The proper way of adding an index in a nested firebase realtime database structure
The structure of by database is as follows:
my-db
|
Users
|
CreatedAt: "SOME_VALUE"
|
Email: "SOME_EMAIL"
|
Mailboxes
|
445566
|
Address: "My address 1"
|
Status: Active
|
112233
|
Address: "My address 2"
|
Status: Active
What I am trying to do is to filter only the users who have an active mailbox with a specific id. I am using firebase cloud functions for that purpose and the way I do it is as follows:
db.ref('/Users')
.orderByChild('mailboxes/' + mailboxId + '/status')
.equalTo('Active')
.once("value", function(snapshot){
snapshot.forEach(function(childSnapshot){
// GET SPECIFIC USER DATA FROM childSnapshot
})
})
It seems to be working fine so far, but I am getting a warning error in firebase functions log saying that:
@firebase/database: FIREBASE WARNING: Using an unspecified index. Your
data will be downloaded and filtered on the client. Consider adding
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status" at /Users to your security rules
for better performance.
I have tried to add an index in the rules file:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
"$userid": {
"mailboxes": {
"$mailboxid": {
".indexOn": ["status"]
}
}
}
}
}
}
but still no success. I am now wondering what is not correct here.
node.js firebase firebase-realtime-database
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:44
Frank van Puffelen
235k29381407
asked Nov 14 '18 at 8:27
user2128702user2128702
5261831
add a comment |
The structure of by database is as follows:
my-db
|
Users
|
CreatedAt: "SOME_VALUE"
|
Email: "SOME_EMAIL"
|
Mailboxes
|
445566
|
Address: "My address 1"
|
Status: Active
|
112233
|
Address: "My address 2"
|
Status: Active
What I am trying to do is to filter only the users who have an active mailbox with a specific id. I am using firebase cloud functions for that purpose and the way I do it is as follows:
db.ref('/Users')
.orderByChild('mailboxes/' + mailboxId + '/status')
.equalTo('Active')
.once("value", function(snapshot){
snapshot.forEach(function(childSnapshot){
// GET SPECIFIC USER DATA FROM childSnapshot
})
})
It seems to be working fine so far, but I am getting a warning error in firebase functions log saying that:
@firebase/database: FIREBASE WARNING: Using an unspecified index. Your
data will be downloaded and filtered on the client. Consider adding
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status" at /Users to your security rules
for better performance.
I have tried to add an index in the rules file:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
"$userid": {
"mailboxes": {
"$mailboxid": {
".indexOn": ["status"]
}
}
}
}
}
}
but still no success. I am now wondering what is not correct here.
node.js firebase firebase-realtime-database
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:44
Frank van Puffelen
235k29381407
asked Nov 14 '18 at 8:27
user2128702user2128702
5261831
add a comment |
The structure of by database is as follows:
my-db
|
Users
|
CreatedAt: "SOME_VALUE"
|
Email: "SOME_EMAIL"
|
Mailboxes
|
445566
|
Address: "My address 1"
|
Status: Active
|
112233
|
Address: "My address 2"
|
Status: Active
What I am trying to do is to filter only the users who have an active mailbox with a specific id. I am using firebase cloud functions for that purpose and the way I do it is as follows:
db.ref('/Users')
.orderByChild('mailboxes/' + mailboxId + '/status')
.equalTo('Active')
.once("value", function(snapshot){
snapshot.forEach(function(childSnapshot){
// GET SPECIFIC USER DATA FROM childSnapshot
})
})
It seems to be working fine so far, but I am getting a warning error in firebase functions log saying that:
@firebase/database: FIREBASE WARNING: Using an unspecified index. Your
data will be downloaded and filtered on the client. Consider adding
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status" at /Users to your security rules
for better performance.
