Inline field denormalization for Reference* mapping

[j]

Think of the following two documents:

<?php

/** @Document() */
class Survey {
    /** @Id() */
    public $id;

    /** @ReferenceMany(targetDocument="Question", embedFields={"question"}) */
    public $questions;
}

/** @Document() */
class Question {
    /** @Id() */
    public $id;

    /** @String() */
    public $question;
}

The mongo stored documents for surveys would look like:

{
    "_id": "...",
    "questions": [
        { "$ref": "...", "$id": "...", "$db": "...", "question": "Is ODM awesome?" },
        { "$ref": "...", "$id": "...", "$db": "...", "question": "Isn't this such a great feature?!" },
    ]
}

So that if you do the following, no extra finds will be triggered unless the field wasn't embedded in the referenced document data:

<?php

$questions = [];
foreach ($surveyRepository->find("...")->getQuestions() as $question) {
    $questions[$question->getId()] = $question->getQuestion();
}

Updates to the question may cascade unless configured to not do so, or the other way around. In most of my cases, a cascade can occur.. but if someone happens to use this feature on an active database with many records, then shit can hit the fan!

It'd be easy to create a document and manage it as if it were it's own document and just associate that to one thing and be embedded. I tend to use it this way in many cases... thus would limit many finds.

Another thing that can also solve this problem is to introduce caching, but that's another topic.

[tecbot]

I have implemented this for a long time for sharding: see #325 generally it makes the same what you explain here, but it's incomplete and need some rewrites to fit upstream.

[alcaeus]

As mentioned by @tecbot, this makes sense when using a sharded setup. I'll be revisiting this once #1349 is finished (since that involves some changes to the DBRef logic used by ODM)

[alcaeus]

I've started working on this a while ago (see #1527), but this won't make much sense until we've got the new array update operators that allow us to keep the data in sync (if the user so wishes).

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[techbelle]

@alcaeus can we 'un-stale-ify' this ? :)

[alcaeus]

@techbelle this is part of the 2.x milestone, so it won't be marked as stale again. That said, I haven't managed to make any progress on this or on the previously mentioned update operators, which IMO should take precedence over this.