Firebase query if child of child contains a value
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
The structure of the table is:
- chats
- --> randomId
- -->--> participants
- -->-->--> 0: 'name1'
- -->-->--> 1: 'name2'
- -->--> chatItems
etc
What I am trying to do is query the chats table to find all the chats that hold a participant by a passed in username string.
Here is what I have so far:
subscribeChats(username: string) {
return this.af.database.list('chats', {
query: {
orderByChild: 'participants',
equalTo: username, // How to check if participants contain username
}
});
}
angular
add a comment |
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
The structure of the table is:
- chats
- --> randomId
- -->--> participants
- -->-->--> 0: 'name1'
- -->-->--> 1: 'name2'
- -->--> chatItems
etc
What I am trying to do is query the chats table to find all the chats that hold a participant by a passed in username string.
Here is what I have so far:
subscribeChats(username: string) {
return this.af.database.list('chats', {
query: {
orderByChild: 'participants',
equalTo: username, // How to check if participants contain username
}
});
}
angular
add a comment |
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
The structure of the table is:
- chats
- --> randomId
- -->--> participants
- -->-->--> 0: 'name1'
- -->-->--> 1: 'name2'
- -->--> chatItems
etc
What I am trying to do is query the chats table to find all the chats that hold a participant by a passed in username string.
Here is what I have so far:
subscribeChats(username: string) {
return this.af.database.list('chats', {
query: {
orderByChild: 'participants',
equalTo: username, // How to check if participants contain username
}
});
}
angular
The structure of the table is:
- chats
- --> randomId
- -->--> participants
- -->-->--> 0: 'name1'
- -->-->--> 1: 'name2'
- -->--> chatItems
etc
What I am trying to do is query the chats table to find all the chats that hold a participant by a passed in username string.
Here is what I have so far:
subscribeChats(username: string) {
return this.af.database.list('chats', {
query: {
orderByChild: 'participants',
equalTo: username, // How to check if participants contain username
}
});
}
angular
angular
edited Nov 17 '16 at 14:11
Frank van Puffelen
220k25361387
220k25361387
asked Nov 17 '16 at 13:46
John
205136
205136
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
Your current data structure is great to look up the participants of a specific chat. It is however not a very good structure for looking up the inverse: the chats that a user participates in.
A few problems here:
- you're storing a set as an array
- you can only index on fixed paths
Set vs array
A chat can have multiple participants, so you modelled this as an array. But this actually is not the ideal data structure. Likely each participant can only be in the chat once. But by using an array, I could have:
participants: ["puf", "puf"]
That is clearly not what you have in mind, but the data structure allows it. You can try to secure this in code and security rules, but it would be easier if you start with a data structure that implicitly matches your model better.
My rule of thumb: if you find yourself writing array.contains(), you should be using a set.
A set is a structure where each child can be present at most once, so it naturally protects against duplicates. In Firebase you'd model a set as:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
The true here is really just a dummy value: the important thing is that we've moved the name to the key. Now if I'd try to join this chat again, it would be a noop:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
And when you'd join:
participants: {
"john": true,
"puf": true
}
This is the most direct representation of your requirement: a collection that can only contain each participant once.
You can only index known properties
With the above structure, you could query for chats that you are in with:
ref.child("chats").orderByChild("participants/john").equalTo(true)
The problem is that this require than you define an index on `participants/john":
{
"rules": {
"chats": {
"$chatid": {
"participants": {
".indexOn": ["john", "puf"]
}
}
}
}
}
This will work and perform great. But now each time someone new joins the chat app, you'll need to add another index. That's clearly not a scaleable model. We'll need to change our data structure to allow the query you want.
Invert the index - pull categories up, flattening the tree
Second rule of thumb: model your data to reflect what you show in your app.
