i'm having hard times understanding how I should model many-to-many relationships in objections.js.
Basically I have an app with an Users, Games and UsersScore tables. A account can have score in game.
Tables are like this:
USERS TABLE
id
username
GAMES TABLE
id
name
UsersScore TABLE
id
userId
gameId
score
How do I create the relation?
I want to show the logged in user a list of all the games
And if he has score in the game then his score
Thanks!!
This is essentially identical to the requirements outlined at Join table extra properties in the Objection documentation. You could adapt this to create users, games, and users_games tables. Then your User model might look like this:
class User extends Model {
static get relationMappings() {
return {
relation: Model.ManyToManyRelation,
modelClass: Game,
join: {
from: 'users.id',
through: {
from: 'users_games.user_id',
to: 'users_games.game_id',
extra: ['score']
},
to: 'game.id'
}
};
}
}
Here you can see that we've added an extra score column to our users_games join table. Then I imagine you would get a list of games with something like:
const user = await User.query().findOne({ username: 'wombatsarefluffy' });
const games = await user.$relatedQuery('games');
See the documentation page for an example of how to construct the migrations.
Related
TL;DR
products have multiple categories.
View should show only all subcategories and products that have the category assigned.
How to setup the DB and queries?
I'm learning Vue and Firebase at the moment coming from a C# and SQL background, I need some help and advice on the noSQL side of things.
EDIT: categories and products are two separate collections (at the moment).
I have products, which can have multiple categories (see product 5)
products: {
prod1-id: {
name:'apple-type-A',
price: 2
cats: cat1-id
}
prod2-id: {
name:'apple-type-B',
price: 2.5
cats: cat1-id
}
prod3-id: {
name:'banana-type-A',
price: 1.6
cats: cat2-id
}
prod4-id: {
name:'banana-type-B',
price: 1.9
cats: cat2-id
}
prod5-id: {
name:'smoothie',
price: 5,
cats: [cat2-id, subCat1-id, subCat2-id]
}
}
Those categories are a tree.
categories: {
cat1-id: {
name: 'fruits',
subCat1-id: {
name: 'apple'
}
subCat2-id: {
name: 'banana'
}
},
cat2-id: {
name: 'MySmooth'
}
}
The customer should see the first tree.
The landing page should only show the first depth of the category tree and every product without a category (maybe add a category called 'no category').
When you click on a category is should show all the subcategories and products, that have this category.
This goes on until the deepest branch.
I tried to sketch my idea:
VIEW
For programming I use Vue, with vuex and vuexfire and as framework Vuetify.
I have the complete product management setup but I don't know how to query for this view.
My idea was to reuse a <v-card v-for="p of products"> I already have and is working fine.
But this shows only products, not categories. How do I get the categories into the mix?
QUERY
Working with vuexfire this is quite simple.
bindSoldProducts: firestoreAction(({ bindFirestoreRef }) => bindFirestoreRef('products', productsColl.where('isSold', '==', true))
but how can I get the categories and products now show side by side?
I've started to get the products together by querying, but have no idea how to put the categories into the mix:
firebase.firestore.collection('products').orderBy('name', 'asc').onSnapshot(snap => {
const productsArray: any = []
snap.forEach(doc => {
const product = doc.data()
product.id = doc.id
productsArray.push(product)
})
store.commit('setAllProducts', productsArray)
})
Do I need to structure my database differently?
Do I just query the products and use "some js logic/magic" to show the categories? But how would I then get the views.
Are the collection group queries of firebase the right way to go? If yes, how?
Please advice
Try a for in all Categories and get the fruits:
const categories = {
"cat1-id": []
}
Object.keys(categories).forEach(cat => {
const res = db.collection('products').where('cats', 'array-contains', cat).get()
// Resolve and put (push) in categories[cat]
})
See: https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/query-data/queries
I'm writing my response an answer as it was too long for a comment.
