I'm struggling with the output of json_encode. I'm attempting to speed up our large dropdown navigation menu by storing everything in a json file that gets updated once a day and calling that when required.
I'm producing the json using json_encode, but it seems to be looping everything into additional, unneccessary, arrays and I can't figure out how to prevent this.
I've even tried fiddling with str_replace but had no success in generating valid json (though clearly this isn't really a long term solution in any case). I've also tried to figure out what combination of "each" I would need to get into the nestled arrays, but haven't found the right combination.
Below is the json I'm ending up with (I've reduced the number of entries to make it easier to see, the format is the same... just within each of Film, Gaming etc there are more items).
[
[
"Film",
[
{
"title": "13 Awkward Moments That Must Have Happened After The End Of Famous Movies",
"link": "http:\/\/whatculture.com\/film\/13-awkward-moments-that-must-have-happened-after-the-end-of-famous-movies.php",
"image": [
"http:\/\/cdn3.whatculture.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/HP-100x60.jpg",
100,
60,
true
]
}
]
],
[
"TV",
[
{
"title": "10 Awesome TV Twists You Never Saw Coming",
"link": "http:\/\/whatculture.com\/tv\/10-awesome-tv-twists-you-never-saw-coming.php",
"image": [
"http:\/\/cdn3.whatculture.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/lost-locke-100x60.jpg",
100,
60,
true
]
}
]
],
[
"Gaming",
[
{
"title": "WWE 2K14: Every Possible Classic Match",
"link": "http:\/\/whatculture.com\/gaming\/wwe-2k14-every-possible-classic-match.php",
"image": [
"http:\/\/cdn3.whatculture.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/444-100x60.jpg",
100,
60,
true
]
}
]
]
]
And this is the script I'm using to generate said code:
I've included everything for completeness. A lot of the below is just the Wordpress query to pull back my relevant data:
$cats = array("Film","TV","Gaming","Sport","Music");
function filter_where($where = '') {
$where .= " AND post_date > '" . date('Y-m-d', strtotime('-3 days')) . "'";
return $where;
}
add_filter('posts_where', 'filter_where');
foreach($cats as $cat) {
$the_query = array(
'numberposts' => 5,
'category_name' => $cat,
'meta_key' => "visitcount",
'orderby' => "meta_value_num",
'suppress_filters' => false );
$special_query_results = get_posts($the_query);
foreach( $special_query_results as $post ) {
setup_postdata($post);
$myposts[] = array('title'=> html_entity_decode(get_the_title()),'link'=>get_permalink(get_the_ID()),'image'=>wp_get_attachment_image_src( get_post_thumbnail_id(get_the_ID()), 'smallthumb' ));
}
$pop_posts[] = array($cat,$myposts);
unset($myposts);
} // foreach cats as cat1000
wp_reset_postdata();
remove_filter('posts_where', 'filter_where');
$json_pop = json_encode($pop_posts,JSON_PRETTY_PRINT);
This is what I'm using to pull it back when user hovers on the nav item:
$.getJSON('http://whatculture.com/data/wc6.json', function(popular) {
$.each(popular.Sport, function() {
$('.popularMenu').append("<li><img src="+this.image[0]+" />"+this.title+"</li>");
});
});
This is a bit of a guess (see my comment regarding a need to clarify which arrays you see as "unnecessary") but the line that stands out to me is this:
$pop_posts[] = array($cat,$myposts);
This can be translated as "create a 2-element array, whose first member is $cat (the name of the category) and whose second member is $myposts (an array of posts); add this 2-element array as the last member of the array $pop_posts". The result is that $pop_posts is an array of two-element arrays.
Perhaps what you wanted to say was "set the key $cat of the associative array $pop_posts to the value $myposts (an array of posts)", which would be this:
$pop_posts[$cat] = $myposts;
That would make the resulting structure simpler, as instead of an array of 2-element arrays, you would have a single hash (PHP associative array, JS object) whose keys were categories, and whose values were the popular posts for that category.
However, there are two disadvantages:
It wouldn't work if the category names were not unique, since a key cannot exist more than once in a hash. I don't think this applies here.
JSON hashes (and the JS object they create) are unordered key-value collections. So if you want to preserve the order of your categories, you need a different mechanism (either the array-of-arrays you already have, or an additional array storing the "correct" order to visit the keys). In your example, you reference Sport specifically, so this may not be an issue.
