Update MongoDB field using value of another field
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
In MongoDB, is it possible to update the value of a field using the value from another field? The equivalent SQL would be something like:
UPDATE Person SET Name = FirstName + ' ' + LastName
And the MongoDB pseudo-code would be:
db.person.update( {}, { $set : { name : firstName + ' ' + lastName } );
mongodb mongodb-query aggregation-framework
add a comment |
In MongoDB, is it possible to update the value of a field using the value from another field? The equivalent SQL would be something like:
UPDATE Person SET Name = FirstName + ' ' + LastName
And the MongoDB pseudo-code would be:
db.person.update( {}, { $set : { name : firstName + ' ' + lastName } );
mongodb mongodb-query aggregation-framework
5
Good question. Maybe you need to wait for / vote for jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-458
– Thilo
Oct 20 '10 at 6:04
3
The precise feature request is jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-11345 - still open, not yet triaged.
– Vince Bowdren
Feb 16 '16 at 15:15
@Chris, could you please revise the accepted answer? It appears my answer is outdated.
– Niels van der Rest
Oct 29 '18 at 8:00
3
Accepted answer updated as requested
– Chris Fulstow
Jan 16 at 2:35
add a comment |
In MongoDB, is it possible to update the value of a field using the value from another field? The equivalent SQL would be something like:
UPDATE Person SET Name = FirstName + ' ' + LastName
And the MongoDB pseudo-code would be:
db.person.update( {}, { $set : { name : firstName + ' ' + lastName } );
mongodb mongodb-query aggregation-framework
In MongoDB, is it possible to update the value of a field using the value from another field? The equivalent SQL would be something like:
UPDATE Person SET Name = FirstName + ' ' + LastName
And the MongoDB pseudo-code would be:
db.person.update( {}, { $set : { name : firstName + ' ' + lastName } );
mongodb mongodb-query aggregation-framework
mongodb mongodb-query aggregation-framework
edited May 17 '16 at 15:28
styvane
36.9k1485106
36.9k1485106
asked Oct 20 '10 at 5:22
Chris FulstowChris Fulstow
31.4k776101
31.4k776101
5
Good question. Maybe you need to wait for / vote for jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-458
– Thilo
Oct 20 '10 at 6:04
3
The precise feature request is jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-11345 - still open, not yet triaged.
– Vince Bowdren
Feb 16 '16 at 15:15
@Chris, could you please revise the accepted answer? It appears my answer is outdated.
– Niels van der Rest
Oct 29 '18 at 8:00
3
Accepted answer updated as requested
– Chris Fulstow
Jan 16 at 2:35
add a comment |
5
Good question. Maybe you need to wait for / vote for jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-458
– Thilo
Oct 20 '10 at 6:04
3
The precise feature request is jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-11345 - still open, not yet triaged.
– Vince Bowdren
Feb 16 '16 at 15:15
@Chris, could you please revise the accepted answer? It appears my answer is outdated.
– Niels van der Rest
Oct 29 '18 at 8:00
3
Accepted answer updated as requested
– Chris Fulstow
Jan 16 at 2:35
5
5
Good question. Maybe you need to wait for / vote for jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-458
– Thilo
Oct 20 '10 at 6:04
Good question. Maybe you need to wait for / vote for jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-458
– Thilo
Oct 20 '10 at 6:04
3
3
The precise feature request is jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-11345 - still open, not yet triaged.
– Vince Bowdren
Feb 16 '16 at 15:15
The precise feature request is jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-11345 - still open, not yet triaged.
– Vince Bowdren
Feb 16 '16 at 15:15
@Chris, could you please revise the accepted answer? It appears my answer is outdated.
– Niels van der Rest
Oct 29 '18 at 8:00
@Chris, could you please revise the accepted answer? It appears my answer is outdated.
– Niels van der Rest
Oct 29 '18 at 8:00
3
3
Accepted answer updated as requested
– Chris Fulstow
Jan 16 at 2:35
Accepted answer updated as requested
– Chris Fulstow
Jan 16 at 2:35
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
The best way to do this is to use the aggregation framework to compute our new field.
MongoDB 3.4
The most efficient solution is in MongoDB 3.4 using the $addFields
and the $out
aggregation pipeline operators.
db.collection.aggregate(
[
{ "$addFields": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}},
{ "$out": "collection" }
]
)
Note that this does not update your collection but instead replace the existing collection or create a new one. Also for update operations that require "type casting" you will need client side processing, and depending on the operation, you may need to use the find()
method instead of the .aggreate()
method.
MongoDB 3.2 and 3.0
The way we do this is by $project
ing our documents and use the $concat
string aggregation operator to return the concatenated string.
we From there, you then iterate the cursor and use the $set
update operator to add the new field to your documents using bulk operations for maximum efficiency.
Aggregation query:
var cursor = db.collection.aggregate([
{ "$project": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}}
])
MongoDB 3.2 or newer
from this, you need to use the bulkWrite
method.
var requests = ;
cursor.forEach(document => {
requests.push( {
'updateOne': {
'filter': { '_id': document._id },
'update': { '$set': { 'name': document.name } }
}
});
if (requests.length === 500) {
//Execute per 500 operations and re-init
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
requests = ;
}
});
if(requests.length > 0) {
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
}
MongoDB 2.6 and 3.0
From this version you need to use the now deprecated Bulk
API and its associated methods.
var bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
var count = 0;
cursor.snapshot().forEach(function(document) {
bulk.find({ '_id': document._id }).updateOne( {
'$set': { 'name': document.name }
});
count++;
if(count%500 === 0) {
// Excecute per 500 operations and re-init
bulk.execute();
bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
}
})
// clean up queues
if(count > 0) {
bulk.execute();
}
MongoDB 2.4
cursor["result"].forEach(function(document) {
db.collection.update(
{ "_id": document._id },
{ "$set": { "name": document.name } }
);
})
Great answer. Just wondering, is calling.length
every iteration in mongo is as slow as regular javascript, where it recalculates the length on every call?
– notbad.jpeg
Sep 15 '16 at 16:58
2
@notbad.jpeg I can say whether it is slow or not but thelength
property is check at each iteration. This is something I will need to check later. Another option if that is slow is to use a counter which you then increment by 1 at each iteration.
