Below is the firebase Database of a child node of a particular user under the "users" node:
"L1Bczun2d5UTZC8g2LXchLJVXsh1" : {
"email" : "orabbz#yahoo.com",
"fullname" : "orabueze yea",
"teamname" : "orabbz team",
"total" : 0,
"userName" : "orabbz#yahoo.com",
"week1" : 0,
"week10" : 0,
"week11" : 0,
"week12" : 0,
"week2" : 0,
"week3" : 17,
"week4" : 0,
"week5" : 20,
"week6" : 0,
"week7" : 0,
"week8" : 0,
"week9" : 10
},
IS there a way to add up all the values of Weeks 1 down to week 12 and have the total sum in the total key?
I am curently thinking of bringing all the values of week 1 - week 12 brought into the angular js scope then adding up the values and then posting the total back in the firebase databse key total. But this sounds too long winded. is there a shorter solution?
As far as I know, Firebase DB doesn't have any DB functions as you'd have in SQL. So the options you have is to get the data and calculate it in Angular as you say. Or update a counter when the weeks are added to the user (when writing to the DB). Then just read the counter later
Related
I have TTL index in collection fct_in_ussd as following
db.fct_in_ussd.createIndex(
{"xdr_date":1},
{ "background": true, "expireAfterSeconds": 259200}
)
{
"v" : 2,
"key" : {
"xdr_date" : 1
},
"name" : "xdr_date_1",
"ns" : "appdb.fct_in_ussd",
"background" : true,
"expireAfterSeconds" : 259200
}
with expiry of 3 days. Sample document in collection is as following
{
"_id" : ObjectId("5f4808c9b32ewa2f8escb16b"),
"edr_seq_num" : "2043019_10405",
"served_imsi" : "",
"ussd_action_code" : "1",
"event_start_time" : ISODate("2020-08-27T19:06:51Z"),
"event_start_time_slot_key" : ISODate("2020-08-27T18:30:00Z"),
"basic_service_key" : "TopSim",
"rate_event_type" : "",
"event_type_key" : "22",
"event_dir_key" : "-99",
"srv_type_key" : "2",
"population_time" : ISODate("2020-08-27T19:26:00Z"),
"xdr_date" : ISODate("2020-08-27T19:06:51Z"),
"event_date" : "20200827"
}
Problem Statement :- Documents are not getting removed from collection. Collection still contains 15 days old documents.
MongoDB server version: 4.2.3
Block compression strategy is zstd
storage.wiredTiger.collectionConfig.blockCompressor: zstd
Column xdr_date is also part of another compound index.
Observations as on Sep 24
I have 5 collections with TTL index.
It turns out that data is getting removed from one of the collection and rest of the collections remains unaffected.
Daily insertion rate is ~500M records (including 5 collections).
This observation left me confused.
TTL expiration thread run on single. Is it too much data for TTL to expire ?
I have a table clustered on s_nation_key as below.
create or replace table t1
( S_SUPPKEY string,
S_NAME string,
S_NATIONKEY string,
S_ADDRESS string,
S_ACCTBAL string) cluster by (S_NATIONKEY);
Now i have added data to it
INSERT INTO T1
SELECT S_SUPPKEY , S_NAME,S_NATIONKEY,S_ADDRESS,S_ACCTBAL
FROM "SNOWFLAKE_SAMPLE_DATA"."TPCH_SF1000"."SUPPLIER"
WHERE S_NATIONKEY=7
limit 50000;
When i check data distribution in underlying micro partition itlooks good .
>select system$clustering_information('t1','S_NATIONKEY');
{ "cluster_by_keys" : "LINEAR(S_NATIONKEY)", "total_partition_count" : 1, "total_constant_partition_count" : 0, "average_overlaps" : 0.0, "average_depth" : 1.0, "partition_depth_histogram" : {
"00000" : 0,
"00001" : 1,
"00002" : 0,
"00003" : 0,
"00004" : 0,
"00005" : 0,
"00006" : 0,
"00007" : 0,
"00008" : 0,
"00009" : 0,
"00010" : 0,
"00011" : 0,
"00012" : 0,
"00013" : 0,
"00014" : 0,
"00015" : 0,
"00016" : 0 } }
Again i have loaded few more record as below for particular s_nation_key set as below.
