I'm having issues passing parameters to a view through the node js couchbase module. The main issue is I don't know what question to ask google in order to get the answer I'm looking for. I would like to get from the view a specific object based on a key that I'm receiving from a UI.
For example, I have a list of stores with store numbers 111, 222, and 333. If the user gives me the store number 222, I'd like to only return that one, instead of return it all then filter inside my node js code.
The node js code looks like this:
var query = ViewQuery.from('dev_store', 'store').key(storeNum);
myBucket.query(query, function (err, results) {...};
I got that from the ViewQuery api mixed with this question. However I cannot figure out how to then access that key parameter once I'm in the view in order to filter down my results to just that one store.
I've tested my view and it works fine, so long as I just get a list of all the stores. I've read about reductions but I haven't seen where those actually get written/called.
I've tried accessing it by doing doc.key or adding a key to the view function, but I think my limited understanding of View construction is hurting me here.
Question: Given a key, how do I return from a view only the row that pertains to that key?
EDIT: Here is my view:
function (doc, key, meta) {
doc.midLevel.forEach( function ( reg ) {
reg.midLowerLevel.forEach( function ( dis ) {
dis.lowestLevel.forEach( function ( store ) {
emit( store.store_nbr, null);
})
})
})
}
In this view it emits every store at the lowest level. As seen in the node js code, I've passed a key to it. I would like to use that key in order to create a condition on what gets emitted.
For example, if there are stores numbered 1-100, and the node js passes the number 45, is it possible for me to access the '45' in the view in order to create that condition statement?
Question: Given a key, how do I return from a view only the row that pertains to that key?
On the face of it, this question is not relevant to a view. Views are absolutely not meant to return objects based on the object key. Rather, a view is meant to index certain properties of stored objects such that the objects can be pulled together into a list of some sort.
To return a document based on the key, you would perform a simple get operation. A view query in this scenario actually degrades performance, since the view must be accessed from disk. An object get from a view as opposed to from RAM is an order of magnitude or more slower than a simple read.
Answer: use a get, not a view.
Related
I have an array of number that I wish to render in a tabular form. The array is returned from an API call, not generated by my app.
The data may change but is unlikely to do so, and in any case there are only twenty odd values, so re-rendering the whole table is not really a problem.
A simple data.map(value => <td>{value}</td> should do it.
But I keep getting an Each child in an array or iterator should have a unique "key" prop. warning. Is there any way that I can tell React that there is no key and that I wish it to re-render the whole table if anything changes.
Alternatively, is there any way that I can generate a unique key for each entry? The data items are not guaranteed to be unique.
I should add that I understand what keys are for and why they are useful, but in this instance I do not have any and the easiest thing would be not to use them, since there is unlikely to be a re-render.
You can use the index as the key. I think its worth reiterating that using the index as the key only works fine in the very specific scenario that the OP is facing.
This is particularly annoying when requirements change and all of sudden the list is being modified. This shows up as items not being updated during the render because the item updated has the same key (the index), its value is different, but react only cares about the key.
In cases where your data has no unique key. You should use some function that generates a unique id for each item. A simple version of that function just increments a global counter:
// Declared globally (as in attached to window object or equivalent)
var myuniqueidcounter = 0;
function uniqueId() {
myuniqueidcounter += 1
return myuniqueidcounter;
}
// Do this in the props change or whereever your data gets passed in
let keyedData = data.map(value => Object.assign(value, { Id: uniqueId() });
// In render
data.map(value => <td key={value.Id}>{value}</td>
That way, on multiple render calls, the ids returned are always unique. We assign the key when we get the data to avoid having to re-render the entire list on each call to render().
However, this case is actually pretty rare as you can usually find some combination of the backing data that will produce a unique key for each entry.