– styvane
Sep 15 '16 at 19:40
8
The answer does well to summarize approaches and I know it's formed addressing the specific update request mentioned in the question, however one small niggle is too many people are jumping to the aggregation method. This really needs a BOLD disclaimer that this in fact 1. Creates a new collection rather than updating the existing one. 2. Needs to be avoided when "casting types". I.E The common mistake of storing "strings" instead ofDate
and needing to convert. I for one would be very happy if this was prominent, and not just a little comment tacked on the end.
– Neil Lunn
Jun 17 '17 at 9:39
It seems that the aggregate() approach is not fully equivalent to what update() does, because the records that do not get touched by the filter/$match would be missing in the target collection and disappear from the original if it is specified as target.
– Sergey Shcherbakov
Mar 20 '18 at 10:15
4
So, still we cannot refer to a document by itself in MongoDB? I don't want to create a new collection just to add one column!
– Homam
Aug 29 '18 at 5:27
|
show 4 more comments
You should iterate through. For your specific case:
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
4
What happens if another user has changed the document between your find() and your save()?
– UpTheCreek
Feb 15 '13 at 11:33
3
True, but copying between fields should not require transactions to be atomic.
– UpTheCreek
Feb 19 '13 at 9:25
3
It's important to notice thatsave()
fully replaces the document. Should useupdate()
instead.
– EdMelo
Mar 22 '13 at 21:44
11
How aboutdb.person.update( { _id: elem._id }, { $set: { name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname } } );
– Philipp Jardas
Aug 19 '13 at 13:34
1
+1. Wrong format for update, doesn't work as currently formulated.
– Viktor Hedefalk
Sep 5 '13 at 9:46
|
show 10 more comments
Apparently there is a way to do this efficiently since MongoDB 3.4, see styvane's answer.
Obsolete answer below
You cannot refer to the document itself in an update (yet). You'll need to iterate through the documents and update each document using a function. See this answer for an example, or this one for server-side eval()
.
31
Is this still valid today?
– Christian Engel
Jan 12 '13 at 22:08
3
@ChristianEngel: It appears so. I wasn't able to find anything in the MongoDB docs that mentions a reference to the current document in anupdate
operation. This related feature request is still unresolved as well.
– Niels van der Rest
Jan 14 '13 at 12:28
4
Is it still valid in April 2017? Or there are already new features which can do this?
– Kim
Apr 26 '17 at 12:01
1
@Kim It looks like it is still valid. Also, the feature request that @niels-van-der-rest pointed out back in 2013 is still inOPEN
.
– Danziger
May 3 '17 at 22:30
8
this is not a valid answer anymore, have a look at @styvane answer
– aitchkhan
Mar 11 '18 at 18:28
|
show 2 more comments
For a database with high activity, you may run into issues where your updates affect actively changing records and for this reason I recommend using snapshot()
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach( function (hombre) {
hombre.name = hombre.firstName + ' ' + hombre.lastName;
db.person.save(hombre);
});
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/method/cursor.snapshot/
2
What happens if another user edited the person between the find() and save()? I have a case where multiple calls can be done to the same object changing them based on their current values. The 2nd user should have to wait with reading until the 1st is done with saving. Does this accomplish that?
– Marco
Oct 11 '17 at 12:48
4
About thesnapshot()
:Deprecated in the mongo Shell since v3.2. Starting in v3.2, the $snapshot operator is deprecated in the mongo shell. In the mongo shell, use cursor.snapshot() instead.
link
– ppython
Dec 20 '17 at 14:52
add a comment |
I tried the above solution but I found it unsuitable for large amounts of data. I then discovered the stream feature:
MongoClient.connect("...", function(err, db){
var c = db.collection('yourCollection');
var s = c.find({/* your query */}).stream();
s.on('data', function(doc){
c.update({_id: doc._id}, {$set: {name : doc.firstName + ' ' + doc.lastName}}, function(err, result) { /* result == true? */} }
});
s.on('end', function(){
// stream can end before all your updates do if you have a lot
})
})
1
How is this different? Will the steam be throttled by the update activity? Do you have any reference to it? The Mongo docs are quite poor.
– Nico
Nov 21 '16 at 14:58
add a comment |
Here's what we came up with for copying one field to another for ~150_000 records. It took about 6 minutes, but is still significantly less resource intensive than it would have been to instantiate and iterate over the same number of ruby objects.
js_query = %({
$or : [
{
'settings.mobile_notifications' : { $exists : false },
'settings.mobile_admin_notifications' : { $exists : false }
}
]
})
js_for_each = %(function(user) {
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_notifications = user.settings.email_notifications;
}
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_admin_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_admin_notifications = user.settings.email_admin_notifications;
}
db.users.save(user);
})
js = "db.users.find(#{js_query}).forEach(#{js_for_each});"
Mongoid::Sessions.default.command('$eval' => js)
add a comment |
Regarding this answer, the snapshot function is deprecated in version 3.6, according to this update. So, on version 3.6 and above, it is possible to perform the operation this way:
db.person.find().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
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%2f3974985%2fupdate-mongodb-field-using-value-of-another-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The best way to do this is to use the aggregation framework to compute our new field.
MongoDB 3.4
The most efficient solution is in MongoDB 3.4 using the $addFields
and the $out
aggregation pipeline operators.
db.collection.aggregate(
[
{ "$addFields": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}},
{ "$out": "collection" }
]
)
Note that this does not update your collection but instead replace the existing collection or create a new one. Also for update operations that require "type casting" you will need client side processing, and depending on the operation, you may need to use the find()
method instead of the .aggreate()
method.
MongoDB 3.2 and 3.0
The way we do this is by $project
ing our documents and use the $concat
string aggregation operator to return the concatenated string.
we From there, you then iterate the cursor and use the $set
update operator to add the new field to your documents using bulk operations for maximum efficiency.
