I have the following Schema with a array of ObjectIds:
const userSchema = new Schema({
...
article: [{
type: mongoose.Schema.Types.ObjectId,
}],
...
},
I will count the array elements in the example above the result should be 10.
I have tried the following but this doesn't worked for me. The req.query.id is the _id from the user and will filter the specific user with the matching article array.
const userData = User.aggregate(
[
{
$match: {_id: id}
},
{
$project: {article: {$size: '$article'}}
},
]
)
console.log(res.json(userData));
The console.log(article.length) give me currently 0. How can I do this? Is the aggregate function the right choice or is a other way better to count elements of a array?
Not sure why to use aggregate when array of ids is already with user object.
Define articles field as reference:
const {Schema} = mongoose.Schema;
const {Types} = Schema;
const userSchema = new Schema({
...
article: {
type: [Types.ObjectId],
ref: 'Article',
index: true,
},
...
});
// add virtual if You want
userSchema.virtual('articleCount').get(function () {
return this.article.length;
});
and get them using populate:
const user = await User.findById(req.query.id).populate('articles');
console.log(user.article.length);
or simply have array of ids:
const user = await User.findById(req.query.id);
console.log(user.article.length);
make use of virtual field:
const user = await User.findById(req.query.id);
console.log(user.articleCount);
P.S. I use aggregate when I need to do complex post filter logic which in fact is aggregation. Think about it like You have resultset, but You want process resultset on db side to have more specific information which would be ineffective if You would do queries to db inside loop. Like if I need to get users which added specific article by specific day and partition them by hour.
This is how I store each element in my mongodb collection.
{
_id: 'iTIBHxAb8',
title: 'happy birthday',
votesObject: { happy: 0, birthday: 0 }
}
I made a very dirty work around which I am not at all proud of which is this...
//queryObject= {id,chosenvalue};
let queryObject = req.query;
let id = Object.keys(queryObject)[0];
let chosenValue = queryObject[id];
db.collection("voting")
.find({ _id: id })
.toArray((err, data) => {
let { votesObject } = data[0];
votesObject[chosenValue] += 1;
data[0].votesObject = votesObject;
db.collection("voting").replaceOne({ _id: id }, data[0]);
res.redirect("/polls?id=" + id);
});
So basically what this does is It gets the chosen value which may be "happy" or the "birthday" from the above example.
Finding the complete object from the collection which matches the id.
Incrementing the chosen value from the found object.
Using replaceOne() to replace the previous object with the newly changed object.
I am incrementing the value inside chosen value by one everytime this piece of code executes.
This works perfectly fine but I want to know if there is any way to directly update the chosen value without all this mess. I could not find a way to do it else where.
you can use mongoose findOneAndUpdate
It will be something like
const updateKey = "votesObject.$."+ chosenValue
let incQuery = {}
incQuery[updateKey] = 1
Model.findOneAndUpdate(
{ _id: id },
{ $inc: incQuery },
{ new : false },
callback
)
You can use $inc operator.
Try something like this:
db.collection.update({
"_id": id
},
{
"$inc": {
"votesObject.birthday": 1
}
})
This query will increment your field birthday in one.
Check mongo playground exaxmple here
I'm currently trying Firestore, and I'm stuck at something very simple: "updating an array (aka a subdocument)".
My DB structure is super simple. For example:
proprietary: "John Doe",
sharedWith:
[
{who: "first#test.com", when:timestamp},
{who: "another#test.com", when:timestamp},
],
I'm trying (without success) to push new records into shareWith array of objects.
I've tried:
// With SET
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.set(
{ sharedWith: [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() }] },
{ merge: true }
)
// With UPDATE
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.update({ sharedWith: [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() }] })
None works. These queries overwrite my array.
The answer might be simple, but I could'nt find it...
Firestore now has two functions that allow you to update an array without re-writing the entire thing.
Link: https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/add-data, specifically https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/add-data#update_elements_in_an_array
Update elements in an array
If your document contains an array field, you can use arrayUnion() and
arrayRemove() to add and remove elements. arrayUnion() adds elements
to an array but only elements not already present. arrayRemove()
removes all instances of each given element.
