I'm trying to search Umbraco (v10) tags, which are stored as an array. Regardless of whether they are stored in CSV or JSON, I can't force an exact match.
For example, one article has tags containing "foo bar", while a second article has tags containing "foo".
If I use Lucene to search for foo, I get both articles returned. I do not want to match "foo bar".
This is my code:
IBooleanOperation query = _externalIndex.Searcher
.CreateQuery("content", BooleanOperation.And)
.NodeTypeAlias(modelTypeAlias)
.And()
//.Field("tags", tag);
.NativeQuery($"tags:\"{tag}\"");
I have tried using NativeQuery, wrapping my tag in quotes, using regex to match start/end of the string, using parenthesis to indicate a set of matches.
I cannot identify a way to isolate an exact match.
While your question is slightly different the this one, the answer is basically the same.
If you want the index to be based on the whole field rather then the individual words then you need to make sure the field is indexed as a StringField rather then a TextField.
String fields are not tokenized.
RonC's answer pointed me in the right direction, but it was more complicated than that.
I needed to split the JSON array of tags into individual elements, using the TransformingIndexValues event handler, and store them in a new field tagsSplit:
private void TransformTagsValues(object? sender, IndexingItemEventArgs e)
{
if (e.ValueSet.Category != "content")
{
return;
}
Dictionary<string, List<object>> updatedValues = e.ValueSet.Values.ToDictionary(x => x.Key, x => x.Value.ToList());
if (!updatedValues.ContainsKey("tags"))
{
return;
}
JArray tagsArray = JArray.Parse(updatedValues["tags"].Single().ToString()!);
updatedValues["tagsSplit"] = tagsArray.Select(token => (object)token.Value<string>()!).ToList();
e.SetValues(updatedValues.ToDictionary(x => x.Key, x => (IEnumerable<object>)x.Value));
}
Then I needed to configure the indexer to treat the field values as Raw (which internally uses StringField):
public void Configure(string name, LuceneDirectoryIndexOptions options)
{
if (name.Equals(UmbracoIndexes.ExternalIndexName))
{
options.FieldDefinitions.AddOrUpdate(new FieldDefinition("tagsSplit", FieldDefinitionTypes.Raw));
}
}
Now finally if I query using field:
IBooleanOperation query = _externalIndex.Searcher
.CreateQuery("content", BooleanOperation.And)
.NodeTypeAlias(modelTypeAlias)
.And()
.Field("tagsSplit", tag);
It gives me an exact match.
It is also case-sensitive, but since I'm searching by existing tags and not free-text, that is fine for my use-case.
Related
I am currently trying to figure out, how to modify the parameter being integrated into the URL Mapping I am using.
static mappings =
{
"/$controller/$action?/$id?/(.$format)?"
{
constraints {
// apply constraints here
}
}
name test1: "/.../$title/..."{
controller = "study"
action = "st_show"
}
name test2: "/.../$title/..."{
controller = "search"
action = "se_show"
}
The parameter $title is pretty much a dataset, which is pulled from a database and which will get transmitted in the following format [ this is a title ]. So there are square brackets in front and behind the string and words are seperated through blanks.
If I am creating a link through g:link now with the params nested in, it gets put into the url as it is pulled from the database. What I am attempting is to create SEO-URLs, which will present a certain title of a publication devided by hyphens instead of url-encoded "%20".
Until now, I was able to generate dynamic urls looking like this:
http://localhost:8080/projectname/show/%5BAllgemeine%20Bevölkerungs[...]/782/...PARAMS...
Furthermore I already implemented it through JQuery, though it should be static and users should be able to copy the link to open up the page themselves - that wouldn't be possible when changing the url client-side while loading up the page.
Is there a way to define a function with something like replaceAll.(' ', '-'), which can be invoked onto the parameter in the mapping to replace blanks with hyphens and f.e. square brackets with an empty character?
That's pretty much, what I wasn't able to come by through the documentation.
Thank you already in advance for your help!
I managed to solve my problem by creating a service with a function containing a regex and executing this function onto the parameter title in my g:link, which I firstly converted to a string, which gets passed to the function.