Aggregation query:
var cursor = db.collection.aggregate([
{ "$project": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}}
])
MongoDB 3.2 or newer
from this, you need to use the bulkWrite
method.
var requests = ;
cursor.forEach(document => {
requests.push( {
'updateOne': {
'filter': { '_id': document._id },
'update': { '$set': { 'name': document.name } }
}
});
if (requests.length === 500) {
//Execute per 500 operations and re-init
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
requests = ;
}
});
if(requests.length > 0) {
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
}
MongoDB 2.6 and 3.0
From this version you need to use the now deprecated Bulk
API and its associated methods.
var bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
var count = 0;
cursor.snapshot().forEach(function(document) {
bulk.find({ '_id': document._id }).updateOne( {
'$set': { 'name': document.name }
});
count++;
if(count%500 === 0) {
// Excecute per 500 operations and re-init
bulk.execute();
bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
}
})
// clean up queues
if(count > 0) {
bulk.execute();
}
MongoDB 2.4
cursor["result"].forEach(function(document) {
db.collection.update(
{ "_id": document._id },
{ "$set": { "name": document.name } }
);
})
Great answer. Just wondering, is calling.length
every iteration in mongo is as slow as regular javascript, where it recalculates the length on every call?
– notbad.jpeg
Sep 15 '16 at 16:58
2
@notbad.jpeg I can say whether it is slow or not but thelength
property is check at each iteration. This is something I will need to check later. Another option if that is slow is to use a counter which you then increment by 1 at each iteration.
– styvane
Sep 15 '16 at 19:40
8
The answer does well to summarize approaches and I know it's formed addressing the specific update request mentioned in the question, however one small niggle is too many people are jumping to the aggregation method. This really needs a BOLD disclaimer that this in fact 1. Creates a new collection rather than updating the existing one. 2. Needs to be avoided when "casting types". I.E The common mistake of storing "strings" instead ofDate
and needing to convert. I for one would be very happy if this was prominent, and not just a little comment tacked on the end.
– Neil Lunn
Jun 17 '17 at 9:39
It seems that the aggregate() approach is not fully equivalent to what update() does, because the records that do not get touched by the filter/$match would be missing in the target collection and disappear from the original if it is specified as target.
– Sergey Shcherbakov
Mar 20 '18 at 10:15
4
So, still we cannot refer to a document by itself in MongoDB? I don't want to create a new collection just to add one column!
– Homam
Aug 29 '18 at 5:27
|
show 4 more comments
The best way to do this is to use the aggregation framework to compute our new field.
MongoDB 3.4
The most efficient solution is in MongoDB 3.4 using the $addFields
and the $out
aggregation pipeline operators.
db.collection.aggregate(
[
{ "$addFields": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}},
{ "$out": "collection" }
]
)
Note that this does not update your collection but instead replace the existing collection or create a new one. Also for update operations that require "type casting" you will need client side processing, and depending on the operation, you may need to use the find()
method instead of the .aggreate()
method.
MongoDB 3.2 and 3.0
The way we do this is by $project
ing our documents and use the $concat
string aggregation operator to return the concatenated string.
we From there, you then iterate the cursor and use the $set
update operator to add the new field to your documents using bulk operations for maximum efficiency.
Aggregation query:
var cursor = db.collection.aggregate([
{ "$project": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}}
])
MongoDB 3.2 or newer
from this, you need to use the bulkWrite
method.
var requests = ;
cursor.forEach(document => {
requests.push( {
'updateOne': {
'filter': { '_id': document._id },
'update': { '$set': { 'name': document.name } }
}
});
if (requests.length === 500) {
//Execute per 500 operations and re-init
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
requests = ;
}
});
if(requests.length > 0) {
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
}
MongoDB 2.6 and 3.0
From this version you need to use the now deprecated Bulk
API and its associated methods.
var bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
var count = 0;
cursor.snapshot().forEach(function(document) {
bulk.find({ '_id': document._id }).updateOne( {
'$set': { 'name': document.name }
});
count++;
if(count%500 === 0) {
// Excecute per 500 operations and re-init
bulk.execute();
bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
}
})
// clean up queues
if(count > 0) {
bulk.execute();
}
MongoDB 2.4
cursor["result"].forEach(function(document) {
db.collection.update(
{ "_id": document._id },
{ "$set": { "name": document.name } }
);
})
Great answer. Just wondering, is calling.length
every iteration in mongo is as slow as regular javascript, where it recalculates the length on every call?
– notbad.jpeg
Sep 15 '16 at 16:58
2
@notbad.jpeg I can say whether it is slow or not but thelength
property is check at each iteration. This is something I will need to check later. Another option if that is slow is to use a counter which you then increment by 1 at each iteration.
– styvane
Sep 15 '16 at 19:40
8
The answer does well to summarize approaches and I know it's formed addressing the specific update request mentioned in the question, however one small niggle is too many people are jumping to the aggregation method. This really needs a BOLD disclaimer that this in fact 1. Creates a new collection rather than updating the existing one. 2. Needs to be avoided when "casting types". I.E The common mistake of storing "strings" instead ofDate
and needing to convert. I for one would be very happy if this was prominent, and not just a little comment tacked on the end.
– Neil Lunn
Jun 17 '17 at 9:39
It seems that the aggregate() approach is not fully equivalent to what update() does, because the records that do not get touched by the filter/$match would be missing in the target collection and disappear from the original if it is specified as target.
– Sergey Shcherbakov
Mar 20 '18 at 10:15
4
So, still we cannot refer to a document by itself in MongoDB? I don't want to create a new collection just to add one column!
– Homam
Aug 29 '18 at 5:27
|
show 4 more comments
The best way to do this is to use the aggregation framework to compute our new field.
MongoDB 3.4
The most efficient solution is in MongoDB 3.4 using the $addFields
and the $out
aggregation pipeline operators.
db.collection.aggregate(
[
{ "$addFields": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}},
{ "$out": "collection" }
]
)
Note that this does not update your collection but instead replace the existing collection or create a new one. Also for update operations that require "type casting" you will need client side processing, and depending on the operation, you may need to use the find()
method instead of the .aggreate()
method.
MongoDB 3.2 and 3.0
The way we do this is by $project
ing our documents and use the $concat
string aggregation operator to return the concatenated string.
we From there, you then iterate the cursor and use the $set
update operator to add the new field to your documents using bulk operations for maximum efficiency.
