On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Sebastian Rothbucher <
sebastianrothbuc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Aurélien, this is great! And indeed I think one does need the
> contact_id as part of the key, otherwise there is no way of having
> uniqueness. And as soon as it is part of the key, there is no reduce of
> stuff belonging to different contact_ids. So the replacement for |sort
> |uniq |wc -l in UNIX is a key with the sorting criterion plus a list
> function ;-) Again thanks, it helps me a lot also!!!!!
>
I tried to do it this way:
function(doc) {
if (doc.contact.id && doc.email.id && doc.license.id && doc.release.id
&& doc.type.substring(0,6) == 'email_') {
var type = doc.type;
emit([doc.email.id, type, doc.contact.id], null);
}
}
and a native count function.
Now how do i get the number of unique opens ?
query key -> [email.id, 'opens',[]] + group_level=3 and then count the
number of results ?
What am i missing here?
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Aurélien Bénel <aurelien.be...@utt.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gijs,
> >
> > > I have been trying different approaches to achieve this by using a
> > custom map and reduce function.
> >
> > My rule of thumb is to avoid custom reduce functions at all cost.
> > Maybe it's a bit harsh but it saved me a lot of time and frustration.
> >
> > >>> Now i want to do very mailchimp/campaignmonitor like summary per
> > campaign (key[3}) that show nr of unique delivers, nr of unique opens, nr
> > of unique clicks.
> > > SELECT count(*) FROM events WHERE type='click' GROUP BY contact_id;
> > > But i want the single view to output both the unique clicks, views and
> > opens
> >
> >
> > First, you should emit the following keys (in this order, with no value):
> >
> > [campaign, type, contact_id]
> >
> > Then you can reduce those data (with any builtin reduce function,
> `_count`
> > for example) and `group=true` (which is shorter than
> > `reduce=true&group_level=exact`).
> >
> > Then you'll need an other computation round to count unique contacts (per
> > campaign and type). While waiting for chained map-reduce (coming soon I
> > hope), you can cheat and do it with a list.
> > With a list, it is usually a good idea to send the results as soon as you
> > know them (i.e., in this case, when there is a new `type` in the current
> > row or when there are no rows anymore).
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aurélien
> >
> >
> >
>