Since you are looking to show a list of chat rooms for a user, store the chat rooms for each user:
userChatrooms: {
john: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom2: true
},
puf: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom3: true
}
}
Now you can simply determine your list of chat rooms with:
ref.child("userChatrooms").child("john")
And then loop over the keys to get each room.
You'll like have two relevant lists in your app:
- the list of chat rooms for a specific user
- the list of participants in a specific chat room
In that case you'll also have both lists in the database.
chatroomUsers
chatroom1
user1: true
user2: true
chatroom2
user1: true
user3: true
userChatrooms
user1:
chatroom1: true
chatroom2: true
user2:
chatroom1: true
user2:
chatroom2: true
I've pulled both lists to the top-level of the tree, since Firebase recommends against nesting data.
Having both lists is completely normal in NoSQL solutions. In the example above we'd refer to userChatrooms as the inverted index of chatroomsUsers.
Cloud Firestore
This is one of the cases where Cloud Firestore has better support for this type of query. Its array-contains operator allows filter documents that have a certain value in an array, while arrayRemove allows you to treat an array as a set. For more on this, see Better Arrays in Cloud Firestore.
This is an awesome explanation. I have my data stored like this, which allows me to grab a chatroom from a user's list, or grab a user from a chat room's members. But what it doesn't allow is to observe.childChangedfor the chatrooms of which I am a member. If I try to set up an observer for chats wheremembers/myId = true, then I get the unspecified index error. How would you go about this? I have a question posted here: stackoverflow.com/questions/47769044/…
– lusus_vir
Dec 16 '17 at 23:14
@frank-van-puffelen referencing your last code snippet, let's say I am "user1" and I fetch all keys of chatrooms I'm a member of. Then for each chatroom key I fetch the full chatroom object, and display the list of chatrooms in a list. That's good, however, what if I also needed to access full user objects that are a part of a chatroom. It seems very strange that I would have to do another for-loop (2-level nested for-loop!) fetch for every single user in every single chatroom to get that data. Is there a better way?
– damirstuhec
Feb 6 at 11:34
it solved my similar issue, thanks
– Sitecore Sam
Jun 20 at 9:25
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
Your current data structure is great to look up the participants of a specific chat. It is however not a very good structure for looking up the inverse: the chats that a user participates in.
A few problems here:
- you're storing a set as an array
- you can only index on fixed paths
Set vs array
A chat can have multiple participants, so you modelled this as an array. But this actually is not the ideal data structure. Likely each participant can only be in the chat once. But by using an array, I could have:
participants: ["puf", "puf"]
That is clearly not what you have in mind, but the data structure allows it. You can try to secure this in code and security rules, but it would be easier if you start with a data structure that implicitly matches your model better.
My rule of thumb: if you find yourself writing array.contains(), you should be using a set.
A set is a structure where each child can be present at most once, so it naturally protects against duplicates. In Firebase you'd model a set as:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
The true here is really just a dummy value: the important thing is that we've moved the name to the key. Now if I'd try to join this chat again, it would be a noop:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
And when you'd join:
participants: {
"john": true,
"puf": true
}
This is the most direct representation of your requirement: a collection that can only contain each participant once.
You can only index known properties
With the above structure, you could query for chats that you are in with:
ref.child("chats").orderByChild("participants/john").equalTo(true)
The problem is that this require than you define an index on `participants/john":
{
"rules": {
"chats": {
"$chatid": {
"participants": {
".indexOn": ["john", "puf"]
}
}
}
}
}
This will work and perform great. But now each time someone new joins the chat app, you'll need to add another index. That's clearly not a scaleable model. We'll need to change our data structure to allow the query you want.
Invert the index - pull categories up, flattening the tree
Second rule of thumb: model your data to reflect what you show in your app.
Since you are looking to show a list of chat rooms for a user, store the chat rooms for each user:
userChatrooms: {
john: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom2: true
},
puf: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom3: true
}
}
Now you can simply determine your list of chat rooms with:
ref.child("userChatrooms").child("john")
And then loop over the keys to get each room.