I have tried to add an index in the rules file:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
"$userid": {
"mailboxes": {
"$mailboxid": {
".indexOn": ["status"]
}
}
}
}
}
}
but still no success. I am now wondering what is not correct here.
node.js firebase firebase-realtime-database
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:44
Frank van Puffelen
235k29381407
asked Nov 14 '18 at 8:27
user2128702user2128702
5261831
The structure of by database is as follows:
my-db
|
Users
|
CreatedAt: "SOME_VALUE"
|
Email: "SOME_EMAIL"
|
Mailboxes
|
445566
|
Address: "My address 1"
|
Status: Active
|
112233
|
Address: "My address 2"
|
Status: Active
What I am trying to do is to filter only the users who have an active mailbox with a specific id. I am using firebase cloud functions for that purpose and the way I do it is as follows:
db.ref('/Users')
.orderByChild('mailboxes/' + mailboxId + '/status')
.equalTo('Active')
.once("value", function(snapshot){
snapshot.forEach(function(childSnapshot){
// GET SPECIFIC USER DATA FROM childSnapshot
})
})
It seems to be working fine so far, but I am getting a warning error in firebase functions log saying that:
@firebase/database: FIREBASE WARNING: Using an unspecified index. Your
data will be downloaded and filtered on the client. Consider adding
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status" at /Users to your security rules
for better performance.
I have tried to add an index in the rules file:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
"$userid": {
"mailboxes": {
"$mailboxid": {
".indexOn": ["status"]
}
}
}
}
}
}
but still no success. I am now wondering what is not correct here.
node.js firebase firebase-realtime-database
node.js firebase firebase-realtime-database
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:44
Frank van Puffelen
235k29381407
asked Nov 14 '18 at 8:27
user2128702user2128702
5261831
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:44
Frank van Puffelen
235k29381407
asked Nov 14 '18 at 8:27
user2128702user2128702
5261831
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:44
Frank van Puffelen
235k29381407
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:44
Frank van Puffelen
235k29381407
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:44
Frank van Puffelen
235k29381407
235k29381407
asked Nov 14 '18 at 8:27
user2128702user2128702
5261831
asked Nov 14 '18 at 8:27
user2128702user2128702
5261831
asked Nov 14 '18 at 8:27
user2128702user2128702
5261831
5261831
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
An index needs to be defined on the location where you run the query. So since you run your query on /Users, that's where the index needs to be defined. As the error message says:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status"
}
}
}
But you'll immediately notice that this means you'll need an index for each UID, which is not feasible. The reason for this is that the Firebase Database can only query flat lists, it cannot query across multiple levels.
Your current data structure allows you to efficiently read all mailboxes for a given user. It does not however easily allow you to find all users for a specific mailbox status. To allow the latter, you'll need an additional data structure where you store a list of mailboxes (the entity you're querying), their status (the condition that you're filtering on) and their user (the result you want).
mailboxes: {
"445566": {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid1"
},
"112233" {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid2"
}
}
With the above additional structure, you can use this index:
"mailboxes": {
".indexOn": "Status"
}
Next you query this /mailboxes to get all mailboxes with a certain status, and then determine the unique users in there to display.
Also see:
- Firebase Query Double Nested
- Firebase query if child of child contains a value
answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:43
Frank van PuffelenFrank van Puffelen
235k29381407
So, you basically say that having my current data structure (kind of a schema) it is not possible to define an index rule and I need to re-structure it anyway?
– user2128702
Nov 14 '18 at 19:34
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f53295841%2fthe-proper-way-of-adding-an-index-in-a-nested-firebase-realtime-database-structu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
An index needs to be defined on the location where you run the query. So since you run your query on /Users, that's where the index needs to be defined. As the error message says:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status"
}
}
}
But you'll immediately notice that this means you'll need an index for each UID, which is not feasible. The reason for this is that the Firebase Database can only query flat lists, it cannot query across multiple levels.
Your current data structure allows you to efficiently read all mailboxes for a given user. It does not however easily allow you to find all users for a specific mailbox status. To allow the latter, you'll need an additional data structure where you store a list of mailboxes (the entity you're querying), their status (the condition that you're filtering on) and their user (the result you want).
mailboxes: {
"445566": {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid1"
},
"112233" {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid2"
}
}
With the above additional structure, you can use this index:
"mailboxes": {
".indexOn": "Status"
}
Next you query this /mailboxes to get all mailboxes with a certain status, and then determine the unique users in there to display.
Also see:
- Firebase Query Double Nested
- Firebase query if child of child contains a value
answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:43
Frank van PuffelenFrank van Puffelen
235k29381407
So, you basically say that having my current data structure (kind of a schema) it is not possible to define an index rule and I need to re-structure it anyway?