If you do go index-as-key
This article lists 3 conditions that should be met when choosing index-as-key approach that I think is a good check list:
The list and items are static–they are not computed and do not change;
The items in the list have no ids;
The list is never reordered or filtered.
data.map((value,index) =>{
<td key={index}>{value}</td>}
)
or
data.map((value,index) =>{
let i = Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000+1)
<td key={i}>{value}</td>}
)
You can use index as your key as it is unique each time
Based on the question asked, it might be worth saying that there is an another solution to this that doesn't use keys:
e.g. The following will complain about not having unique keys:
React.createElement('div', {}, [<span>1</span>, <span>2</span>]);
However, the following renders all children with no problems (This is what JSX transformed to JS looks like for nodes with multiple children):
React.createElement('div', {}, <span>1</span>, <span>2</span>);
So if you have e.g. a smallish list of generated react element fragments and unique keys don't offer and advantage in your situation, you can do:
React.createElement.apply(null, ['div', {}, ...elementList])
Notes:
elementList is passed as arguments to React.createElement which might be an issue if the list is huge.
It will re-render all the children with each render.
Using unique keys is generally the recommended approach, and is more performant for re-rendering.
However there are occasions where you just want to render in a single shot and don't care about re-rendering, or the data is not structured in a way that you can make good use of unique keys. You can use this as a work-around if you really need to.
I have a design annoyance with some existing code in JS. The code is working, so I have no desperate hurry to change it, but the duplication shown below does annoy me. What is the usual/recommended/official way of avoiding this situation?
The actual system is a large/complex financial system, so I have simplified it to the most basic example which demonstrates the problem:
var colours={
red:{id:"red", vals:[1,0,0]},
green:{id:"green", vals:[0,1,0]},
grey:{id:"grey", vals:[0.5,0.5,0.5]}
// ...etc
};
// id needs to be known internally within the object - thus it is defined as a property.
// e.g:
colour.prototype.identify(console.log(this.id));
// id also needs to be used externally to find an object quickly.
// e.g:
function getcolour(s){return colours[s];}
// Although this works. It does mean duplicating data, with the theoretical possibility of a mismatch:
var colours={//...
blue:{id:"green", // oh dear...
How would this normally be handled by the experts?
This question is somewhat subjective.
When creating my applications I typically try do do the following:
never define same data in multiple places. source should always be unambiguous
if I need to create any indices for faster/easier access, I use utility methods to do it. Those methods should be properly unit-tested, so that I would have little doubts on them doing the wrong thing
use third party libraries as much as possible (such as already suggested lodash or underscore) to minimize the amount of code to be written/maintained.
If your algorithms and utilities are properly unit-tested you should not worry (too much) about getting the data into inconsistent state. However, if those are critically important systems/interfaces, you may add some validation on output. And it is generally a good practice to have data validation and marshaling on input.
Explanation on the utility methods:
if you have data array, say
var data = [{"id":"i_1", ...}, {"id":"i_2", ...},{"id":"i_3",....}];
Then and you have to create an index out of that or create more data sets based on the original array, then you create yourself a library of utility methods that do the modification on the array, create derivative data sets, or iterate on the array and create a resulting item on the fly. For example:
var createIndex = function( arr ){
// do something that converts the data array with expected structure to object
// {
// i_1: {"id":"i_1", ...},
// i_2: {"id":"i_2", ...},
// i_3: {"id":"i_3", ...}
return newObj;
}
This method will create a hash-map to access your data, which is faster then to iterate over the original array all the time. But now, this method you can easily unit-test and be sure that when you use it on the source data to get your intended dataset, there will be no inconsistency.
I wouldn't change the colours[key] direct access with other method to avoid duplication.
Any other attempt will lead to processing and you have mentioned that you have a large amount of data.
I assume that the duplication is over the incoming data that is a waste.
An example of processing over the network data consuming could be, going over the map object and set the id dynamically according to the key. (processing vs traffic)
colours[key].id = key
You can filter your object converting it to an array of objects and then filtering unique values. Converting it to an array would allow you to perform a lot of operations quicker and easier.