Aggregation query:
var cursor = db.collection.aggregate([
{ "$project": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}}
])
MongoDB 3.2 or newer
from this, you need to use the bulkWrite
method.
var requests = ;
cursor.forEach(document => {
requests.push( {
'updateOne': {
'filter': { '_id': document._id },
'update': { '$set': { 'name': document.name } }
}
});
if (requests.length === 500) {
//Execute per 500 operations and re-init
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
requests = ;
}
});
if(requests.length > 0) {
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
}
MongoDB 2.6 and 3.0
From this version you need to use the now deprecated Bulk
API and its associated methods.
var bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
var count = 0;
cursor.snapshot().forEach(function(document) {
bulk.find({ '_id': document._id }).updateOne( {
'$set': { 'name': document.name }
});
count++;
if(count%500 === 0) {
// Excecute per 500 operations and re-init
bulk.execute();
bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
}
})
// clean up queues
if(count > 0) {
bulk.execute();
}
MongoDB 2.4
cursor["result"].forEach(function(document) {
db.collection.update(
{ "_id": document._id },
{ "$set": { "name": document.name } }
);
})
The best way to do this is to use the aggregation framework to compute our new field.
MongoDB 3.4
The most efficient solution is in MongoDB 3.4 using the $addFields
and the $out
aggregation pipeline operators.
db.collection.aggregate(
[
{ "$addFields": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}},
{ "$out": "collection" }
]
)
Note that this does not update your collection but instead replace the existing collection or create a new one. Also for update operations that require "type casting" you will need client side processing, and depending on the operation, you may need to use the find()
method instead of the .aggreate()
method.
MongoDB 3.2 and 3.0
The way we do this is by $project
ing our documents and use the $concat
string aggregation operator to return the concatenated string.
we From there, you then iterate the cursor and use the $set
update operator to add the new field to your documents using bulk operations for maximum efficiency.
Aggregation query:
var cursor = db.collection.aggregate([
{ "$project": {
"name": { "$concat": [ "$firstName", " ", "$lastName" ] }
}}
])
MongoDB 3.2 or newer
from this, you need to use the bulkWrite
method.
var requests = ;
cursor.forEach(document => {
requests.push( {
'updateOne': {
'filter': { '_id': document._id },
'update': { '$set': { 'name': document.name } }
}
});
if (requests.length === 500) {
//Execute per 500 operations and re-init
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
requests = ;
}
});
if(requests.length > 0) {
db.collection.bulkWrite(requests);
}
MongoDB 2.6 and 3.0
From this version you need to use the now deprecated Bulk
API and its associated methods.
var bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
var count = 0;
cursor.snapshot().forEach(function(document) {
bulk.find({ '_id': document._id }).updateOne( {
'$set': { 'name': document.name }
});
count++;
if(count%500 === 0) {
// Excecute per 500 operations and re-init
bulk.execute();
bulk = db.collection.initializeUnorderedBulkOp();
}
})
// clean up queues
if(count > 0) {
bulk.execute();
}
MongoDB 2.4
cursor["result"].forEach(function(document) {
db.collection.update(
{ "_id": document._id },
{ "$set": { "name": document.name } }
);
})
edited Jun 24 '17 at 18:29
answered May 17 '16 at 15:27
styvanestyvane
36.9k1485106
36.9k1485106
Great answer. Just wondering, is calling.length
every iteration in mongo is as slow as regular javascript, where it recalculates the length on every call?
– notbad.jpeg
Sep 15 '16 at 16:58
2
@notbad.jpeg I can say whether it is slow or not but thelength
property is check at each iteration. This is something I will need to check later. Another option if that is slow is to use a counter which you then increment by 1 at each iteration.
– styvane
Sep 15 '16 at 19:40
8
The answer does well to summarize approaches and I know it's formed addressing the specific update request mentioned in the question, however one small niggle is too many people are jumping to the aggregation method. This really needs a BOLD disclaimer that this in fact 1. Creates a new collection rather than updating the existing one. 2. Needs to be avoided when "casting types". I.E The common mistake of storing "strings" instead ofDate
and needing to convert. I for one would be very happy if this was prominent, and not just a little comment tacked on the end.
– Neil Lunn
Jun 17 '17 at 9:39
It seems that the aggregate() approach is not fully equivalent to what update() does, because the records that do not get touched by the filter/$match would be missing in the target collection and disappear from the original if it is specified as target.
– Sergey Shcherbakov
Mar 20 '18 at 10:15
4
So, still we cannot refer to a document by itself in MongoDB? I don't want to create a new collection just to add one column!
– Homam
Aug 29 '18 at 5:27
|
show 4 more comments
Great answer. Just wondering, is calling.length
every iteration in mongo is as slow as regular javascript, where it recalculates the length on every call?
– notbad.jpeg
Sep 15 '16 at 16:58
2
@notbad.jpeg I can say whether it is slow or not but thelength
property is check at each iteration. This is something I will need to check later. Another option if that is slow is to use a counter which you then increment by 1 at each iteration.
– styvane
Sep 15 '16 at 19:40
8
The answer does well to summarize approaches and I know it's formed addressing the specific update request mentioned in the question, however one small niggle is too many people are jumping to the aggregation method. This really needs a BOLD disclaimer that this in fact 1. Creates a new collection rather than updating the existing one. 2. Needs to be avoided when "casting types". I.E The common mistake of storing "strings" instead ofDate
and needing to convert. I for one would be very happy if this was prominent, and not just a little comment tacked on the end.
– Neil Lunn
Jun 17 '17 at 9:39
It seems that the aggregate() approach is not fully equivalent to what update() does, because the records that do not get touched by the filter/$match would be missing in the target collection and disappear from the original if it is specified as target.
– Sergey Shcherbakov
Mar 20 '18 at 10:15
4
So, still we cannot refer to a document by itself in MongoDB? I don't want to create a new collection just to add one column!