Related
I have a field called "arrivalDate" and this field is a string. Each document has an arrivalDate in string format (ex: 20110128). I want my output to be something like this (date and the number of records that have that date):
Date : how many records have that date
20110105 : 5 records
20120501 : 2 records
20120602 : 15 records
I already have the query to get these results.
I am trying to display aggregated results in PHP from Elasticsearch. I want my output to be something like this:
Date : how many records have that date
20110105 : 5 records
20120501 : 2 records
20120602 : 15 records
This is what I have so far:
$json = '{"aggs": { "group_by_date": { "terms": { "field": "arrivalDate" } } } }';
$params = [
'index' => 'pickups',
'type' => 'external',
'body' => $json
];
$results = $es->search($params);
However, I don't know how to display the results in PHP. For example, if I wanted to display the total number of documents I would do echo $results['hits']['total'] How could I display all the dates with the number of records they have in PHP?
I'd suggest using aggregations in the same way you construct the query, from my experience it seems to work quicker. Please see the below code:
'aggs' => [
'group_by_date' => [
'terms' => [
'field' => 'arrivalDate',
'size' => 500
]
]
]
Following that, instead of using the typical results['hits']['hits'] you would switch out the hits parts to results['aggregations']. Then access the returning data by accessing the buckets in the response.
For accessing the data from the aggregation shown above, it would likely be something along the lines of:
foreach ($results as $result){
foreach($result['buckets'] as $record){
echo($record['key']);
}
}
There will be a better way of accessing the array within the array, however, the above loop system works well for me. If you have any issues with accessing the data, let me know.
I have a mongodb database which contains two connected collections.
The first one has a dataset which looks like this:
{
"_id": ObjectId("5326d2a61db62d7d2f8c13c0"),
"reporttype": "visits",
"country": "AT",
"channel": "wifi",
"_level": NumberInt(3)
}
The ObjectId is connected to several datasets in the second collection which look like this:
{
"_id": ObjectId("54c905662d0a99627efe17a9"),
"avg": NumberInt(0),
"chunk_begin": ISODate("2015-01-28T12:00:00.0Z"),
"count": NumberInt(15),
"max": NumberInt(0),
"min": NumberInt(0),
"sum": NumberInt(0),
"tag": ObjectId("5326d2a61db62d7d2f8c13c0")
}
As you can see it the "_id" from the first dataset the same as the "tag" from the second.
I want to write a routine in php which gets the ids from the first collection and finds by them datasets in a certain timeframe in the second collection for deletion.
I get the id from the first collection ok, but I suspect I use it wrongly in the the query for the second collection because nothing is ever found or deleted.
Code looks like this:
// select a collection (analog to a relational database's table)
$tagCollection = $db->tags;
$orderCollection = $db->orders;
// formulate AND query
$aTagCriteria = array(
'reporttype' => new MongoRegex('/[a-z]+/'),
);
// retrieve only _id keys
$fields = array('_id');
$cursor = $tagCollection->find($aTagCriteria, $fields);
$startOfTimeperiod = new MongoDate(strtotime('2015-01-05 00:00:00'));
$endOfTimeperiod = new MongoDate(strtotime('2015-01-07 13:20:00'));
// iterate through the result set
foreach ($cursor as $obj) {
echo '_id: '.$obj['_id'].' | ';
// Until here all is ok, I get the _id as output.
$aOrdercriteria = array(
'tag' => new MongoId($obj['_id']),
'date' => array(
'$lte' => $endOfTimeperiod,
'$gte' => $startOfTimeperiod
),
);
$iCount = $orderCollection->count($aOrdercriteria);
if ($iCount > 0) {
echo PHP_EOL.$iCount.' document(s) found.'.PHP_EOL;
$result = $orderCollection->remove($aOrdercriteria);
echo __FUNCTION__.'|'.__LINE__.' | '.json_encode($result).PHP_EOL;
echo 'Removed document with ID: '.$aOrdercriteria['tag'].PHP_EOL;
}
}
What is the correct way for the search condition so it looks for tag Objects
with the previously found id?
PS:
I tried
'tag' => $obj['_id'],
instead of
'tag' => new MongoId($obj['_id']),
which didn't work either.