You'll like have two relevant lists in your app:
- the list of chat rooms for a specific user
- the list of participants in a specific chat room
In that case you'll also have both lists in the database.
chatroomUsers
chatroom1
user1: true
user2: true
chatroom2
user1: true
user3: true
userChatrooms
user1:
chatroom1: true
chatroom2: true
user2:
chatroom1: true
user2:
chatroom2: true
I've pulled both lists to the top-level of the tree, since Firebase recommends against nesting data.
Having both lists is completely normal in NoSQL solutions. In the example above we'd refer to userChatrooms as the inverted index of chatroomsUsers.
Cloud Firestore
This is one of the cases where Cloud Firestore has better support for this type of query. Its array-contains operator allows filter documents that have a certain value in an array, while arrayRemove allows you to treat an array as a set. For more on this, see Better Arrays in Cloud Firestore.
This is an awesome explanation. I have my data stored like this, which allows me to grab a chatroom from a user's list, or grab a user from a chat room's members. But what it doesn't allow is to observe.childChangedfor the chatrooms of which I am a member. If I try to set up an observer for chats wheremembers/myId = true, then I get the unspecified index error. How would you go about this? I have a question posted here: stackoverflow.com/questions/47769044/…
– lusus_vir
Dec 16 '17 at 23:14
@frank-van-puffelen referencing your last code snippet, let's say I am "user1" and I fetch all keys of chatrooms I'm a member of. Then for each chatroom key I fetch the full chatroom object, and display the list of chatrooms in a list. That's good, however, what if I also needed to access full user objects that are a part of a chatroom. It seems very strange that I would have to do another for-loop (2-level nested for-loop!) fetch for every single user in every single chatroom to get that data. Is there a better way?
– damirstuhec
Feb 6 at 11:34
it solved my similar issue, thanks
– Sitecore Sam
Jun 20 at 9:25
add a comment |
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
Your current data structure is great to look up the participants of a specific chat. It is however not a very good structure for looking up the inverse: the chats that a user participates in.
A few problems here:
- you're storing a set as an array
- you can only index on fixed paths
Set vs array
A chat can have multiple participants, so you modelled this as an array. But this actually is not the ideal data structure. Likely each participant can only be in the chat once. But by using an array, I could have:
participants: ["puf", "puf"]
That is clearly not what you have in mind, but the data structure allows it. You can try to secure this in code and security rules, but it would be easier if you start with a data structure that implicitly matches your model better.
My rule of thumb: if you find yourself writing array.contains(), you should be using a set.
A set is a structure where each child can be present at most once, so it naturally protects against duplicates. In Firebase you'd model a set as:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
The true here is really just a dummy value: the important thing is that we've moved the name to the key. Now if I'd try to join this chat again, it would be a noop:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
And when you'd join:
participants: {
"john": true,
"puf": true
}
This is the most direct representation of your requirement: a collection that can only contain each participant once.
You can only index known properties
With the above structure, you could query for chats that you are in with:
ref.child("chats").orderByChild("participants/john").equalTo(true)
The problem is that this require than you define an index on `participants/john":
{
"rules": {
"chats": {
"$chatid": {
"participants": {
".indexOn": ["john", "puf"]
}
}
}
}
}
This will work and perform great. But now each time someone new joins the chat app, you'll need to add another index. That's clearly not a scaleable model. We'll need to change our data structure to allow the query you want.
Invert the index - pull categories up, flattening the tree
Second rule of thumb: model your data to reflect what you show in your app.
Since you are looking to show a list of chat rooms for a user, store the chat rooms for each user:
userChatrooms: {
john: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom2: true
},
puf: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom3: true
}
}
Now you can simply determine your list of chat rooms with:
ref.child("userChatrooms").child("john")
And then loop over the keys to get each room.
