it's OK to split data1 and data2 into separate ColumnFamilies, it's not necessary that they're keys in the same one.
This sounds like a job for the SuperColumn.