Edit 08/13/2018: There is now support for native array operations in Cloud Firestore. See Doug's answer below.
There is currently no way to update a single array element (or add/remove a single element) in Cloud Firestore.
This code here:
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.set(
{ sharedWith: [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() }] },
{ merge: true }
)
This says to set the document at proprietary/docID such that sharedWith = [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() } but to not affect any existing document properties. It's very similar to the update() call you provided however the set() call with create the document if it does not exist while the update() call will fail.
So you have two options to achieve what you want.
Option 1 - Set the whole array
Call set() with the entire contents of the array, which will require reading the current data from the DB first. If you're concerned about concurrent updates you can do all of this in a transaction.
Option 2 - Use a subcollection
You could make sharedWith a subcollection of the main document. Then
adding a single item would look like this:
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.collection('sharedWith')
.add({ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() })
Of course this comes with new limitations. You would not be able to query
documents based on who they are shared with, nor would you be able to
get the doc and all of the sharedWith data in a single operation.
Here is the latest example from the Firestore documentation:
firebase.firestore.FieldValue.ArrayUnion
var washingtonRef = db.collection("cities").doc("DC");
// Atomically add a new region to the "regions" array field.
washingtonRef.update({
regions: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion("greater_virginia")
});
// Atomically remove a region from the "regions" array field.
washingtonRef.update({
regions: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayRemove("east_coast")
});
You can use a transaction (https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/transactions) to get the array, push onto it and then update the document:
const booking = { some: "data" };
const userRef = this.db.collection("users").doc(userId);
this.db.runTransaction(transaction => {
// This code may get re-run multiple times if there are conflicts.
return transaction.get(userRef).then(doc => {
if (!doc.data().bookings) {
transaction.set({
bookings: [booking]
});
} else {
const bookings = doc.data().bookings;
bookings.push(booking);
transaction.update(userRef, { bookings: bookings });
}
});
}).then(function () {
console.log("Transaction successfully committed!");
}).catch(function (error) {
console.log("Transaction failed: ", error);
});
Sorry Late to party but Firestore solved it way back in aug 2018 so If you still looking for that here it is all issues solved with regards to arrays.
https://firebase.googleblog.com/2018/08/better-arrays-in-cloud-firestore.htmlOfficial blog post
array-contains, arrayRemove, arrayUnion for checking, removing and updating arrays. Hope it helps.
To build on Sam Stern's answer, there is also a 3rd option which made things easier for me and that is using what Google call a Map, which is essentially a dictionary.
I think a dictionary is far better for the use case you're describing. I usually use arrays for stuff that isn't really updated too much, so they are more or less static. But for stuff that gets written a lot, specifically values that need to be updated for fields that are linked to something else in the database, dictionaries prove to be much easier to maintain and work with.
So for your specific case, the DB structure would look like this:
proprietary: "John Doe"
sharedWith:{
whoEmail1: {when: timestamp},
whoEmail2: {when: timestamp}
}
This will allow you to do the following:
var whoEmail = 'first#test.com';
var sharedObject = {};
sharedObject['sharedWith.' + whoEmail + '.when'] = new Date();
sharedObject['merge'] = true;
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.update(sharedObject);
The reason for defining the object as a variable is that using 'sharedWith.' + whoEmail + '.when' directly in the set method will result in an error, at least when using it in a Node.js cloud function.
#Edit (add explanation :) )
say you have an array you want to update your existing firestore document field with. You can use set(yourData, {merge: true} ) passing setOptions(second param in set function) with {merge: true} is must in order to merge the changes instead of overwriting. here is what the official documentation says about it
An options object that configures the behavior of set() calls in DocumentReference, WriteBatch, and Transaction. These calls can be configured to perform granular merges instead of overwriting the target documents in their entirety by providing a SetOptions with merge: true.
you can use this
const yourNewArray = [{who: "first#test.com", when:timestamp}
{who: "another#test.com", when:timestamp}]
collectionRef.doc(docId).set(
{
proprietary: "jhon",
sharedWith: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion(...yourNewArray),
},
{ merge: true },
);
hope this helps :)
addToCart(docId: string, prodId: string): Promise<void> {
return this.baseAngularFirestore.collection('carts').doc(docId).update({
products:
firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion({
productId: prodId,
qty: 1
}),
});
}
i know this is really old, but to help people newbies with the issue
firebase V9 provides a solution using the arrayUnion and arrayRemove
await updateDoc(documentRef, {
proprietary: arrayUnion( { sharedWith: [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() }] }
});
check this out for more explanation
Other than the answers mentioned above. This will do it.