– Homam
Aug 29 '18 at 5:27
Great answer. Just wondering, is calling
.length
every iteration in mongo is as slow as regular javascript, where it recalculates the length on every call?– notbad.jpeg
Sep 15 '16 at 16:58
Great answer. Just wondering, is calling
.length
every iteration in mongo is as slow as regular javascript, where it recalculates the length on every call?– notbad.jpeg
Sep 15 '16 at 16:58
2
2
@notbad.jpeg I can say whether it is slow or not but the
length
property is check at each iteration. This is something I will need to check later. Another option if that is slow is to use a counter which you then increment by 1 at each iteration.– styvane
Sep 15 '16 at 19:40
@notbad.jpeg I can say whether it is slow or not but the
length
property is check at each iteration. This is something I will need to check later. Another option if that is slow is to use a counter which you then increment by 1 at each iteration.– styvane
Sep 15 '16 at 19:40
8
8
The answer does well to summarize approaches and I know it's formed addressing the specific update request mentioned in the question, however one small niggle is too many people are jumping to the aggregation method. This really needs a BOLD disclaimer that this in fact 1. Creates a new collection rather than updating the existing one. 2. Needs to be avoided when "casting types". I.E The common mistake of storing "strings" instead of
Date
and needing to convert. I for one would be very happy if this was prominent, and not just a little comment tacked on the end.– Neil Lunn
Jun 17 '17 at 9:39
The answer does well to summarize approaches and I know it's formed addressing the specific update request mentioned in the question, however one small niggle is too many people are jumping to the aggregation method. This really needs a BOLD disclaimer that this in fact 1. Creates a new collection rather than updating the existing one. 2. Needs to be avoided when "casting types". I.E The common mistake of storing "strings" instead of
Date
and needing to convert. I for one would be very happy if this was prominent, and not just a little comment tacked on the end.– Neil Lunn
Jun 17 '17 at 9:39
It seems that the aggregate() approach is not fully equivalent to what update() does, because the records that do not get touched by the filter/$match would be missing in the target collection and disappear from the original if it is specified as target.
– Sergey Shcherbakov
Mar 20 '18 at 10:15
It seems that the aggregate() approach is not fully equivalent to what update() does, because the records that do not get touched by the filter/$match would be missing in the target collection and disappear from the original if it is specified as target.
– Sergey Shcherbakov
Mar 20 '18 at 10:15
4
4
So, still we cannot refer to a document by itself in MongoDB? I don't want to create a new collection just to add one column!
– Homam
Aug 29 '18 at 5:27
So, still we cannot refer to a document by itself in MongoDB? I don't want to create a new collection just to add one column!
– Homam
Aug 29 '18 at 5:27
|
show 4 more comments
You should iterate through. For your specific case:
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
4
What happens if another user has changed the document between your find() and your save()?
– UpTheCreek
Feb 15 '13 at 11:33
3
True, but copying between fields should not require transactions to be atomic.
– UpTheCreek
Feb 19 '13 at 9:25
3
It's important to notice thatsave()
fully replaces the document. Should useupdate()
instead.
– EdMelo
Mar 22 '13 at 21:44
11
How aboutdb.person.update( { _id: elem._id }, { $set: { name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname } } );
– Philipp Jardas
Aug 19 '13 at 13:34
1
+1. Wrong format for update, doesn't work as currently formulated.
– Viktor Hedefalk
Sep 5 '13 at 9:46
|
show 10 more comments
You should iterate through. For your specific case:
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
4
What happens if another user has changed the document between your find() and your save()?
– UpTheCreek
Feb 15 '13 at 11:33
3
True, but copying between fields should not require transactions to be atomic.
– UpTheCreek
Feb 19 '13 at 9:25
3
It's important to notice thatsave()
fully replaces the document. Should useupdate()
instead.
– EdMelo
Mar 22 '13 at 21:44
11
How aboutdb.person.update( { _id: elem._id }, { $set: { name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname } } );
– Philipp Jardas
Aug 19 '13 at 13:34
1
+1. Wrong format for update, doesn't work as currently formulated.
– Viktor Hedefalk
Sep 5 '13 at 9:46
|
show 10 more comments
You should iterate through. For your specific case:
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
You should iterate through. For your specific case:
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
edited Oct 28 '15 at 5:24
evandrix
4,83232330
4,83232330
answered Jan 20 '13 at 9:17
Carlos BarcelonaCarlos Barcelona
4,51732538
4,51732538
4
What happens if another user has changed the document between your find() and your save()?
– UpTheCreek
Feb 15 '13 at 11:33
3
True, but copying between fields should not require transactions to be atomic.
– UpTheCreek
Feb 19 '13 at 9:25
3
It's important to notice thatsave()
fully replaces the document. Should useupdate()
instead.
– EdMelo
Mar 22 '13 at 21:44
11
How aboutdb.person.update( { _id: elem._id }, { $set: { name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname } } );
– Philipp Jardas
Aug 19 '13 at 13:34
1
+1. Wrong format for update, doesn't work as currently formulated.
– Viktor Hedefalk
Sep 5 '13 at 9:46
|
show 10 more comments
4
What happens if another user has changed the document between your find() and your save()?
– UpTheCreek
Feb 15 '13 at 11:33
3
True, but copying between fields should not require transactions to be atomic.
– UpTheCreek
Feb 19 '13 at 9:25
3
It's important to notice thatsave()
fully replaces the document. Should useupdate()
instead.
– EdMelo
Mar 22 '13 at 21:44
11
How aboutdb.person.update( { _id: elem._id }, { $set: { name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname } } );
– Philipp Jardas
Aug 19 '13 at 13:34
1
+1. Wrong format for update, doesn't work as currently formulated.
– Viktor Hedefalk
Sep 5 '13 at 9:46
4
4
What happens if another user has changed the document between your find() and your save()?
– UpTheCreek
Feb 15 '13 at 11:33
What happens if another user has changed the document between your find() and your save()?
– UpTheCreek
Feb 15 '13 at 11:33
3
3
True, but copying between fields should not require transactions to be atomic.
– UpTheCreek
Feb 19 '13 at 9:25
True, but copying between fields should not require transactions to be atomic.