So two things had to be changed.
The first one was like EmptyArsenal hinted:
tag' => new MongoId($obj['_id']),
is wrong since $obj['_id'] is already an object.
So
'tag' => $obj['_id'],
is correct.
And if I change my condition from "date" to "chunk_begin" yahooo.... it works. Stupid me.
I search a lot in stack and google try to find the answer which seems to be easy but I'm still stuck with it
I write a code to encode json with values I wanted from . and I would like to add a key / value to the JSON
the JSON is as following structure
{
- files: [
{
title: "works",
- tracks: [
{
title: "File",
format: "mp3"
}
]
},
-{
title: "season1",
tracks: [
{
title: "Button-1",
format: "wav"
},
-{
title: "Beep-9",
format: "wav"
}
]
}
]
}
I want to add to that a key and its value at the beginning to the json as properties under the title files , I mean that can be read by code as
json[files][new_key]
I tried to set that value like this
$json['new_key'] = "new_value";
but this causes adding numbers to the arrays in json , I don't why they numbered
this numbers affect my reading way of the json as JSONModel in my iOS app
so , I hope you can help me
thanks in advance
Assuming that the new value you want to add varies by file, you would need to loop through $json[files] and insert them per key/value pair.
<?php
for($i=0; $i<count($json); $i++)
$json[files][$i]["new_key"] = "value";
?>
I'm still not sure what you have exactly, but it seems you are trying to manipulate the json string.
If done correctly, that is probably the most efficient solution, but what you could also do is:
use json_decode to generate an array from your json string;
locate the correct section / sub-array where you want to add your data;
use array_unshift to prepend your new key - value pair;
use json_encode to generate a json string from your complete array.
The reason you're getting numbers appearing is because you're adding a key to an array (which functions more or less as a list in JS). So before you basically have the object "files" as a list of objects zero-indexed like any other JS array. When you add the key, JS simply adds your key to the end of your present keys (in your case 0 and 1).
It seems like you have a list of multimedia objects where each has a title and a list of tracks. The most straightforward way to solve your issue would be as follows:
$fileItem['title'] = 'works';
$fileItem['tracks'] = array(
array(
'title' => 'File',
'format' => 'mp3'
)
);
$json['files'][] = $fileItem;
$fileItem['title'] = 'season1';
$fileItem['tracks'] = array(
array(
'title' => 'Button-1',
'format' => 'wav'
),
array(
'title' => 'Beep-9',
'format' => 'wav'
)
);
$json['files'][] = $fileItem;
Then you JSON encode it and return it as you normally would. You can put the above in a loop as well. I lack enough context to recommend exactly how.
I'm trying to do a sort in my WP_Query on a custom field. The custom field contains strings such as "E100", "E500" and "E123b". I would like to sort numerically on these values, i.e. sort on the custom field as if the characters weren't there.
My query looks like this:
$subpages = new WP_Query(array(
"post_type" => "page",
"meta_key" => "[customFieldNameHere]",
"orderby" => "meta_value_num",
"order" => "ASC",
"posts_per_page" => 5000
));
But it doesn't work. It does some sort of sort, but it's not numerical. Is it possible to strip all characters/letters from the field, and then do a numerical sort on the remaining values, or is there some other way to solve this?
You can't sort a string with letters as if it were all numbers. If you try you will get a alphanumerical sort-- more or less what you'd do if you were alphabetizing something but it makes numbers look odd because it matches up all the first characters, then the second, and so on making numbers look like:
1
10
101
2
20
I don't know of anything built into MySQL that will do what you want, nor does WP_Query have any such feature. The best solution I have is to pull your results unsorted, and sort them later. You want to pull unsorted so the database doesn't do extra work.
$subpages = new WP_Query(array(
"post_type" => "page",
"meta_key" => "[customFieldNameHere]",
"posts_per_page" => 5000
));
$sorted = array();
foreach ($subpages as $s) {
$kname = preg_replace('/[^0-9]+/','',$s->customFieldNameHere]);
$sorted[$kname] = $s;
}
// you may need
// ksort($sorted);
var_dump($sorted);
One problem is going to be collisions. If you end up with two matching $knames you will clobber data, and frankly, that seems pretty likely if you have a lot of data.
