(d/entid db [:unique/attr v])

I want to retrieve the value associated with the :unique/attr attribute related to the entity identified by the returned entity ID.

In your example, you want the value of :example/uuid?

isn’t it just xx-uuid?

like, definitionally?

(xx-uuid is the value given by me but extracted from outsource, want to be sure is it really in the db) as I mentioned in my main question 🙂

some strange isn't it ahah

I don’t think I follow. If the value is in the db, you get an entity id (or an entity in d/entity case). if it is not, you don’t. that’s how you know

it would be helpful if you rearticulate what you have (input), and what you're trying to know (output)

I'm getting the expected value from the api response, which is xxx. I'm using this xxx value as a parameter for a query to check if the expected transaction is completed. I want to match the actual value (`actualxxx`) with the expected value (`expectedxxx`). I can achieve this with standard queries, but I'm looking for the simplest way to accomplish this.

I don’t see the connection between this and the original question. Could you maybe show us what you are doing now more precisely? And we could suggest refactors which preserve its behavior.

I see then I am wrong at somewhere, thanks all. deleting the question to clear mess here.

(defn example [db uuid] (get (d/entity db [:example/uuid uuid]) :example/uuid) ) ;=> #uuid "3d32a2be-f9b0-4cd5-b8a6-10dcbd970439" This is the what I wanted, found it. Thanks for everyone, just wanted to leave here.

Could be rewritten as

(defn example [db uuid]
  (when (d/entid db [:example/uuid uuid])
    uuid))

with some gain in efficiency (no additional EAVT index read by the entity-map)

Wow, better! Thank you so much.

This is what I meant by > If the value is in the db, you get an entity id (or an entity in d/entity case). if it is not, you don’t. that’s how you know

literally if the [:example/uuid uuid] lookup found something, you know its value for :example/uuid is uuid

you don’t have to look it up again

Yes, I understand. I'm planning to use it for deftest unit tests, and my company prefers to assert with direct values to check them instead of relying on whether something is not nil, a count, or any other conditions. Therefore, I'm seeking the simplest way to write assertions directly against the database for this purpose.

we should probably clarify the docstring of d/entid

anywhere you can pass an eid, you can also pass a lookup ref, or an ident

that's probably not about your docs, I am not well experienced.

And trying to do strange things to solve issues. 🙂

> A tuple is a collection of 2-8 scalar values card many constituents are not allowed

nor are other tuples

Ah, damn. Thanks Ghadi.

what are you trying to do

at a semantic level

I’m trying to make a query against three different attributes faster by making an indexed tuple. It works really well in the cardinality-one case.

But I hadn’t considered this limitation.

a lookup by three attrs?

like a composite identifier, or something richer?

I have a bunch of queries like this:

'[:find ?group (count ?story)                                           
  :in $ [?group ...]                                                    
  :where                                                                
  [?story :story/group ?group]                                          
   [?story :story/workflow-state ?wf]                                   
   [?wf :workflow-state/type :workflow-state.type/started]              
   [(clubhouse.txfns.util/missing-or-false? $ ?story :story/archived?)]]

'[:find ?group (count ?story)                                     
  :in $ [?group ...] [?started-state ...]                         
  :where                                                          
  [(tuple ?group ?started-state nil) ?archived-nil-tuple]         
  [(tuple ?group ?started-state false) ?archived-false-tuple]     
  (or-join [?story ?archived-nil-tuple ?archived-false-tuple]     
   [?story :story/group+wf-state+archived ?archived-nil-tuple]    
   [?story :story/group+wf-state+archived ?archived-false-tuple])]

high-level, I want to efficiently count entities by combinations of several attributes

You should just try it to see what you can and can’t do, but IME you cannot rename attributes which are referenced by component tuples (i.e. using ident resolution tricks to make it read a different attribute); if you cannot even rename, I doubt you could change cardinality, since that seems a prerequisite.