– UpTheCreek
Feb 19 '13 at 9:25
3
3
It's important to notice that
save()
fully replaces the document. Should use update()
instead.– EdMelo
Mar 22 '13 at 21:44
It's important to notice that
save()
fully replaces the document. Should use update()
instead.– EdMelo
Mar 22 '13 at 21:44
11
11
How about
db.person.update( { _id: elem._id }, { $set: { name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname } } );
– Philipp Jardas
Aug 19 '13 at 13:34
How about
db.person.update( { _id: elem._id }, { $set: { name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname } } );
– Philipp Jardas
Aug 19 '13 at 13:34
1
1
+1. Wrong format for update, doesn't work as currently formulated.
– Viktor Hedefalk
Sep 5 '13 at 9:46
+1. Wrong format for update, doesn't work as currently formulated.
– Viktor Hedefalk
Sep 5 '13 at 9:46
|
show 10 more comments
Apparently there is a way to do this efficiently since MongoDB 3.4, see styvane's answer.
Obsolete answer below
You cannot refer to the document itself in an update (yet). You'll need to iterate through the documents and update each document using a function. See this answer for an example, or this one for server-side eval()
.
31
Is this still valid today?
– Christian Engel
Jan 12 '13 at 22:08
3
@ChristianEngel: It appears so. I wasn't able to find anything in the MongoDB docs that mentions a reference to the current document in anupdate
operation. This related feature request is still unresolved as well.
– Niels van der Rest
Jan 14 '13 at 12:28
4
Is it still valid in April 2017? Or there are already new features which can do this?
– Kim
Apr 26 '17 at 12:01
1
@Kim It looks like it is still valid. Also, the feature request that @niels-van-der-rest pointed out back in 2013 is still inOPEN
.
– Danziger
May 3 '17 at 22:30
8
this is not a valid answer anymore, have a look at @styvane answer
– aitchkhan
Mar 11 '18 at 18:28
|
show 2 more comments
Apparently there is a way to do this efficiently since MongoDB 3.4, see styvane's answer.
Obsolete answer below
You cannot refer to the document itself in an update (yet). You'll need to iterate through the documents and update each document using a function. See this answer for an example, or this one for server-side eval()
.
31
Is this still valid today?
– Christian Engel
Jan 12 '13 at 22:08
3
@ChristianEngel: It appears so. I wasn't able to find anything in the MongoDB docs that mentions a reference to the current document in anupdate
operation. This related feature request is still unresolved as well.
– Niels van der Rest
Jan 14 '13 at 12:28
4
Is it still valid in April 2017? Or there are already new features which can do this?
– Kim
Apr 26 '17 at 12:01
1
@Kim It looks like it is still valid. Also, the feature request that @niels-van-der-rest pointed out back in 2013 is still inOPEN
.
– Danziger
May 3 '17 at 22:30
8
this is not a valid answer anymore, have a look at @styvane answer
– aitchkhan
Mar 11 '18 at 18:28
|
show 2 more comments
Apparently there is a way to do this efficiently since MongoDB 3.4, see styvane's answer.
Obsolete answer below
You cannot refer to the document itself in an update (yet). You'll need to iterate through the documents and update each document using a function. See this answer for an example, or this one for server-side eval()
.
Apparently there is a way to do this efficiently since MongoDB 3.4, see styvane's answer.
Obsolete answer below
You cannot refer to the document itself in an update (yet). You'll need to iterate through the documents and update each document using a function. See this answer for an example, or this one for server-side eval()
.
edited Oct 29 '18 at 7:56
answered Oct 20 '10 at 9:03
Niels van der RestNiels van der Rest
23.5k137182
23.5k137182
31
Is this still valid today?
– Christian Engel
Jan 12 '13 at 22:08
3
@ChristianEngel: It appears so. I wasn't able to find anything in the MongoDB docs that mentions a reference to the current document in anupdate
operation. This related feature request is still unresolved as well.
– Niels van der Rest
Jan 14 '13 at 12:28
4
Is it still valid in April 2017? Or there are already new features which can do this?
– Kim
Apr 26 '17 at 12:01
1
@Kim It looks like it is still valid. Also, the feature request that @niels-van-der-rest pointed out back in 2013 is still inOPEN
.
– Danziger
May 3 '17 at 22:30
8
this is not a valid answer anymore, have a look at @styvane answer
– aitchkhan
Mar 11 '18 at 18:28
|
show 2 more comments
31
Is this still valid today?
– Christian Engel
Jan 12 '13 at 22:08
3
@ChristianEngel: It appears so. I wasn't able to find anything in the MongoDB docs that mentions a reference to the current document in anupdate
operation. This related feature request is still unresolved as well.
– Niels van der Rest
Jan 14 '13 at 12:28
4
Is it still valid in April 2017? Or there are already new features which can do this?
– Kim
Apr 26 '17 at 12:01
1
@Kim It looks like it is still valid. Also, the feature request that @niels-van-der-rest pointed out back in 2013 is still inOPEN
.
– Danziger
May 3 '17 at 22:30
8
this is not a valid answer anymore, have a look at @styvane answer
– aitchkhan
Mar 11 '18 at 18:28
31
31
Is this still valid today?
– Christian Engel
Jan 12 '13 at 22:08
Is this still valid today?
– Christian Engel
Jan 12 '13 at 22:08
3
3
@ChristianEngel: It appears so. I wasn't able to find anything in the MongoDB docs that mentions a reference to the current document in an
update
operation. This related feature request is still unresolved as well.– Niels van der Rest
Jan 14 '13 at 12:28
@ChristianEngel: It appears so. I wasn't able to find anything in the MongoDB docs that mentions a reference to the current document in an
update
operation. This related feature request is still unresolved as well.– Niels van der Rest
Jan 14 '13 at 12:28
4
4
Is it still valid in April 2017? Or there are already new features which can do this?
– Kim
Apr 26 '17 at 12:01
Is it still valid in April 2017? Or there are already new features which can do this?