– user2128702
Nov 14 '18 at 19:34
add a comment |
An index needs to be defined on the location where you run the query. So since you run your query on /Users, that's where the index needs to be defined. As the error message says:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status"
}
}
}
But you'll immediately notice that this means you'll need an index for each UID, which is not feasible. The reason for this is that the Firebase Database can only query flat lists, it cannot query across multiple levels.
Your current data structure allows you to efficiently read all mailboxes for a given user. It does not however easily allow you to find all users for a specific mailbox status. To allow the latter, you'll need an additional data structure where you store a list of mailboxes (the entity you're querying), their status (the condition that you're filtering on) and their user (the result you want).
mailboxes: {
"445566": {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid1"
},
"112233" {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid2"
}
}
With the above additional structure, you can use this index:
"mailboxes": {
".indexOn": "Status"
}
Next you query this /mailboxes to get all mailboxes with a certain status, and then determine the unique users in there to display.
Also see:
- Firebase Query Double Nested
- Firebase query if child of child contains a value
answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:43
Frank van PuffelenFrank van Puffelen
235k29381407
So, you basically say that having my current data structure (kind of a schema) it is not possible to define an index rule and I need to re-structure it anyway?
– user2128702
Nov 14 '18 at 19:34
add a comment |
An index needs to be defined on the location where you run the query. So since you run your query on /Users, that's where the index needs to be defined. As the error message says:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status"
}
}
}
But you'll immediately notice that this means you'll need an index for each UID, which is not feasible. The reason for this is that the Firebase Database can only query flat lists, it cannot query across multiple levels.
Your current data structure allows you to efficiently read all mailboxes for a given user. It does not however easily allow you to find all users for a specific mailbox status. To allow the latter, you'll need an additional data structure where you store a list of mailboxes (the entity you're querying), their status (the condition that you're filtering on) and their user (the result you want).
mailboxes: {
"445566": {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid1"
},
"112233" {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid2"
}
}
With the above additional structure, you can use this index:
"mailboxes": {
".indexOn": "Status"
}
Next you query this /mailboxes to get all mailboxes with a certain status, and then determine the unique users in there to display.
Also see:
- Firebase Query Double Nested
- Firebase query if child of child contains a value
answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:43
Frank van PuffelenFrank van Puffelen
235k29381407
An index needs to be defined on the location where you run the query. So since you run your query on /Users, that's where the index needs to be defined. As the error message says:
{
"rules": {
".read": true,
".write": true,
"users": {
".indexOn": "mailboxes/445566/status"
}
}
}
But you'll immediately notice that this means you'll need an index for each UID, which is not feasible. The reason for this is that the Firebase Database can only query flat lists, it cannot query across multiple levels.
Your current data structure allows you to efficiently read all mailboxes for a given user. It does not however easily allow you to find all users for a specific mailbox status. To allow the latter, you'll need an additional data structure where you store a list of mailboxes (the entity you're querying), their status (the condition that you're filtering on) and their user (the result you want).
mailboxes: {
"445566": {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid1"
},
"112233" {
"Status": "Active",
"user": "uid2"
}
}
With the above additional structure, you can use this index:
"mailboxes": {
".indexOn": "Status"
}
Next you query this /mailboxes to get all mailboxes with a certain status, and then determine the unique users in there to display.
Also see:
- Firebase Query Double Nested
- Firebase query if child of child contains a value
answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:43
Frank van PuffelenFrank van Puffelen
235k29381407
answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:43
Frank van PuffelenFrank van Puffelen
235k29381407
answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:43
Frank van PuffelenFrank van Puffelen
235k29381407
answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:43
Frank van PuffelenFrank van Puffelen
235k29381407
235k29381407
So, you basically say that having my current data structure (kind of a schema) it is not possible to define an index rule and I need to re-structure it anyway?
– user2128702
Nov 14 '18 at 19:34
add a comment |
So, you basically say that having my current data structure (kind of a schema) it is not possible to define an index rule and I need to re-structure it anyway?
– user2128702
Nov 14 '18 at 19:34
So, you basically say that having my current data structure (kind of a schema) it is not possible to define an index rule and I need to re-structure it anyway?
– user2128702
Nov 14 '18 at 19:34
So, you basically say that having my current data structure (kind of a schema) it is not possible to define an index rule and I need to re-structure it anyway?
– user2128702
Nov 14 '18 at 19:34
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f53295841%2fthe-proper-way-of-adding-an-index-in-a-nested-firebase-realtime-database-structu%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