If I understood your use case correctly, you want to have a DB structure where you have a list of products and their respective categories which both will be displayed simultaneously side by side on your Vue application view.
While I'm not a Vue expert, I can suggest using the following structure for your Cloud Firestore database: Products/{product}/categories/{category}, which translates to collection/{document}/collection/{document}.
In the Cloud Firestore data model you can have a collection within another collection, and this is called a subcollection. For example, you could have Products/fruits/Categories/banana and inside the banana document you could have type, price, or id fields among many others.
Then, you could use Collection group queries to retrieve documents from a collection group instead of from a single collection. A collection group consists of all collections with the same ID. By default, queries retrieve results from a single collection in your database.
For example, you could create a categories collection group by adding a Categories subcollection to each product and then retrieve results from every product's categories subcollection at once, let's say bananas:
const querySnapshot = await db.collectionGroup('categories').where('productName', '==', 'banana').get();
querySnapshot.forEach((doc) => {
console.log(doc.id, ' => ', doc.data());
// Banana from Mexico, Banana from Honduras, etc.
});
Before using a collection group query, do not forget to create an index that supports your collection group query. You can create an index through an error message, the console, or the Firebase CLI.
I'm designing a firestore database, trying to understand no-sql. What's getting me stuck is relationships. I know I'm supposed to keep root level collections and relate them with references, but I don't understand how to manage the relations once the data is on the client. Say this is my data (without relations) ...
Schools (collection)
JFKElementary (doc)
address: 123 Elm Street
Classrooms (collection)
Room1 (doc)
roomNumber: 1
Room2 (doc) ...
Families (collection)
Jones.1234 (doc)
address: 456 Cherry Lane
Smith.2134 (doc) ...
Students
Billy.Jones.2323 (doc)
name: Billy Jones
I need to represent the idea that "Billy Jones" belongs to the Jones.1234 family, and that he belongs to the Room1 classroom, and that the classroom and the family belong to the JFKElementary school. I know I can place refs in the documents, like this...
Classrooms (collection)
Room1 (doc)
roomNumber: 1
school: ref to JFK Elementary
Students
Billy.Jones.2323 (doc)
name: Billy Jones
family: ref to Jones.1234
classroom: ref to Room1
school: ref to JFK Elementary
I want to get a whole school on the client, so I think I can query like this:
collection('classrooms').where("school", "==", <school ref>)
collection('students').where("school", "==", <school ref>)
// etc for families
That gets me the whole school, but leaves my problem: On the client, how do I assemble the relationships that UI needs? For example, say the UI wants to present the names of all the students in Room1...
let room1 = classroomsSnapshot.docs[0]
let room1Students = studentsSnapshot.docs.filter(student => {
return student.data().classroom.id === room1.id
})
I wouldn't want all that code run each time I need a room's students. I could build my own class on the client like this?
class ClientSideClassroom {
constructor(doc, studentsSnapshot) {
this.doc = doc
this.students = studentsSnapshot.docs.filter(student => {
return student.data().classroom.id === room1.id
})
}
and on a snapshot...
let clientClassrooms = classroomsSnapshot.docs().map(doc => {
return new ClientSideClassroom(doc, studentsSnapshot)
})
If so, then the student docs (and all of the others) are going to need their own class, too, e.g. to answer the ClientSideClassroom to which they belong. Do I now have to keep two objects for every firestore doc? The "real" one and a wrapper that keeps the relations?
Even if I have forward pointers on the collections, I don't think that puts me ahead. e.g.
Classrooms (collections)
Room1 (doc)
students: [ref to Billy.Jones.123, ...
I wouldn't query that classrooms' students with gets, because I got the whole collection in a students query. But I still need to turn the students array into an array of actual docs, not refs....
// ClientSideClassroom class constructor
this.students = this.doc.data().students.map(studentRef => {
return // find the student in the studentsSnapshot with studentRef
})
Am I going about this all wrong?