– Kim
Apr 26 '17 at 12:01
1
1
@Kim It looks like it is still valid. Also, the feature request that @niels-van-der-rest pointed out back in 2013 is still in
OPEN
.– Danziger
May 3 '17 at 22:30
@Kim It looks like it is still valid. Also, the feature request that @niels-van-der-rest pointed out back in 2013 is still in
OPEN
.– Danziger
May 3 '17 at 22:30
8
8
this is not a valid answer anymore, have a look at @styvane answer
– aitchkhan
Mar 11 '18 at 18:28
this is not a valid answer anymore, have a look at @styvane answer
– aitchkhan
Mar 11 '18 at 18:28
|
show 2 more comments
For a database with high activity, you may run into issues where your updates affect actively changing records and for this reason I recommend using snapshot()
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach( function (hombre) {
hombre.name = hombre.firstName + ' ' + hombre.lastName;
db.person.save(hombre);
});
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/method/cursor.snapshot/
2
What happens if another user edited the person between the find() and save()? I have a case where multiple calls can be done to the same object changing them based on their current values. The 2nd user should have to wait with reading until the 1st is done with saving. Does this accomplish that?
– Marco
Oct 11 '17 at 12:48
4
About thesnapshot()
:Deprecated in the mongo Shell since v3.2. Starting in v3.2, the $snapshot operator is deprecated in the mongo shell. In the mongo shell, use cursor.snapshot() instead.
link
– ppython
Dec 20 '17 at 14:52
add a comment |
For a database with high activity, you may run into issues where your updates affect actively changing records and for this reason I recommend using snapshot()
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach( function (hombre) {
hombre.name = hombre.firstName + ' ' + hombre.lastName;
db.person.save(hombre);
});
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/method/cursor.snapshot/
2
What happens if another user edited the person between the find() and save()? I have a case where multiple calls can be done to the same object changing them based on their current values. The 2nd user should have to wait with reading until the 1st is done with saving. Does this accomplish that?
– Marco
Oct 11 '17 at 12:48
4
About thesnapshot()
:Deprecated in the mongo Shell since v3.2. Starting in v3.2, the $snapshot operator is deprecated in the mongo shell. In the mongo shell, use cursor.snapshot() instead.
link
– ppython
Dec 20 '17 at 14:52
add a comment |
For a database with high activity, you may run into issues where your updates affect actively changing records and for this reason I recommend using snapshot()
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach( function (hombre) {
hombre.name = hombre.firstName + ' ' + hombre.lastName;
db.person.save(hombre);
});
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/method/cursor.snapshot/
For a database with high activity, you may run into issues where your updates affect actively changing records and for this reason I recommend using snapshot()
db.person.find().snapshot().forEach( function (hombre) {
hombre.name = hombre.firstName + ' ' + hombre.lastName;
db.person.save(hombre);
});
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/method/cursor.snapshot/
answered Feb 11 '15 at 16:58
Eric KigathiEric Kigathi
1,2091519
1,2091519
2
What happens if another user edited the person between the find() and save()? I have a case where multiple calls can be done to the same object changing them based on their current values. The 2nd user should have to wait with reading until the 1st is done with saving. Does this accomplish that?
– Marco
Oct 11 '17 at 12:48
4
About thesnapshot()
:Deprecated in the mongo Shell since v3.2. Starting in v3.2, the $snapshot operator is deprecated in the mongo shell. In the mongo shell, use cursor.snapshot() instead.
link
– ppython
Dec 20 '17 at 14:52
add a comment |
2
What happens if another user edited the person between the find() and save()? I have a case where multiple calls can be done to the same object changing them based on their current values. The 2nd user should have to wait with reading until the 1st is done with saving. Does this accomplish that?
– Marco
Oct 11 '17 at 12:48
4
About thesnapshot()
:Deprecated in the mongo Shell since v3.2. Starting in v3.2, the $snapshot operator is deprecated in the mongo shell. In the mongo shell, use cursor.snapshot() instead.
link
– ppython
Dec 20 '17 at 14:52
2
2
What happens if another user edited the person between the find() and save()? I have a case where multiple calls can be done to the same object changing them based on their current values. The 2nd user should have to wait with reading until the 1st is done with saving. Does this accomplish that?
– Marco
Oct 11 '17 at 12:48
What happens if another user edited the person between the find() and save()? I have a case where multiple calls can be done to the same object changing them based on their current values. The 2nd user should have to wait with reading until the 1st is done with saving. Does this accomplish that?
– Marco
Oct 11 '17 at 12:48
4
4
About the
snapshot()
: Deprecated in the mongo Shell since v3.2. Starting in v3.2, the $snapshot operator is deprecated in the mongo shell. In the mongo shell, use cursor.snapshot() instead.
link– ppython
Dec 20 '17 at 14:52
About the
snapshot()
: Deprecated in the mongo Shell since v3.2. Starting in v3.2, the $snapshot operator is deprecated in the mongo shell. In the mongo shell, use cursor.snapshot() instead.
link– ppython
Dec 20 '17 at 14:52
add a comment |
I tried the above solution but I found it unsuitable for large amounts of data. I then discovered the stream feature:
MongoClient.connect("...", function(err, db){
var c = db.collection('yourCollection');
var s = c.find({/* your query */}).stream();
s.on('data', function(doc){
c.update({_id: doc._id}, {$set: {name : doc.firstName + ' ' + doc.lastName}}, function(err, result) { /* result == true? */} }
});
s.on('end', function(){
// stream can end before all your updates do if you have a lot
})
})
1
How is this different? Will the steam be throttled by the update activity? Do you have any reference to it? The Mongo docs are quite poor.
– Nico
Nov 21 '16 at 14:58
add a comment |
I tried the above solution but I found it unsuitable for large amounts of data. I then discovered the stream feature:
MongoClient.connect("...", function(err, db){
var c = db.collection('yourCollection');
var s = c.find({/* your query */}).stream();
s.on('data', function(doc){
c.update({_id: doc._id}, {$set: {name : doc.firstName + ' ' + doc.lastName}}, function(err, result) { /* result == true? */} }
});
s.on('end', function(){
// stream can end before all your updates do if you have a lot
})
})
1
How is this different? Will the steam be throttled by the update activity? Do you have any reference to it? The Mongo docs are quite poor.