--batch load 2
INSERT INTO T1
SELECT S_SUPPKEY , S_NAME,S_NATIONKEY,S_ADDRESS,S_ACCTBAL
FROM "SNOWFLAKE_SAMPLE_DATA"."TPCH_SF1000"."SUPPLIER"
WHERE S_NATIONKEY=3
LIMIT 50000;
--batch load 3
INSERT INTO T1
SELECT S_SUPPKEY , S_NAME,S_NATIONKEY,S_ADDRESS,S_ACCTBAL
FROM "SNOWFLAKE_SAMPLE_DATA"."TPCH_SF1000"."SUPPLIER"
WHERE S_NATIONKEY=1
limit 50000;
--batch load 3
INSERT INTO T1
SELECT S_SUPPKEY , S_NAME,S_NATIONKEY,S_ADDRESS,S_ACCTBAL
FROM "SNOWFLAKE_SAMPLE_DATA"."TPCH_SF1000"."SUPPLIER"
WHERE S_NATIONKEY=2
and S_ACCTBAL>0
limit 50000;
Now when i check clustering information again ,this also looks good . Now total 4 micro-partition and each distinct S_NATIONKEY value set is loaded into individual partition with no overlapping in range.So all micro-partition is having clustering depth 1.
>select system$clustering_information('t1','S_NATIONKEY');
{
"cluster_by_keys" : "LINEAR(S_NATIONKEY)",
"total_partition_count" : 4,
"total_constant_partition_count" : 4,
"average_overlaps" : 0.0,
"average_depth" : 1.0,
"partition_depth_histogram" : {
"00000" : 0,
"00001" : 4,
"00002" : 0,
"00003" : 0,
"00004" : 0,
"00005" : 0,
"00006" : 0,
"00007" : 0,
"00008" : 0,
"00009" : 0,
"00010" : 0,
"00011" : 0,
"00012" : 0,
"00013" : 0,
"00014" : 0,
"00015" : 0,
"00016" : 0
}
}
Now as per Snowflake documentation and concept of query pruning, when ever we search for records belong to one cluster_key value , it should scan only particular micro-partition which will be holding that cluster_key value (basing on min/max value range of each micro-partition). But in my case it is scanning all underlying micro partition(as below)
.
As per above query planning stats,it is scanning all the partitions, instead of scanning 1 .
Am i missing anything here ??What is the logic behind it ??
Please help me in understanding this scenario in Snowflake.
Thanks,
#Himanshu
The Autoclustering or the clustering keys are not intended for all tables. It is usually suggested for a very large table that runs into Terra bytes in size. We should not compare the cluster key to any index kind of object that is available in most of the RDBMS systems. Here we are grouping the data into the micro partitions in an orderly fashion which helps to avoid scanning the partitions which may not contain the requested data. In the case of small tables, the engine prefers to scan all the partitions if it estimates that this is not a costly operation.
Refer to the Attention Section of the documentation :
https://docs.snowflake.com/en/user-guide/tables-clustering-keys.html#clustering-keys-clustered-tables.
Here the size of the table is not that big, that is why it is scanning all the partition rather one. Even if you check the total size scanned it is just 7.96 mb which is small hence SF scans all partitions
I am using this query for creating the index:
db.CollectionName.createIndex({result: {$exists:true}, timestamp : {$gte: 1573890921898000}})
What am I trying to do here is, creating indexing on timestamp > last month and for only those data where result exist, but I am getting error
{
"ok" : 0,
"errmsg" : "Values in v:2 index key pattern cannot be of type object. Only numbers > 0, numbers < 0, and strings are allowed.",
"code" : 67,
"codeName" : "CannotCreateIndex"
}
What am I doing wrong here?
thanks to #prasad_ for the suggestion, i needed to use partial_Indexes so the query becomes :
db.CollectionName.createIndex({result: 1, timestamp: 1}, {partialFilterExpression :{result: {$exists:true}, timestamp : {$gte: 1573890921898000}}})
I'm retrieving multiple appointments via AppointmentCalendar.FindAppointmentsAsync. I'm evaluating the Recurrence.RecurrenceType and noticed an unexpected value of 1 for master appointments of a series. I expect the Recurrence.RecurrenceType to be 0 (Master) but instead it is 1 (Instance).