I ended up removing the leading E from all strings. Doesn't really solve the original problem, with numerical sorting of strings, but at least it works now.
I want to find documents where last elements in an array equals to some value.
Array elements may be accessed by specific array position:
// i.e. comments[0].by == "Abe"
db.example.find( { "comments.0.by" : "Abe" } )
but how do i search using the last item as criteria?
i.e.
db.example.find( { "comments.last.by" : "Abe" } )
By the way, i'm using php
I know this question is old, but I found it on google after answering a similar new question. So I thought this deserved the same treatment.
You can avoid the performance hit of $where by using aggregate instead:
db.example.aggregate([
// Use an index, which $where cannot to narrow down
{$match: { "comments.by": "Abe" }},
// De-normalize the Array
{$unwind: "$comments"},
// The order of the array is maintained, so just look for the $last by _id
{$group: { _id: "$_id", comments: {$last: "$comment"} }},
// Match only where that $last comment by `by.Abe`
{$match: { "comments.by": "Abe" }},
// Retain the original _id order
{$sort: { _id: 1 }}
])
And that should run rings around $where since we were able to narrow down the documents that had a comment by "Abe" in the first place. As warned, $where is going to test every document in the collection and never use an index even if one is there to be used.
Of course, you can also maintain the original document using the technique described here as well, so everything would work just like a find().
Just food for thought for anyone finding this.
Update for Modern MongoDB releases
Modern releases have added the $redact pipeline expression as well as $arrayElemAt ( the latter as of 3.2, so that would be the minimal version here ) which in combination would allow a logical expression to inspect the last element of an array without processing an $unwind stage:
db.example.aggregate([
{ "$match": { "comments.by": "Abe" }},
{ "$redact": {
"$cond": {
"if": {
"$eq": [
{ "$arrayElemAt": [ "$comments.by", -1 ] },
"Abe"
]
},
"then": "$$KEEP",
"else": "$$PRUNE"
}
}}
])
The logic here is done in comparison where $arrayElemAt is getting the last index of the array -1, which is transformed to just an array of the values in the "by" property via $map. This allows comparison of the single value against the required parameter, "Abe".
Or even a bit more modern using $expr for MongoDB 3.6 and greater:
db.example.find({
"comments.by": "Abe",
"$expr": {
"$eq": [
{ "$arrayElemAt": [ "$comments.by", -1 ] },
"Abe"
]
}
})
This would be by far the most performant solution for matching the last element within an array, and actually expected to supersede the usage of $where in most cases and especially here.
You can't do this in one go with this schema design. You can either store the length and do two queries, or store the last comment additionally in another field:
{
'_id': 'foo';
'comments' [
{ 'value': 'comment #1', 'by': 'Ford' },
{ 'value': 'comment #2', 'by': 'Arthur' },
{ 'value': 'comment #3', 'by': 'Zaphod' }
],
'last_comment': {
'value': 'comment #3', 'by': 'Zaphod'
}
}
Sure, you'll be duplicating some data, but atleast you can set this data with $set together with the $push for the comment.
$comment = array(
'value' => 'comment #3',
'by' => 'Zaphod',
);
$collection->update(
array( '_id' => 'foo' ),
array(
'$set' => array( 'last_comment' => $comment ),
'$push' => array( 'comments' => $comment )
)
);
Finding the last one is easy now!
You could do this with a $where operator:
db.example.find({ $where:
'this.comments.length && this.comments[this.comments.length-1].by === "Abe"'
})
The usual slow performance caveats for $where apply. However, you can help with this by including "comments.by": "Abe" in your query:
db.example.find({
"comments.by": "Abe",
$where: 'this.comments.length && this.comments[this.comments.length-1].by === "Abe"'
})
This way, the $where only needs to be evaluated against documents that include comments by Abe and the new term would be able to use an index on "comments.by".
I'm just doing :
db.products.find({'statusHistory.status':'AVAILABLE'},{'statusHistory': {$slice: -1}})
This gets me products for which the last statusHistory item in the array, contains the property status='AVAILABLE' .
I am not sure why my answer above is deleted. I am reposting it. I am pretty sure without changing the schema, you should be able to do it this way.
db.example.find({ "comments:{$slice:-1}.by" : "Abe" }
// ... or
db.example.find({ "comments.by" : "Abe" }
This by default takes the last element in the array.