<g:link controller="study" action="st_show" params="[data: data, ... title: ConversionService.convert(fieldValue(bean: path).toString(), ... data: data)]"></g:link>
And the function in the ConversionService
public static String convert(String title){
title = title.replaceAll("\\s", "-").replaceAll("[^0-9a-zA-Z\\-]", "");
return title;
}
I have a question about the query based on the predefined constraints in PopotoJs. In this example, the graph can be filtered based on the constraints defined in the search boxes. The sample file in this example visualizations folder, constraint is only defined for "Person" node. It is specified in the sample html file like the following:
"Person": {
"returnAttributes": ["name", "born"],
"constraintAttribute": "name",
// Return a predefined constraint that can be edited in the page.
"getPredefinedConstraints": function (node) {
return personPredefinedConstraints;
},
....
In my graph I would like to apply that query function for more than one node. For example I have 2 nodes: Contact (has "name" attribute) and Delivery (has "address" attribute)
I succeeded it by defining two functions for each nodes. However, I also had to put two search box forms with different input id (like constraint1 and constraint2). And I had to make the queries in the associated search boxes.
Is there a way to make queries which are defined for multiple nodes in one search box? For example searching Contact-name and/or Delivery-adress in the same search box?
Thanks
First I’d like to specify that the predefined constraints feature is still experimental (but fully functional) and doesn’t have any documentation yet.
It is intended to be used in configuration to filter data displayed in nodes and in the example the use of search boxes is just to show dynamically how it works.
A common use of this feature would be to add the list of predefined constraint you want in the configuration for every node types.
Let's take an example:
With the following configuration example the graph will be filtered to show only Person nodes having "born" attribute and only Movie nodes with title in the provided list:
"Person": {
"getPredefinedConstraints": function (node) {
return ["has($identifier.born)"];
},
...
}
"Movie": {
"getPredefinedConstraints": function (node) {
return ["$identifier.title IN [\"The Matrix\", \"The Matrix Reloaded\", \"The Matrix Revolutions\"]"];
},
...
}
The $identifier variable is then replaced during query generation with the corresponding node identifier. In this case the generated query would look like this:
MATCH (person:`Person`) WHERE has(person.born) RETURN person
In your case if I understood your question correctly you are trying to use this feature to implement a search box to filter the data. I'm still working on that feature but it won't be available soon :(
This is a workaround but maybe it could work in your use case, you could keep the search box value in a variable:
var value = d3.select("#constraint")[0][0].value;
inputValue = value;
Then use it in the predefined constraint of all the nodes type you want.
In this example Person will be filtered based on the name attribute and Movie on title:
"Person": {
"getPredefinedConstraints": function (node) {
if (inputValue) {
return ["$identifier.name =~ '(?i).*" + inputValue + ".*'"];
} else {
return [];
}
},
...
}
"Movie": {
"getPredefinedConstraints": function (node) {
if (inputValue) {
return ["$identifier.title =~ '(?i).*" + inputValue + ".*'"];
} else {
return [];
}
},
...
}
Everything is in the HTML page of this example so you can view the full source directly on the page.
#Popoto, thanks for the descriptive reply. I tried your suggestion and it worked pretty much well. With the actual codes, when I make a query it was showing only the queried node and make the other node amount zero. I wanted to make a query which queries only the related node while the number of other nodes are still same.
I tried a temporary solution for my problem. What I did is:
Export the all the node data to JSON file, search my query constraint in the exported JSONs, if the file is existing in JSON, then run the query in the related node; and if not, do nothing.
With that way, of course I needed to define many functions with different variable names (as much as the node amount). Anyhow, it is not a propoer way, bu it worked for now.
Is like or rlike supported for searching a string in a collection's property value?
Does the collection need to define text type index for this to work? Unfortunately I can not create a text index for the property. There are 100 million documents and text index killed the performance (MongoDB is on single node). If this is not do-able without text index, its fine with me. I will look for alternatives.
Given below collection:
Message {
'payload' : 'XML or JSON string'
//few other properties
}
In grails, I created a Criteria to return me a list of documents which contain a specific string in the payload
Message.list {
projections {
like('payload' : searchString)
}
}
I tried using rlike('payload' : ".*${searchString}.*") as well. It did not result in any doc to me.