So you can map your object to an array:
var coloursArray = myObj.map(function(value, index) {
return [value];
});
Remove duplicates:
function removeDuplicates() {
return coloursArray.filter((obj, pos, arr) => {
return arr.map(mapObj => mapObj[id]).indexOf(obj[id]) === pos;
});
}
You can remove duplicates from an array using for example underscore.js through the .uniq method:
var uniqueColoursArray = _.uniq(coloursArray , function(c){ return c.id; });
Moreover, this function is pretty useless because you can access your element directly:
function getcolour(s){return colours[s];}
Calling colours[s] it is also shorter than getcolour(s). Your function would make sense if you pass also the array because it is not accessible in some other scope.
Then I can't understand why you do pass a console.log as parameter here:
colour.prototype.identify(console.log(this.id));
maybe you would like to pass just the this.id
I’m making a collection of React Elements and displaying them; what follows is a trivial example to frame the problem of how-would-one-modify-an-preexisting-instantiated-element only.
var c = [
<div>A</div>,
<div>B</div>,
// ...
<div>Z</div>
];
var ListComponents = React.createClass({
render: function() {
return <div>{c}</div>;
}
});
ReactDOM.render(<ListComponents/>, document.getElementById('root'));
While the code above “works,” it renders a console message I’d rather not ignore:
Warning: Each child in an array or iterator should have a unique "key" prop.
Check the render method of `ListComponents`.
See https://fb.me/react-warning-keys for more information.
Superficially, I could just add a unique key="…" string to each element in c and be done with it.
However, that seems a quite verbose, especially since I have the data in an indexed array and a functional language that in theory can assign each key its matching index value without manually having to enter it as a source literal.
I’d love to be able to just do this...
c.forEach( (e,i) => e.key = i ); // ...or call some setter
What’s the *right* React-way to do this -and- keep the code clean?
ADDENDUM:
...for the curious or those that want to just say add a key field...
The collection I'm using is actually an array of tuples containing meta-data and a corresponding React Element, a custom Component, or some huge JSX block. The example above overly trivializes what the actual data looks like as well as its irregularities.
As the source data itself is quite long, updated often, and not maintained by a developer; it is highly error prone to missed key fields or duplicates values from manual entry. Hence the desire to do it entirely programmatically. I can not count on the data owners to do it properly. They can't read code, so ideally I'd rather not mess up the data structures with a lot of "programming goop."
The collection is manipulated a few times, putting various runs of certain elements into other dynamically created wrappers, so that the final collection is actually generated by a few transformations, filters, and maps before it is ultimately displayed.
A major shout out to Wes Bos, who came up with a clever solution that works!
The code is a simple one liner and does exactly what I was looking for:
c = c.map( (el,key) => React.cloneElement(el, {key} ));
We're building a new collection using the .cloneElement() method, which I was unaware of. That was what I needed, it turns out.
In the .map() operation, the lambda function is passed both the element and the index. It's return value is a cloned element, but with the key property set.
By cleverly naming the index element key, it allows the short notation for the expression { "key" : key }. This object augments the cloned object.
In the end, I end up with a new collection of identical objects, each with a key property set to the index.
Should I store objects in an Array or inside an Object with top importance given Write Speed?
I'm trying to decide whether data should be stored as an array of objects, or using nested objects inside a mongodb document.
In this particular case, I'm keeping track of a set of continually updating files that I add and update and the file name acts as a key and the number of lines processed within the file.
the document looks something like this
{
t_id:1220,
some-other-info: {}, // there's other info here not updated frequently
files: {
log1-txt: {filename:"log1.txt",numlines:233,filesize:19928},
log2-txt: {filename:"log2.txt",numlines:2,filesize:843}
}
}
or this
{
t_id:1220,
some-other-info: {},
files:[
{filename:"log1.txt",numlines:233,filesize:19928},
{filename:"log2.txt",numlines:2,filesize:843}
]
}
I am making an assumption that handling a document, especially when it comes to updates, it is easier to deal with objects, because the location of the object can be determined by the name; unlike an array, where I have to look through each object's value until I find the match.