– Nico
Nov 21 '16 at 14:58
add a comment |
I tried the above solution but I found it unsuitable for large amounts of data. I then discovered the stream feature:
MongoClient.connect("...", function(err, db){
var c = db.collection('yourCollection');
var s = c.find({/* your query */}).stream();
s.on('data', function(doc){
c.update({_id: doc._id}, {$set: {name : doc.firstName + ' ' + doc.lastName}}, function(err, result) { /* result == true? */} }
});
s.on('end', function(){
// stream can end before all your updates do if you have a lot
})
})
I tried the above solution but I found it unsuitable for large amounts of data. I then discovered the stream feature:
MongoClient.connect("...", function(err, db){
var c = db.collection('yourCollection');
var s = c.find({/* your query */}).stream();
s.on('data', function(doc){
c.update({_id: doc._id}, {$set: {name : doc.firstName + ' ' + doc.lastName}}, function(err, result) { /* result == true? */} }
});
s.on('end', function(){
// stream can end before all your updates do if you have a lot
})
})
answered Apr 3 '15 at 11:44
Chris GibbChris Gibb
51258
51258
1
How is this different? Will the steam be throttled by the update activity? Do you have any reference to it? The Mongo docs are quite poor.
– Nico
Nov 21 '16 at 14:58
add a comment |
1
How is this different? Will the steam be throttled by the update activity? Do you have any reference to it? The Mongo docs are quite poor.
– Nico
Nov 21 '16 at 14:58
1
1
How is this different? Will the steam be throttled by the update activity? Do you have any reference to it? The Mongo docs are quite poor.
– Nico
Nov 21 '16 at 14:58
How is this different? Will the steam be throttled by the update activity? Do you have any reference to it? The Mongo docs are quite poor.
– Nico
Nov 21 '16 at 14:58
add a comment |
Here's what we came up with for copying one field to another for ~150_000 records. It took about 6 minutes, but is still significantly less resource intensive than it would have been to instantiate and iterate over the same number of ruby objects.
js_query = %({
$or : [
{
'settings.mobile_notifications' : { $exists : false },
'settings.mobile_admin_notifications' : { $exists : false }
}
]
})
js_for_each = %(function(user) {
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_notifications = user.settings.email_notifications;
}
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_admin_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_admin_notifications = user.settings.email_admin_notifications;
}
db.users.save(user);
})
js = "db.users.find(#{js_query}).forEach(#{js_for_each});"
Mongoid::Sessions.default.command('$eval' => js)
add a comment |
Here's what we came up with for copying one field to another for ~150_000 records. It took about 6 minutes, but is still significantly less resource intensive than it would have been to instantiate and iterate over the same number of ruby objects.
js_query = %({
$or : [
{
'settings.mobile_notifications' : { $exists : false },
'settings.mobile_admin_notifications' : { $exists : false }
}
]
})
js_for_each = %(function(user) {
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_notifications = user.settings.email_notifications;
}
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_admin_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_admin_notifications = user.settings.email_admin_notifications;
}
db.users.save(user);
})
js = "db.users.find(#{js_query}).forEach(#{js_for_each});"
Mongoid::Sessions.default.command('$eval' => js)
add a comment |
Here's what we came up with for copying one field to another for ~150_000 records. It took about 6 minutes, but is still significantly less resource intensive than it would have been to instantiate and iterate over the same number of ruby objects.
js_query = %({
$or : [
{
'settings.mobile_notifications' : { $exists : false },
'settings.mobile_admin_notifications' : { $exists : false }
}
]
})
js_for_each = %(function(user) {
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_notifications = user.settings.email_notifications;
}
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_admin_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_admin_notifications = user.settings.email_admin_notifications;
}
db.users.save(user);
})
js = "db.users.find(#{js_query}).forEach(#{js_for_each});"
Mongoid::Sessions.default.command('$eval' => js)
Here's what we came up with for copying one field to another for ~150_000 records. It took about 6 minutes, but is still significantly less resource intensive than it would have been to instantiate and iterate over the same number of ruby objects.
js_query = %({
$or : [
{
'settings.mobile_notifications' : { $exists : false },
'settings.mobile_admin_notifications' : { $exists : false }
}
]
})
js_for_each = %(function(user) {
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_notifications = user.settings.email_notifications;
}
if (!user.settings.hasOwnProperty('mobile_admin_notifications')) {
user.settings.mobile_admin_notifications = user.settings.email_admin_notifications;
}
db.users.save(user);
})
js = "db.users.find(#{js_query}).forEach(#{js_for_each});"
Mongoid::Sessions.default.command('$eval' => js)
answered Jun 8 '16 at 15:07
Chris BloomChris Bloom
2,51012743
2,51012743
add a comment |
add a comment |
Regarding this answer, the snapshot function is deprecated in version 3.6, according to this update. So, on version 3.6 and above, it is possible to perform the operation this way:
db.person.find().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
add a comment |
Regarding this answer, the snapshot function is deprecated in version 3.6, according to this update. So, on version 3.6 and above, it is possible to perform the operation this way:
db.person.find().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
add a comment |
Regarding this answer, the snapshot function is deprecated in version 3.6, according to this update. So, on version 3.6 and above, it is possible to perform the operation this way:
db.person.find().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
Regarding this answer, the snapshot function is deprecated in version 3.6, according to this update. So, on version 3.6 and above, it is possible to perform the operation this way:
db.person.find().forEach(
function (elem) {
db.person.update(
{
_id: elem._id
},
{
$set: {
name: elem.firstname + ' ' + elem.lastname
}
}
);
}
);
answered Jan 15 at 17:20
AldoAldo
177111
177111
add a comment |
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%2f3974985%2fupdate-mongodb-field-using-value-of-another-field%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
5
Good question. Maybe you need to wait for / vote for jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-458
– Thilo
Oct 20 '10 at 6:04
3
The precise feature request is jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-11345 - still open, not yet triaged.
– Vince Bowdren
Feb 16 '16 at 15:15
@Chris, could you please revise the accepted answer? It appears my answer is outdated.
– Niels van der Rest
Oct 29 '18 at 8:00
3
Accepted answer updated as requested
– Chris Fulstow
Jan 16 at 2:35