You'll like have two relevant lists in your app:
- the list of chat rooms for a specific user
- the list of participants in a specific chat room
In that case you'll also have both lists in the database.
chatroomUsers
chatroom1
user1: true
user2: true
chatroom2
user1: true
user3: true
userChatrooms
user1:
chatroom1: true
chatroom2: true
user2:
chatroom1: true
user2:
chatroom2: true
I've pulled both lists to the top-level of the tree, since Firebase recommends against nesting data.
Having both lists is completely normal in NoSQL solutions. In the example above we'd refer to userChatrooms as the inverted index of chatroomsUsers.
Cloud Firestore
This is one of the cases where Cloud Firestore has better support for this type of query. Its array-contains operator allows filter documents that have a certain value in an array, while arrayRemove allows you to treat an array as a set. For more on this, see Better Arrays in Cloud Firestore.
This is an awesome explanation. I have my data stored like this, which allows me to grab a chatroom from a user's list, or grab a user from a chat room's members. But what it doesn't allow is to observe.childChangedfor the chatrooms of which I am a member. If I try to set up an observer for chats wheremembers/myId = true, then I get the unspecified index error. How would you go about this? I have a question posted here: stackoverflow.com/questions/47769044/…
– lusus_vir
Dec 16 '17 at 23:14
@frank-van-puffelen referencing your last code snippet, let's say I am "user1" and I fetch all keys of chatrooms I'm a member of. Then for each chatroom key I fetch the full chatroom object, and display the list of chatrooms in a list. That's good, however, what if I also needed to access full user objects that are a part of a chatroom. It seems very strange that I would have to do another for-loop (2-level nested for-loop!) fetch for every single user in every single chatroom to get that data. Is there a better way?
– damirstuhec
Feb 6 at 11:34
it solved my similar issue, thanks
– Sitecore Sam
Jun 20 at 9:25
add a comment |
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
up vote
58
down vote
accepted
Your current data structure is great to look up the participants of a specific chat. It is however not a very good structure for looking up the inverse: the chats that a user participates in.
A few problems here:
- you're storing a set as an array
- you can only index on fixed paths
Set vs array
A chat can have multiple participants, so you modelled this as an array. But this actually is not the ideal data structure. Likely each participant can only be in the chat once. But by using an array, I could have:
participants: ["puf", "puf"]
That is clearly not what you have in mind, but the data structure allows it. You can try to secure this in code and security rules, but it would be easier if you start with a data structure that implicitly matches your model better.
My rule of thumb: if you find yourself writing array.contains(), you should be using a set.
A set is a structure where each child can be present at most once, so it naturally protects against duplicates. In Firebase you'd model a set as:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
The true here is really just a dummy value: the important thing is that we've moved the name to the key. Now if I'd try to join this chat again, it would be a noop:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
And when you'd join:
participants: {
"john": true,
"puf": true
}
This is the most direct representation of your requirement: a collection that can only contain each participant once.
You can only index known properties
With the above structure, you could query for chats that you are in with:
ref.child("chats").orderByChild("participants/john").equalTo(true)
The problem is that this require than you define an index on `participants/john":
{
"rules": {
"chats": {
"$chatid": {
"participants": {
".indexOn": ["john", "puf"]
}
}
}
}
}
This will work and perform great. But now each time someone new joins the chat app, you'll need to add another index. That's clearly not a scaleable model. We'll need to change our data structure to allow the query you want.
Invert the index - pull categories up, flattening the tree
Second rule of thumb: model your data to reflect what you show in your app.
Since you are looking to show a list of chat rooms for a user, store the chat rooms for each user:
userChatrooms: {
john: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom2: true
},
puf: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom3: true
}
}
Now you can simply determine your list of chat rooms with:
ref.child("userChatrooms").child("john")
And then loop over the keys to get each room.