Using Angular 5 and AngularFire2. or use firebase.firestore() instead of this.afs
// say you have have the following object and
// database structure as you mentioned in your post
data = { who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() };
...othercode
addSharedWith(data) {
const postDocRef = this.afs.collection('posts').doc('docID');
postDocRef.subscribe( post => {
// Grab the existing sharedWith Array
// If post.sharedWith doesn`t exsit initiated with empty array
const foo = { 'sharedWith' : post.sharedWith || []};
// Grab the existing sharedWith Array
foo['sharedWith'].push(data);
// pass updated to fireStore
postsDocRef.update(foo);
// using .set() will overwrite everything
// .update will only update existing values,
// so we initiated sharedWith with empty array
});
}
We can use arrayUnion({}) method to achive this.
Try this:
collectionRef.doc(ID).update({
sharedWith: admin.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion({
who: "first#test.com",
when: new Date()
})
});
Documentation can find here: https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/add-data#update_elements_in_an_array
Consider John Doe a document rather than a collection
Give it a collection of things and thingsSharedWithOthers
Then you can map and query John Doe's shared things in that parallel thingsSharedWithOthers collection.
proprietary: "John Doe"(a document)
things(collection of John's things documents)
thingsSharedWithOthers(collection of John's things being shared with others):
[thingId]:
{who: "first#test.com", when:timestamp}
{who: "another#test.com", when:timestamp}
then set thingsSharedWithOthers
firebase.firestore()
.collection('thingsSharedWithOthers')
.set(
{ [thingId]:{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() } },
{ merge: true }
)
If You want to Update an array in a firebase document.
You can do this.
var documentRef = db.collection("Your collection name").doc("Your doc name")
documentRef.update({
yourArrayName: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion("The Value you want to enter")});
Although firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion() provides the solution for array update in firestore, at the same time it is required to use {merge:true}. If you do not use {merge:true} it will delete all other fields in the document while updating with the new value. Here is the working code for updating array without loosing data in the reference document with .set() method:
const docRef = firebase.firestore().collection("your_collection_name").doc("your_doc_id");
docRef.set({yourArrayField: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion("value_to_add")}, {merge:true});
If anybody is looking for Java firestore sdk solution to add items in array field:
List<String> list = java.util.Arrays.asList("A", "B");
Object[] fieldsToUpdate = list.toArray();
DocumentReference docRef = getCollection().document("docId");
docRef.update(fieldName, FieldValue.arrayUnion(fieldsToUpdate));
To delete items from array user: FieldValue.arrayRemove()
If the document contains a nested object in the form of an array, .dot notation can be used to reference and update nested fields.
Node.js example:
const users = {
name: 'Tom',
surname: 'Smith',
favorites: {
sport: 'tennis',
color: 'red',
subject: 'math'
}
};
const update = await db.collection('users').doc('Tom').update({
'favorites.sport': 'snowboard'
});
or Android sdk example:
db.collection("users").document("Tom")
.update(
'favorites.sport': 'snowboard'
);
There is a simple hack in firestore:
use path with "." as property name:
propertyname.arraysubname.${id}:
db.collection("collection")
.doc("docId")
.update({arrayOfObj: fieldValue.arrayUnion({...item})})
I have a document structure that looks like this:
type Document = {
_id: string
title: string
variants: VariantType[]
}
type VariantType = {
timestamp: Int
active: Boolean
content: any[]
}
I'm trying to filter a document based on two filter conditions in one query. First I want to match the _id and then find a specific variant based on a timestamp.