Put all student name inside classA document. - you can get all student name on specific class. classCollection will have a lot doc such as classA, classB, classC
Put all family member name inside familyJones doc - you can get all family member name on one family doc
On user jones document, put all his detail such as class, family, school, home address inside one doc
This video will help u
https://youtu.be/v_hR4K4auoQ
I am very new in GraphQL and trying to do a simple join query. My sample tables look like below:
{
phones: [
{
id: 1,
brand: 'b1',
model: 'Galaxy S9 Plus',
price: 1000,
},
{
id: 2,
brand: 'b2',
model: 'OnePlus 6',
price: 900,
},
],
brands: [
{
id: 'b1',
name: 'Samsung'
},
{
id: 'b2',
name: 'OnePlus'
}
]
}
I would like to have a query to return a phone object with its brand name in it instead of the brand code.
E.g. If queried for the phone with id = 2, it should return:
{id: 2, brand: 'OnePlus', model: 'OnePlus 6', price: 900}
TL;DR
Yes, GraphQL does support a sort of pseudo-join. You can see the books and authors example below running in my demo project.
Example
Consider a simple database design for storing info about books:
create table Book ( id string, name string, pageCount string, authorId string );
create table Author ( id string, firstName string, lastName string );
Because we know that Author can write many Books that database model puts them in separate tables. Here is the GraphQL schema:
type Query {
bookById(id: ID): Book
}
type Book {
id: ID
title: String
pageCount: Int
author: Author
}
type Author {
id: ID
firstName: String
lastName: String
}
Notice there is no authorId on the Book type but a type Author. The database authorId column on the book table is not exposed to the outside world. It is an internal detail.
We can pull back a book and it's author using this GraphQL query:
{
bookById(id:"book-1"){
id
title
pageCount
author {
firstName
lastName
}
}
}
Here is a screenshot of it in action using my demo project:
The result nests the Author details:
{
"data": {
"book1": {
"id": "book-1",
"title": "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone",
"pageCount": 223,
"author": {
"firstName": "Joanne",
"lastName": "Rowling"
}
}
}
}
The single GQL query resulted in two separate fetch-by-id calls into the database. When a single logical query turns into multiple physical queries we can quickly run into the infamous N+1 problem.
The N+1 Problem
In our case above a book can only have one author. If we only query one book by ID we only get a "read amplification" against our database of 2x. Imaging if you can query books with a title that starts with a prefix:
type Query {
booksByTitleStartsWith(titlePrefix: String): [Book]
}
Then we call it asking it to fetch the books with a title starting with "Harry":
{
booksByTitleStartsWith(titlePrefix:"Harry"){
id
title
pageCount
author {
firstName
lastName
}
}
}
In this GQL query we will fetch the books by a database query of title like 'Harry%' to get many books including the authorId of each book. It will then make an individual fetch by ID for every author of every book. This is a total of N+1 queries where the 1 query pulls back N records and we then make N separate fetches to build up the full picture.
The easy fix for that example is to not expose a field author on Book and force the person using your API to fetch all the authors in a separate query authorsByIds so we give them two queries:
type Query {
booksByTitleStartsWith(titlePrefix: String): [Book] /* <- single database call */
authorsByIds(authorIds: [ID]) [Author] /* <- single database call */
}
type Book {
id: ID
title: String
pageCount: Int
}
type Author {
id: ID
firstName: String
lastName: String
}
The key thing to note about that last example is that there is no way in that model to walk from one entity type to another. If the person using your API wants to load the books authors the same time they simple call both queries in single post:
query {
booksByTitleStartsWith(titlePrefix: "Harry") {
id
title
}
authorsByIds(authorIds: ["author-1","author-2","author-3") {
id
firstName
lastName
}
}
Here the person writing the query (perhaps using JavaScript in a web browser) sends a single GraphQL post to the server asking for both booksByTitleStartsWith and authorsByIds to be passed back at once. The server can now make two efficient database calls.