You'll like have two relevant lists in your app:
- the list of chat rooms for a specific user
- the list of participants in a specific chat room
In that case you'll also have both lists in the database.
chatroomUsers
chatroom1
user1: true
user2: true
chatroom2
user1: true
user3: true
userChatrooms
user1:
chatroom1: true
chatroom2: true
user2:
chatroom1: true
user2:
chatroom2: true
I've pulled both lists to the top-level of the tree, since Firebase recommends against nesting data.
Having both lists is completely normal in NoSQL solutions. In the example above we'd refer to userChatrooms as the inverted index of chatroomsUsers.
Cloud Firestore
This is one of the cases where Cloud Firestore has better support for this type of query. Its array-contains operator allows filter documents that have a certain value in an array, while arrayRemove allows you to treat an array as a set. For more on this, see Better Arrays in Cloud Firestore.
Your current data structure is great to look up the participants of a specific chat. It is however not a very good structure for looking up the inverse: the chats that a user participates in.
A few problems here:
- you're storing a set as an array
- you can only index on fixed paths
Set vs array
A chat can have multiple participants, so you modelled this as an array. But this actually is not the ideal data structure. Likely each participant can only be in the chat once. But by using an array, I could have:
participants: ["puf", "puf"]
That is clearly not what you have in mind, but the data structure allows it. You can try to secure this in code and security rules, but it would be easier if you start with a data structure that implicitly matches your model better.
My rule of thumb: if you find yourself writing array.contains(), you should be using a set.
A set is a structure where each child can be present at most once, so it naturally protects against duplicates. In Firebase you'd model a set as:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
The true here is really just a dummy value: the important thing is that we've moved the name to the key. Now if I'd try to join this chat again, it would be a noop:
participants: {
"puf": true
}
And when you'd join:
participants: {
"john": true,
"puf": true
}
This is the most direct representation of your requirement: a collection that can only contain each participant once.
You can only index known properties
With the above structure, you could query for chats that you are in with:
ref.child("chats").orderByChild("participants/john").equalTo(true)
The problem is that this require than you define an index on `participants/john":
{
"rules": {
"chats": {
"$chatid": {
"participants": {
".indexOn": ["john", "puf"]
}
}
}
}
}
This will work and perform great. But now each time someone new joins the chat app, you'll need to add another index. That's clearly not a scaleable model. We'll need to change our data structure to allow the query you want.
Invert the index - pull categories up, flattening the tree
Second rule of thumb: model your data to reflect what you show in your app.
Since you are looking to show a list of chat rooms for a user, store the chat rooms for each user:
userChatrooms: {
john: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom2: true
},
puf: {
chatRoom1: true,
chatRoom3: true
}
}
Now you can simply determine your list of chat rooms with:
ref.child("userChatrooms").child("john")
And then loop over the keys to get each room.
You'll like have two relevant lists in your app:
- the list of chat rooms for a specific user
- the list of participants in a specific chat room
In that case you'll also have both lists in the database.
chatroomUsers
chatroom1
user1: true
user2: true
chatroom2
user1: true
user3: true
userChatrooms
user1:
chatroom1: true
chatroom2: true
user2:
chatroom1: true
user2:
chatroom2: true
I've pulled both lists to the top-level of the tree, since Firebase recommends against nesting data.
Having both lists is completely normal in NoSQL solutions. In the example above we'd refer to userChatrooms as the inverted index of chatroomsUsers.
Cloud Firestore
This is one of the cases where Cloud Firestore has better support for this type of query. Its array-contains operator allows filter documents that have a certain value in an array, while arrayRemove allows you to treat an array as a set. For more on this, see Better Arrays in Cloud Firestore.