(Note: I added AppointmentProperties.Recurrence to FindAppointmentsOptions.FetchProperties that is passed to GetAppointmentsAsync, so the Recurrence data should be fetched propertly.)
To double check I retrieved the respective master appointment via GetAppointmentAsync (instead of FindAppointmentsAsync) using its LocalId - and here the RecurrenceType is correctly set to 0.
Here is demo output for a test appointment series:
Data gotten by FindAppointmentsAsync (Instance??):
"Recurrence": {
"Unit": 0,
"Occurrences": 16,
"Month": 1,
"Interval": 1,
"DaysOfWeek": 0,
"Day": 1,
"WeekOfMonth": 0,
"Until": "2016-09-29T02:00:00+02:00",
"TimeZone": "Europe/Budapest",
"RecurrenceType": 1,
"CalendarIdentifier": "GregorianCalendar"
},
"StartTime": "2016-09-14T19:00:00+02:00",
"OriginalStartTime": "2016-09-14T19:00:00+02:00",
Data gotten by GetAppointmentAsync for the same appointment (Master):
"Recurrence": {
"Unit": 0,
"Occurrences": 16,
"Month": 1,
"Interval": 1,
"DaysOfWeek": 0,
"Day": 1,
"WeekOfMonth": 0,
"Until": "2016-09-29T02:00:00+02:00",
"TimeZone": "Europe/Budapest",
"RecurrenceType": 0,
"CalendarIdentifier": "GregorianCalendar"
},
"StartTime": "2016-09-14T19:00:00+02:00",
"OriginalStartTime": null,
Notice the difference in RecurrenceType. Also note that OriginalStartTime is set to null for the master gotten by GetAppointmentAsync but has a value for the appointment gotten by FindAppointmentsAsync.
You can also see that the StartTime for the master appointment is the start time set for the alleged Instance (which in reality is the master).
Shouldn't FindAppointmentsAsync return a master as the first element of a series, instead of an instance?
(SDK: 10.0.14393.0, Anniversary)
Code to explicitly find such a master/instance situation for a given calendar:
var appointmentsCurrent = await calendar.FindAppointmentsAsync(DateTimeOffset.Now, TimeSpan.FromDays(365), findAppointmentOptions);
foreach(var a in appointmentsCurrent)
{
var a2 = await calendar.GetAppointmentAsync(a.LocalId);
if (a2.Recurrence?.RecurrenceType == RecurrenceType.Master &&
a2.StartTime == a.StartTime &&
a.Recurrence?.RecurrenceType == RecurrenceType.Instance &&
a.OriginalStartTime == a2.StartTime)
{
Debug.WriteLine("Gotcha!");
}
}
I tested above code on my side. If you get the count of the appointments which are got from FindAppontmentsAsync by the following code:var count=appointmentsCurrent.Count;, you will find it does return the count of the appointment instances, not the count of master appointments. So the FindAppontmentsAsync method got all instances of the appointments not master appointments. This is the reason why the RecurrenceType is instance.
It seems like we can get one master appointment by method GetAppointmentAsync as you mentioned above, so I suppose this may not block you.
If you think this is not a good design for this API or you require a API for finding all the master appointments in one calendar, you can submit your ideas to the windows 10 feedback tool or the user voice site.
I want to have a select box with a list of price range.
Example:
- 0 to $2,000
- $2,000 to $3,500
- $3,500 to $5,000
- $5,000 to $7,500
- $7,500 to $10,000
- $10,000
When the user select one option I want to set the budget range:
For instance if the user clicks on - $3,500 to $5,000 then is set the following values:
$scope.var.x = 3500;
$scope.var.y = 5000;
I would like to do this directly on a partial if possible.
That's something easy to do if you have correctly understood the Angular principles. I think that you have something like an array which contains your price ranges:
$scope.ranges = [
{start : 0, end : 2000},
{start : 2000, end : 3500},
{start : 3500, end : 5000},
{start : 5000, end : Infinity}
];
Then, simply construct your <select> menu from this array:
<select ng-model="selectedRange" ng-options="range as '$' + range.start + ' to $' + range.end for range in ranges"></select>
Fiddle
Notice that if you have just a list of price…
$scope.ranges = [0, 2000, 3500, 5000];
… it's not really difficult to reconstruct the first object I've shown.