This approach shows that there is "no magic bullet" for how to map the "logical model" to the "physical model" when it comes to performance. This is known as the Object–relational impedance mismatch problem. More on that below.
Is Fetch-By-ID So Bad?
Note that the default behaviour of GraphQL is still very helpful. You can map GraphQL onto anything. You can map it onto internal REST APIs. You can map some types into a relational database and other types into a NoSQL database. These can be in the same schema and the same GraphQL end-point. There is no reason why you cannot have Author stored in Postgres and Book stored in MongoDB. This is because GraphQL doesn't by default "join in the datastore" it will fetch each type independently and build the response in memory to send back to the client. It may be the case that you can use a model that only joins to a small dataset that gets very good cache hits. You can then add caching into your system and not have a problem and benefit from all the advantages of GraphQL.
What About ORM?
There is a project called Join Monster which does look at your database schema, looks at the runtime GraphQL query, and tries to generate efficient database joins on-the-fly. That is a form of Object Relational Mapping which sometimes gets a lot of "OrmHate". This is mainly due to Object–relational impedance mismatch problem.
In my experience, any ORM works if you write the database model to exactly support your object API. In my experience, any ORM tends to fail when you have an existing database model that you try to map with an ORM framework.
IMHO, if the data model is optimised without thinking about ORM or queries then avoid ORM. For example, if the data model is optimised to conserve space in classical third normal form. My recommendation there is to avoid querying the main data model and use the CQRS pattern. See below for an example.
What Is Practical?
If you do want to use pseudo-joins in GraphQL but you hit an N+1 problem you can write code to map specific "field fetches" onto hand-written database queries. Carefully performance test using realist data whenever any fields return an array.
Even when you can put in hand written queries you may hit scenarios where those joins don't run fast enough. In which case consider the CQRS pattern and denormalise some of the data model to allow for fast lookups.
Update: GraphQL Java "Look-Ahead"
In our case we use graphql-java and use pure configuration files to map DataFetchers to database queries. There is a some generic logic that looks at the graph query being run and calls parameterized sql queries that are in a custom configuration file. We saw this article Building efficient data fetchers by looking ahead which explains that you can inspect at runtime the what the person who wrote the query selected to be returned. We can use that to "look-ahead" at what other entities we would be asked to fetch to satisfy the entire query. At which point we can join the data in the database and pull it all back efficiently in the a single database call. The graphql-java engine will still make N in-memory fetches to our code. The N requests to get the author of each book are satisfied by simply lookups in a hashmap that we loaded out of the single database call that joined the author table to the books table returning N complete rows efficiently.
Our approach might sound a little like ORM yet we did not make any attempt to make it intelligent. The developer creating the API and our custom configuration files has to decide which graphql queries will be mapped to what database queries. Our generic logic just "looks-ahead" at what the runtime graphql query actually selects in total to understand all the database columns that it needs to load out of each row returned by the SQL to build the hashmap. Our approach can only handle parent-child-grandchild style trees of data. Yet this is a very common use case for us. The developer making the API still needs to keep a careful eye on performance. They need to adapt both the API and the custom mapping files to avoid poor performance.
GraphQL as a query language on the front-end does not support 'joins' in the classic SQL sense.
Rather, it allows you to pick and choose which fields in a particular model you want to fetch for your component.
To query all phones in your dataset, your query would look like this:
query myComponentQuery {
phone {
id
brand
model
price
}
}
The GraphQL server that your front-end is querying would then have individual field resolvers - telling GraphQL where to fetch id, brand, model etc.
The server-side resolver would look something like this:
Phone: {
id(root, args, context) {
pg.query('Select * from Phones where name = ?', ['blah']).then(d => {/*doStuff*/})
//OR
fetch(context.upstream_url + '/thing/' + args.id).then(d => {/*doStuff*/})
return {/*the result of either of those calls here*/}
},
price(root, args, context) {
return 9001
},
},
I would like to filter a model, based on its parent belongsTo relation.
For example, I have a Customer model and a Books model.