Note: I was able to get the document when I fired the native query on Mongo shell.
db.Message.find({payload : { $regex : ".*My search string.*" }}).pretty()
I got it working in a round about way. I believe there is a much better grails solution. Criteria approach did not work. So used the low level API converted the DBObjects to Domain objects.
def query = ['payload' : [ '$regex' : /${searchString}/ ] ]
def dbObjects = Message.collection.find(query).skip(offset).limit(defaultPageSize).toArray()
dbObjects?.collect { new Message(new JsonSlurper().parseText(it.toString()))}
Im using the jQuery mobile search filter list:
http://jquerymobile.com/test/docs/lists/lists-performance.html
Im having somer performance issues, my list is a little slow to filter on some phones. To try and aid performance I want to change the search so only items starting with the search text are returned.
So 'aris' currently finds the result 'paris' but I want this changed. I can see its possible from the documentation below but I dont know how to implement the code.
http://jquerymobile.com/test/docs/lists/docs-lists.html
$("document").ready( function (){
$(".ui-listview").listview('option', 'filterCallback', yourFilterFunction)
});
This seems to demonstrate how you write and call your own function, but ive no idea how to write it! Thanks
http://blog.safaribooksonline.com/2012/02/14/jquery-mobile-tip-write-your-own-list-view-filter-function/
UPDATE - Ive tried the following in a seperate js file:
$("document").ready( function (){
function beginsWith( text, pattern) {
text= text.toLowerCase();
pattern = pattern.toLowerCase();
return pattern == text.substr( 0, pattern.length );
}
$(".ui-listview").listview('option', 'filterCallback', beginsWith)
});
might look something like this:
function beginsWith( text, pattern) {
text= text.toLowerCase();
pattern = pattern.toLowerCase();
return pattern == text.substr( 0, pattern.length );
}
Basically you compare from 0 to "length" of what you're matching to the source. So if you pass in "test","tester" it will see you're passing in a string of length 4 and then substr "tester" from 0,4, which gives you "test". Then "test" is equal to "test"... so return true. Lowercase them to make it case insensitive.
Another trick to improve filter performance, only filter once they've entered more than 1 character.
edit it appears jQueryMobile's filter function expects that "true" means it was not found... so it needs to be backwards. return pattern != text.substr( 0, pattern.length );
This worked for me. I am using regular expression here so sort of different way to achieve the same thing.
But the reason why my code didn't work initially was that the list item had a lot of spaces at the beginning and at the end (found that it got added on it's own while debugging).
So I do a trim on the text before doing the match. I have a feeling Jonathan Rowny's implementation will also work if we do text.trim() before matching.
$(".ui-listview").listview('option', 'filterCallback', function (text, searchValue) {
var matcher = new RegExp("^" + searchValue, "i");
return !matcher.test(text.trim());
});
I have 3 models:
article [name, title]
photo [name, description]
video [name, description, transcription]
Now, I want to create an autocomplete search that will search each of those models and db fields for matching string in the input field.
Is it possible to do a search over these 3 tables?
If so, how would I go about it?
UNION operator is what you're looking for.
I guess your using propel.
Its absolutetly possible to do this, but if these table are not related to anything that could result in some messy code when saving. But if you absolutely need to search in those tables, my approach would be to create an action like:
public function executeAutocomplete(sfWebRequest $request)
{
$q = $request->getParameter('q');//The value to be searched
$limit = $request->getParameter('limit');//Not completly necessary but recommendable
if(count($q) == 0)
{
return sfView::NONE;//With no input, no search
}
$results = array( 'article' => array(), 'photo' => array(), 'video' => array());
$article_search = ArticlePeer::search($q,$limit);
$photo_search = PhotoPeer::search($q,$limit);
$video_search = VideoPeer::search($q,$limit);
$this->process_search($results,$article_search,$photo_search,$video_search);
//Process those three arrays to fit your need
return $this->renderText(json_encode($result));
}
Now, the search function on the Peer classes could look like this:
ArticlePeer>>
public static function search($q,$limit = null)
{
$c = new Criteria();
$c->add(self::NAME,'%'.$q.'%',Criteria::LIKE);
if(!is_null($limit))
{
$c->addLimit($limit);
}
return self::doSelect($c);
}
Finally as for the widget, i have used and adapted sfWidgetJQueryAutocomplete and it work pretty good so you should check it out.
EDIT: The short way to an embbed search field si creating sfForm wit the jQuery widget i mentioned before and leave configuration and js to the widget. You'll have to find a way to handle search resutls.
Well i hope this helped you!