edited Nov 7 at 15:21
answered Nov 17 '16 at 14:27
Frank van Puffelen
220k25361387
220k25361387
This is an awesome explanation. I have my data stored like this, which allows me to grab a chatroom from a user's list, or grab a user from a chat room's members. But what it doesn't allow is to observe.childChangedfor the chatrooms of which I am a member. If I try to set up an observer for chats wheremembers/myId = true, then I get the unspecified index error. How would you go about this? I have a question posted here: stackoverflow.com/questions/47769044/…
– lusus_vir
Dec 16 '17 at 23:14
@frank-van-puffelen referencing your last code snippet, let's say I am "user1" and I fetch all keys of chatrooms I'm a member of. Then for each chatroom key I fetch the full chatroom object, and display the list of chatrooms in a list. That's good, however, what if I also needed to access full user objects that are a part of a chatroom. It seems very strange that I would have to do another for-loop (2-level nested for-loop!) fetch for every single user in every single chatroom to get that data. Is there a better way?
– damirstuhec
Feb 6 at 11:34
it solved my similar issue, thanks
– Sitecore Sam
Jun 20 at 9:25
add a comment |
This is an awesome explanation. I have my data stored like this, which allows me to grab a chatroom from a user's list, or grab a user from a chat room's members. But what it doesn't allow is to observe.childChangedfor the chatrooms of which I am a member. If I try to set up an observer for chats wheremembers/myId = true, then I get the unspecified index error. How would you go about this? I have a question posted here: stackoverflow.com/questions/47769044/…
– lusus_vir
Dec 16 '17 at 23:14
@frank-van-puffelen referencing your last code snippet, let's say I am "user1" and I fetch all keys of chatrooms I'm a member of. Then for each chatroom key I fetch the full chatroom object, and display the list of chatrooms in a list. That's good, however, what if I also needed to access full user objects that are a part of a chatroom. It seems very strange that I would have to do another for-loop (2-level nested for-loop!) fetch for every single user in every single chatroom to get that data. Is there a better way?
– damirstuhec
Feb 6 at 11:34
it solved my similar issue, thanks
– Sitecore Sam
Jun 20 at 9:25
This is an awesome explanation. I have my data stored like this, which allows me to grab a chatroom from a user's list, or grab a user from a chat room's members. But what it doesn't allow is to observe
.childChanged for the chatrooms of which I am a member. If I try to set up an observer for chats where members/myId = true, then I get the unspecified index error. How would you go about this? I have a question posted here: stackoverflow.com/questions/47769044/…– lusus_vir
Dec 16 '17 at 23:14
This is an awesome explanation. I have my data stored like this, which allows me to grab a chatroom from a user's list, or grab a user from a chat room's members. But what it doesn't allow is to observe
.childChanged for the chatrooms of which I am a member. If I try to set up an observer for chats where members/myId = true, then I get the unspecified index error. How would you go about this? I have a question posted here: stackoverflow.com/questions/47769044/…– lusus_vir
Dec 16 '17 at 23:14
@frank-van-puffelen referencing your last code snippet, let's say I am "user1" and I fetch all keys of chatrooms I'm a member of. Then for each chatroom key I fetch the full chatroom object, and display the list of chatrooms in a list. That's good, however, what if I also needed to access full user objects that are a part of a chatroom. It seems very strange that I would have to do another for-loop (2-level nested for-loop!) fetch for every single user in every single chatroom to get that data. Is there a better way?
– damirstuhec
Feb 6 at 11:34
@frank-van-puffelen referencing your last code snippet, let's say I am "user1" and I fetch all keys of chatrooms I'm a member of. Then for each chatroom key I fetch the full chatroom object, and display the list of chatrooms in a list. That's good, however, what if I also needed to access full user objects that are a part of a chatroom. It seems very strange that I would have to do another for-loop (2-level nested for-loop!) fetch for every single user in every single chatroom to get that data. Is there a better way?
– damirstuhec
Feb 6 at 11:34
it solved my similar issue, thanks
– Sitecore Sam
Jun 20 at 9:25
it solved my similar issue, thanks
– Sitecore Sam
Jun 20 at 9:25
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f40656589%2ffirebase-query-if-child-of-child-contains-a-value%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown