Hello! Is it possible have an array of IDs reference another collection? For instance, our contacts can have multiple tags. Would it be possible to reference the tags collection using an array of

tag_ids

on the contact, or would I need to build another collection like

contact_tags

for instance that has a reference to

contacts

and a reference to

tags

? I was able to create the collection with this field and fill the data, but I'm having trouble getting the queries to work. I'm guessing my syntax might be wrong or maybe it's not possible?

let searchParams = {
      q: '*',
      query_by: '',
      filter_by: '$tags(id:*)',
      include_fields: '$tags(*, strategy: nest_array)',
      page: 1,
      per_page: 50,
      // sort_by: '$tags(name:asc)',
    };

Hey @Dakota Sorenson are you getting the error when using

sort_by

?

@Harpreet Sangar Yeah I get the error when I try to reference the tags collection on sort by, filter by, etc

I think it should only return error for

sort_by

.

yeah that makes sense! I was mostly trying to get the include fields to work to return all the tags w each document

Since you are querying the collection that has the reference field, you don't have to specify filter_by.

include_fields: $tags(*)

should be enough.

I believe I had tried it with just

include_fields: '$tags(*, strategy: nest_array)'

as well and the query worked but didn't include the tags

Could you share your schema of

contacts

collection? Especially the definition of

contact_card

@Harpreet Sangar Sorry for the late reply! Here's the full schema. I ended up removing the reference for now since I couldn't get it working, and I added

tag_names

in the meantime.

tag_ids

is the field I tried to add the reference to (I commented it out in the schema)

let contactsSchema: CollectionCreateSchema = {
    name: collectionName,
    enable_nested_fields: true,
    fields: [
      { name: 'account_id', type: 'string', optional: true, sort: false },
      { name: 'authorized_account_ids', type: 'string[]', optional: true, sort: false },
      { name: 'added_at', type: 'int64', optional: true, sort: true },
      {
        name: 'contact_card.associated_card_id',
        type: 'string',
        optional: true,
        sort: false,
      },
      {
        name: 'contact_card.associated_card_name',
        type: 'string',
        optional: true,
        sort: true,
      },
      { name: 'contact_card.company', type: 'string', optional: true, sort: true },
      {
        name: 'contact_card.contact_card_id',
        type: 'string',
        optional: true,
        sort: false,
      },
      {
        name: 'contact_card.contact_id',
        type: 'string',
        optional: true,
        sort: false,
      },
      {
        name: 'contact_card.family_name',
        type: 'string',
        optional: true,
        sort: true,
      },
      {
        name: 'contact_card.given_name',
        type: 'string',
        optional: true,
        sort: true,
      },
      { name: 'contact_card.is_live_contact', type: 'bool', optional: true, sort: false },
      { name: 'contact_card.source', type: 'int32', optional: true, sort: false },
      { name: 'contact_card.tag_ids', type: 'string[]', optional: true, sort: false // reference: 'tags.id' },
      { name: 'contact_card.tag_names', type: 'string[]', optional: true, sort: false },
      { name: 'contact_card.title', type: 'string', optional: true, sort: true },
    ],
    token_separators: ['+', '-', '@', '.'],
  };

Can you share a sample document also? It seems like

contact_card

is an object in your document. If so, you can define

{ name: 'contact_card', type: 'object'}

Then the join should work.

Yes

contact_card

is an object in the doc! I can share a sample shortly Is it best practice to define an object like that normally on the schema, or is it just needed for the joins? I have other schemas where I'm using an object in the doc so I'm wondering if I should update those to add the specific object type/definition as well?

Is it best practice to define an object like that normally on the schema, or is it just needed for the joins?

I've only tested the reference field inside an object where I declared the object field. I'm not sure why joins didn't work without it. I'll check this.

Awesome thank you! I can start adding that if it's needed, I luckily haven't run into any issues without having it so far (other than the joins)