Info

db.a.find() { "_id" : ObjectId("58ebbf82016ce019673b111c"), "a" : [ { "_id" : 1 }, { "_id" : 2 } ] } { "_id" : ObjectId("58ebbf8d016ce019673b111d"), "a" : [ { "_id" : 5 }, { "_id" : 12 } ] } > db.b.find() { "_id" : 1 } { "_id" : 2 } { "_id" : 3 } { "_id" : 5 } { "_id" : 12 } I would expect $lookup using "a._id" as localField to work since SERVER-22881 was fixed, however: db.a.aggregate({$lookup:{from:"b", localField:"a._id", foreignField:"_id", as:"details"}}) { "_id" : ObjectId("58ebbf82016ce019673b111c"), "a" : [ { "_id" : 1 }, { "_id" : 2 } ], "details" : [ ] } { "_id" : ObjectId("58ebbf8d016ce019673b111d"), "a" : [ { "_id" : 5 }, { "_id" : 12 } ], "details" : [ ] } "details" is properly populated only if I unwind "a" and use "a._id" or if I create another field first in $addFields or $project from "$a._id" (which makes it a simple array) then it works as localField: db.a.aggregate({$addFields:{a:"$a._id"}},{$lookup:{from:"b", localField:"a", foreignField:"_id", as:"details"}}) { "_id" : ObjectId("58ebbf82016ce019673b111c"), "a" : [ 1, 2 ], "details" : [ { "_id" : 1 }, { "_id" : 2 } ] } { "_id" : ObjectId("58ebbf8d016ce019673b111d"), "a" : [ 5, 12 ], "details" : [ { "_id" : 5 }, { "_id" : 12 } ] }

Top User Comments

david.storch commented on Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:31:05 +0000: Hi neillunn, yep, I totally agree that this would be a good enhancement to the query language, and that there is currently no easy way to express this kind of join operation. I think it's unlikely that we would address your request by altering the semantics of the $lookup stage, though admittedly we have yet to take this through the design approval process so I don't want to try and predict the outcome. By best guess is that instead we would introduce either a new $lookup option or a new aggregation stage which works as you expect with arrays. So new issue or not, there should at least be a solid note on "this issue" that it does not in fact address the common case of usage, but rather a somewhat "contrived" case that in practicality is not really used by anyone, nor asked for as a solution. Do you think that there are any extensions or clarifications we could make to the $lookup documentation in order to help clarify the current behavior? Best, Dave neillunn commented on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:35:41 +0000: I'm happy to file as a new issue and nearly almost did just that with the basic content here. I raised it on this issue because on three occasions now, MongoDB staff have pointed to this issue "incorrectly" in reference to the behavior I point out in the example as the intended pattern by questions raised on StackOverflow. So aside from "incorrectly" stating that this issue close "resolves" that behavior, the actual example on this issue seems rather contrived, and not really reflective of what the actual intended usage is with objects in an array, which is of course to "merge" rather than produce a "new" array of output for the joined property. Of course the "patch" could be used with other operations to achieve such a "merge" ( $map and $indexOfArray come to mind ), but I think the general community expectation is a "merge", just like what would happen with the $unwind form as is demonstrated. So new issue or not, there should at least be a solid note on "this issue" that it does not in fact address the common case of usage, but rather a somewhat "contrived" case that in practicality is not really used by anyone, nor asked for as a solution. Neil david.storch commented on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:30:49 +0000: Hi neillunn, your example is working as currently designed, but you make a very interesting point about missing functionality. It would be nice to have a way to easily express a join operation where each subdocument in an array is joined with the matching documents in a foreign collection. I think this should be tracked as a feature request in a new SERVER ticket. Would you like to file one? I'd also be happy to file it on your behalf. Best, Dave neillunn commented on Mon, 10 Jul 2017 02:02:40 +0000: I cannot see how this is actually fully resolved since there are still obvious problems if the output path is given for an existing path within the source array. db.a.insert([ { "a": [{ "_id": 1, "prop": 2 },{ "_id": 2, "prop": 3 }] } ]) db.b.insert([ { "_id": 1 }, { "_id": 2 }, { "_id": 3 } ]) And then using $lookup with the same "localField" and "as" output paths: db.a.aggregate([ { "$lookup": { "from": "b", "localField": "a._id", "foreignField": "_id", "as": "a._id" }} ]) The output is : { "_id" : ObjectId("5962dd75f5f11516540d118d"), "a" : { "_id" : [ { "_id" : 1.0 }, { "_id" : 2.0 } ] } } As opposed to treating with $unwind and rebuilding the array with $group: db.a.aggregate([ { "$unwind": "$a" }, { "$lookup": { "from": "b", "localField": "a._id", "foreignField": "_id", "as": "a._id" }}, { "$unwind": "$a._id" }, { "$group": { "_id": "$_id", "a": { "$push": "$a" } }} ]) Which seems more representative of the expected "join". { "_id" : ObjectId("5962dd75f5f11516540d118d"), "a" : [ { "_id" : { "_id" : 1.0 }, "prop" : 2.0 }, { "_id" : { "_id" : 2.0 }, "prop" : 3.0 } ] } It's better than what it was before, which was no output. But It does not really meet the common case of "joining with the content existing in an array of objects". New issue perhaps? xgen-internal-githook commented on Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:31:33 +0000: Author: {u'username': u'jameswahlin', u'name': u'James Wahlin', u'email': u'james.wahlin@10gen.com'} Message: SERVER-28717 Expand $lookup localField when a sub-obj field in an array Includes: Cherry pick of commit e56f02ec6de6def5e66d0744a620515e2a82708e Partial cherry pick of commit d60dd07f3f470b702092b6b54e15586a5177d8a1 pulling in src/mongo/db/pipeline/document_path_support* files and associated SConscript additions Branch: v3.4 https://github.com/mongodb/mongo/commit/99807c88bb8974e077f57859ce8bf1a921f17647 xgen-internal-githook commented on Fri, 19 May 2017 21:41:17 +0000: Author: {u'username': u'jameswahlin', u'name': u'James Wahlin', u'email': u'james.wahlin@10gen.com'} Message: SERVER-28717 Expand $lookup localField when a sub-obj field in an array Branch: master https://github.com/mongodb/mongo/commit/e56f02ec6de6def5e66d0744a620515e2a82708e

Steps to Reproduce