A Customer hasMany Books and a Book belongsTo Customer, with each table potentially being quite huge.
I'd like to get a list of unique books, where the owning Customer has a name of John.
So far, I know I can go from the Book model with a query that looks something like:
Book.find({
include: {
relation: 'customer',
scope: {
where: {name: 'John'}
}
}
}, function(err, books) {
// Loop through the books here
});
Or I could approach it from the Customer model, and manually merge the book lists (removing duplicates):
Customer.find({
where: {name: 'John'}
}, function(err, customers) {
var books = customers.map(customer => customer.books);
// Remove duplicates here
});
I would prefer the first approach, since it seems like it would do the duplication logic on the querying side.
However, that approach seems to include all books, but only for the ones where the customer name is John does it add on the customer attribute.
Am I approaching this the wrong way?
I have a blogs collection that contains title, body and agrregate rating that the users have given to them. Another collection 'Ratings' whose schema has reference to the blog, user who rated(if at all he rates them) it in the form of their ObjectIds and the rating they have given ie., +1 or -1.
When a particular user browses through blogs in the 'latest first' order (say 40 of them per page. Call them an array of blogs[0] to blogs[39]) I have to retrieve the rating documents related to this particular user and those 40 blogs if at all the user rated them and notify him of what ratings he has given those blogs.
I tried to extract all rating documents of a particular user in which blog reference objectIds lie between blogs[0]._id and blogs[39]._id which returns empty list in my case. May be objectIds cant be compared using $lt and $gt queries. In that case how should I go about it? Should I redesign my schemas to fit to this scenario?
I am using mongoosejs driver for this case. Here are the relevant parts of the code which differ a bit in execution but youu get the idea.
Schemas:
Client= new mongoose.Schema({
ip:String
})
Rates = new mongoose.Schema({
client:ObjectId,
newsid:ObjectId,
rate:Number
})
News = new mongoose.Schema({
title: String,
body: String,
likes:{type:Number,default:0},
dislikes:{type:Number,default:0},
created:Date,
// tag:String,
client:ObjectId,
tag:String,
ff:{type:Number,default:20}
});
models:
var newsm=mongoose.model('News', News);
var clientm=mongoose.model('Client', Client);
var ratesm=mongoose.model('Rates', Rates);
Logic:
newsm.find({tag:tag[req.params.tag_id]},[],{ sort:{created:-1},limit: buffer+1 },function(err,news){
ratesm.find({client:client._id,newsid:{$lte:news[0]._id,$gte:news.slice(-1)[0]._id}},function(err,ratings){
})
})
Edit:
While implementing the below said schema, I had to do this query in mongoose.js
> db.blogposts.findOne()
{ title : "My First Post", author: "Jane",
comments : [{ by: "Abe", text: "First" },
{ by : "Ada", text : "Good post" } ]
}
> db.blogposts.find( { "comments.by" : "Ada" } )
How do I do this query in mongoose?
A good practice with MongoDB (and other non-relational data stores) is to model your data so it is easy to use/query in your application. In your case, you might consider denormalizing the structure a bit and store the rating right in the blog collection, so a blog might look something like this:
{
title: "My New Post",
body: "Here's my new post. It is great. ...",
likes: 20,
dislikes: 5,
...
rates: [
{ client_id: (id of client), rate: 5 },
{ client_id: (id of another client), rate: 3 },
{ client_id: (id of a third client), rate: 10 }
]
}
The idea being that the objects in the rates array contains all the data you'll need to display the blog entry, complete with ratings, right in the single document. If you also need to query the rates in another way (e.g. find all the ratings made by user X), and the site is read-heavy, you may consider also storing the data in a Rates collection as you're doing now. Sure, the data is in two places, and it's harder to update, but it may be an overall win after you analyze your app and how it accesses your data.
Note that you can apply indexes deep into a document's structure, so for example you can index News.rates.client_id, and then you can quickly find any documents in the News collection that a particular user has rated.