Because the object key will have periods, I will need to convert (or drop) the periods to create a valid key (fi.le.log to filelog or fi-le-log).
I'm not worried about the files' possible duplicate names emerging (such as fi.le.log and fi-le.log) so I would prefer to use Objects, because the number of files is relatively small, but the updates are frequent.
Or would it be better to handle this data in a separate collection for best write performance...
{
"_id": ObjectId('56d9f1202d777d9806000003'),"t_id": "1220","filename": "log1.txt","filesize": 1843,"numlines": 554
},
{
"_id": ObjectId('56d9f1392d777d9806000004'),"t_id": "1220","filename": "log2.txt","filesize": 5231,"numlines": 3027
}
From what I understand you are talking about write speed, without any read consideration. So we have to think about how you will insert/update your document.
We have to compare (assuming you know the _id you are replacing, replace {key} by the key name, in your example log1-txt or log2-txt):
db.Col.update({ _id: '' }, { $set: { 'files.{key}': object }})
vs
db.Col.update({ _id: '', 'files.filename': '{key}'}, { $set: { 'files.$': object }})
The second one means that MongoDB have to browse the array, find the matching index and update it. The first one means MongoDB just update the specified field.
The worst:
The second command will not work if the matching filename is not present in the array! So you have to execute it, check if nMatched is 0, and create it if it is so. That's really bad write speed (see here MongoDB: upsert sub-document).
If you will never/almost never use read queries / aggregation framework on this collection: go for the first one, that will be faster. If you want to aggregate, unwind, do some analytics on the files you parsed to have statistics about file size and line numbers, you may consider using the second one, you will avoid some headache.
Pure write speed will be better with the first solution.
I have an IndexedDB of changes. I add an item like this, and then log the result to check the key has been created successfully:
_this._idb.add('steps', step).done(function (items) {
var item = items[0];
_logger.log("ADDED STEP", { id: item.__id__, step: item }, "CT");
});
The output from this is as expected:
...as you can see, the id has been added to the object when it is stored.
However, when I query the db to getback a list of objects, using this code:
this._idb.steps.query('timestamp').bound(start, end).execute().done(function (results) {
_logger.log("Results", results, "CT");
}
I don't get the id as part of the object that is returned:
... and the lack of id makes updating and deleting impossible.
How can I get the id of the item when I query indexed db using db.js - or am I approaching this in the wrong way, and is there something else I should be doing?
(Note: I'm using TypeScript to compile the JS, but I don't think that's especially relevant to this question)
This is expected behaviour, you're only going to get the __id__ property if you don't define a keyPath in your db schema.
Because there's no keyPath defined the value is not associated with it in indexeddb, it's only added to the resulting object after it has been added, because at that point in time we know the auto-incremented value that IndexedDB has assigned to it.
Since the value isn't really part of the object I don't have any way to assign it to the object when it comes out during a query, maybe I could use the position in the array but that's more likely to be wrong than right.
If you want the ID to be persisted against the object then you need to define a keyPath as part of the object store schema and the property will be added to the resulting object and available and it will be on the object returned from a query.
Disclaimer - I wrote db.js
Looking at the source, __id__ is only defined when your keyPath is null in the add() method. From what I'm seeing, you'll never see this in a query() response.
In IDB null keyPaths are allowed only when using auto-incrementing ("out-of-line") keys. So if you're getting the object back, it should have an auto-incrementing key on it or some other keyPath.
The __ prefix in JavaScript usually means the developer intended it to be a "private" property. I'm guessing this is for internal use and you shouldn't be counting on this in your application code.
Consider using explicit, so-called "in-line" keys on your object store.
The goal of db.js is easy and simple to use. Your is advanced use case.