My previous version of the query was filtering based on the active key.
const updatedDocument = await allDocuments
.findOneAndUpdate({ _id: mongoId, 'variants.active': false }, .... };
Changing it to
const updatedDocument = await allDocuments
.findOneAndUpdate({ _id: mongoId, 'variants.timestamp': timestamp }, .... };
returns null.
Can mongo even match a document like this. I saw that there is an $eq query selector but I can't seem to get it working either.
Turns out I the problem was with the timestamp I was sending to the server. I was getting it from the wrong place and it wasn't matching any of the variants.
When i update this data, the deslon and deslat part is not inserted in the document.
var locationData = { update_time: new Date() ,
location: [
{curlon: req.payload.loclon , curlat: req.payload.loclat},
{deslon: req.payload.deslon , deslat: req.payload.deslat}
]};
the update
userLocationModel.update({uid: req.params.accesskey}, locationData, { upsert: true }, function (err, numberAffected, raw) {
//DO SOMETHING
});
I cannot understand why this is happining.
Here is the mongo document that gets inserted. The deslon and deslat are missing even if a new document is created.
{
_id: ObjectId("52f876d7dbe6f9ea80344fd4"),
location: [
{
curlon: 160,
curlat: 160,
_id: ObjectId("52f8788578aa340000e51673")
},
{
_id: ObjectId("52f8788578aa340000e51672")
}
],
uid: "testuser6",
update_time: ISODate("2014-02-10T06:58:13.790Z")
}
Also : Should I be using a structure like this if the document is updated frequently.
This is the mongoose model:
var userLocationSchema = mongoose.Schema({
uid: String, //same as the user access key
update_time: Date, //time stamp to validate, insert when updating. created by server.
location:[
{
curlon: Number, //current location in latitude and longitude <INDEX>
curlat: Number
},
{
deslon: Number, //destination in latitude and longitude <INDEX>
deslat: Number
}
]
});
I wish to update both of the elemets. I don't wan't to insert a new one. But even when I update a non existent document(ie- which results in the creation of a new one), the deslon and deslat are missing.
I have a real problem with this structure but, oh well.
Your Schema is wrong for doing this. Hence also the superfluous _id entries. To do what you want you need something like this:
var currentSchema = mongoose.Schema({
curlon: Number,
curlat: Number
});
var destSchema = mongoose.Schema({
destlon: Number,
destlat: Number
});
var userLocationSchema = mongoose.Schema({
uid: String,
update_time: Date,
location: [ ]
});
This is how mongoose expects you to do embedded documents. That will allow the update in your form you are using to work.
Also your logic on upsert is wrong as you have not included the new uid that is not found in the updated document part. You should take a look at $setOnInsert in the MongoDB documentation, or just live with updating it every time.
Actually, I'm just pointing you to how to separate the schema. As your usage in code stands location will accept anything by the above definition. See the mongoose docs on Embedded Documents for a more detailed usage.
This will work with your update statement as stands. However I would strongly urge you to re-think this schema structure, especially if you intend to do Geo-spatial work with the data. That's out of the scope of this question. Happy googling.
You have to tell mongo how to update your data. So add a simple $set to your update data:
var locationData = {
$set: {
update_time: new Date(),
location: [
{curlon: req.payload.loclon , curlat: req.payload.loclat},
{deslon: req.payload.deslon , deslat: req.payload.deslat}
]
};
EDIT:
If you do not want to exchange the location property as a whole, but insert a new item into the array, use:
var locationData = {
$set: {
update_time: new Date()
},
$push: {
location: [
{deslon: req.payload.deslon , deslat: req.payload.deslat}
]
};
What you should consider is, if it is a good idea to put the current location and the destinations in one array, just because they have the same properties (lon/lat). If for example, there is always one current location and zero to many destinations, you could put the current location into a separate property.
To modify a specific location within an array, you can address it via.
var index = 2, // this is an example
arrayElement = 'location.' + n,
locationData = { $set: {} };
locationData.$set[arrayElement] = {deslon: req.payload.deslon , deslat: req.payload.deslat};
userLocationModel.update({uid: req.params.accesskey}, locationData );
could it be that the intial collection was built with an other version of the schema? i.e. one that had only curlon and curlat? you may have to update the documents then to reflect the amended schema with the deslon and deslat properties.