Searchkick: How to get ids of results items?

[milushov]

Because this approach smells bad and I have to do two queries to the database.

ids = Model.search(where: where_params)
  .results.response['hits']['hits'].map{ |x| x['_id'].to_i }

Is there proper way for doing this?

By the way, I need items ids for "converting" Searchkick::Results class to ActiveRecord::Relation to use scopes and other class methods on it. Is there turnkey solution for these needs?

...

def self.filter(params)
  where_params = Search.attrs(params: params)

  if where_params.any?
    to_ar_relation(search(where: where_params))
  else
    where(nil)
  end
end

private

# converts searchkick results to ActiveRecord relation to use scopes on it
def self.to_ar_relation(results)
  where(id: results.response['hits']['hits'].map{ |x| x['_id'].to_i })
end

...

[abevoelker]

I ran into the same problem with having to do this in order to get a named scope to work. Here's the way I'm getting the ids using load: false to prevent the initial SQL query / model load:

ids = Model.search(where: where_params, load: false).results.map(&:id)

Edit: Unfortunately .where(id: ids) and .find(ids) both do not preserve ordering (at least in Postgres), so I ended up having to use this gem as well. Feels pretty gross but works for now.

[milushov]

@abevoelker, thanks, dude!

but approach that used by this gem (order_as_specified) very very slow :-(

[tyler-boyd]

Perhaps #490 helps deal with this? You should be able to do:

Model.search(where: where_params).records

Which gives back an ActiveRecord::Relation, similar to what you're doing.

[abevoelker]

Had a chance to verify @Mavvie's suggestion tonight - seems to work great, thank you!

[abevoelker]

Unfortunately I spoke too soon, records does not in fact preserve ordering. Guess I must've gotten lucky the first time I tried it when I only had a handful of records to test.

search = Product.search("*", { price: {order: "desc"} })
# => [14, 22, 24, 26, 8, 12, 30, 20, 7, 16, 18, 28, 11]

search.records.map(&:id)
#   Product Load (0.4ms)  SELECT "products".* FROM "products" WHERE "products"."id" IN (14, 22, 24, 26, 8, 12, 30, 20, 7, 16, 18, 28, 11)
# => [7, 18, 11, 8, 14, 24, 20, 26, 16, 12, 22, 28, 30]

edit: just to make clear this is a Postgres thing and the types of "fixes" at the query level are complicated http://stackoverflow.com/a/35456954/215168

edit2: (of course if you just meant that the .where(id: ids) part could be replaced with .records you're totally right, but on Postgres hacks like the order_as_specified gem are still required with it)

[tyler-boyd]

Right. Forgot to mention that. There should be a way to preserve ordering inside searchkick, just converting it to an AR relation. I'll look closer.

[abevoelker]

Wow that would be awesome if possible. But even if not, .records is still cleaner than what I was doing before so thank you for that! :+1:

[tyler-boyd]

Adding ordering to the relation is possible, but messy. I can't see a better way to do it than order_as_specified. Here's how they do it

    order_by = params[:values].map do |value|
      "#{table}.#{attribute}='#{value}' DESC"
    end.join(", ")

Which was the most compatible way of doing it I saw mentioned in the stackoverflow answers. I don't want to add another dependency (esp. for an experimental feature), and fortunately it's simple enough there's no need to. I'll fork to add ordering and we can try it out/discuss it.