I agree with Bob that page doesn't make sense as an endpoint. I'm also
rubbish with naming. The best I could come up with is replacing page with
cursor - {db}/_all_docs/cursor or possibly {db}/_cursor/_all_docs
All the fields in the bookmark make sense except timestamp. Why would it
matter if the timestamp is old? What happens if a node's time is an hour
behind another node?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:55 AM Ilya Khlopotov <iil...@apache.org> wrote:
> - page is to provide some notion of progress for user
> - timestamp - I was thinking that we should drop requests if user would
> try to pass bookmark created an hour ago.
>
> On 2020/04/22 21:58:40, Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote:
> > "page" and "page number" are odd to me as these don't exist as concepts,
> I'd rather not invent them. I note there's no mention of page size, which
> makes "page number" very vague.
> >
> > What is "timestamp" in the bookmark and what effect does it have when
> the bookmark is passed back in?
> >
> > I guess, why does the bookmark include so much extraneous data? Items
> that are not needed to find the fdb key to begin the next response from.
> >
> >
> > > On 22 Apr 2020, at 21:18, Ilya Khlopotov <iil...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > Based on the discussions on the thread I would like to propose a
> number of first steps:
> > > 1) introduce new endpoints
> > > - {db}/_all_docs/page
> > > - {db}/_all_docs/queries/page
> > > - _all_dbs/page
> > > - _dbs_info/page
> > > - {db}/_design/{ddoc}/_view/{view}/page
> > > - {db}/_design/{ddoc}/_view/{view}/queries/page
> > > - {db}/_find/page
> > >
> > > These new endpoints would act as follows:
> > > - don't use delayed responses
> > > - return object with following structure
> > > ```
> > > {
> > > "total": Total,
> > > "bookmark": base64 encoded opaque value,
> > > "completed": true | false,
> > > "update_seq": when available,
> > > "page": current page number,
> > > "items": [
> > > ]
> > > }
> > > ```
> > > - the bookmark would include following data (base64 or protobuff???):
> > > - direction
> > > - page
> > > - descending
> > > - endkey
> > > - endkey_docid
> > > - inclusive_end
> > > - startkey
> > > - startkey_docid
> > > - last_key
> > > - update_seq
> > > - timestamp
> > > ```
> > >
> > > 2) Implement per-endpoint configurable max limits
> > > ```
> > > _all_docs = 5000
> > > _all_docs/queries = 5000
> > > _all_dbs = 5000
> > > _dbs_info = 5000
> > > _view = 2500
> > > _view/queries = 2500
> > > _find = 2500
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Latter (after few years) CouchDB would deprecate and remove old
> endpoints.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > iilyak
> > >
> > > On 2020/02/19 22:39:45, Nick Vatamaniuc <vatam...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> Hello everyone,
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to discuss the shape and behavior of streaming APIs for
> CouchDB 4.x
> > >>
> > >> By "streaming APIs" I mean APIs which stream data in row as it gets
> > >> read from the database. These are the endpoints I was thinking of:
> > >>
> > >> _all_docs, _all_dbs, _dbs_info and query results
> > >>
> > >> I want to focus on what happens when FoundationDB transactions
> > >> time-out after 5 seconds. Currently, all those APIs except _changes[1]
> > >> feeds, will crash or freeze. The reason is because the
> > >> transaction_too_old error at the end of 5 seconds is retry-able by
> > >> default, so the request handlers run again and end up shoving the
> > >> whole request down the socket again, headers and all, which is
> > >> obviously broken and not what we want.
> > >>
> > >> There are few alternatives discussed in couchdb-dev channel. I'll
> > >> present some behaviors but feel free to add more. Some ideas might
> > >> have been discounted on the IRC discussion already but I'll present
> > >> them anyway in case is sparks further conversation:
> > >>
> > >> A) Do what _changes[1] feeds do. Start a new transaction and continue
> > >> streaming the data from the next key after last emitted in the
> > >> previous transaction. Document the API behavior change that it may
> > >> present a view of the data is never a point-in-time[4] snapshot of the
> > >> DB.
> > >>
> > >> - Keeps the API shape the same as CouchDB <4.0. Client libraries
> > >> don't have to change to continue using these CouchDB 4.0 endpoints
> > >> - This is the easiest to implement since it would re-use the
> > >> implementation for _changes feed (an extra option passed to the fold
> > >> function).
> > >> - Breaks API behavior if users relied on having a point-in-time[4]
> > >> snapshot view of the data.
> > >>
> > >> B) Simply end the stream. Let the users pass a `?transaction=true`
> > >> param which indicates they are aware the stream may end early and so
> > >> would have to paginate from the last emitted key with a skip=1. This
> > >> will keep the request bodies the same as current CouchDB. However, if
> > >> the users got all the data one request, they will end up wasting
> > >> another request to see if there is more data available. If they didn't
> > >> get any data they might have a too large of a skip value (see [2]) so
> > >> would have to guess different values for start/end keys. Or impose max
> > >> limit for the `skip` parameter.
> > >>
> > >> C) End the stream and add a final metadata row like a "transaction":
> > >> "timeout" at the end. That will let the user know to keep paginating
> > >> from the last key onward. This won't work for `_all_dbs` and
> > >> `_dbs_info`[3] Maybe let those two endpoints behave like _changes
> > >> feeds and only use this for views and and _all_docs? If we like this
> > >> choice, let's think what happens for those as I couldn't come up with
> > >> anything decent there.
> > >>
> > >> D) Same as C but to solve the issue with skips[2], emit a bookmark
> > >> "key" of where the iteration stopped and the current "skip" and
> > >> "limit" params, which would keep decreasing. Then user would pass
> > >> those in "start_key=..." in the next request along with the limit and
> > >> skip params. So something like "continuation":{"skip":599, "limit":5,
> > >> "key":"..."}. This has the same issue with array results for
> > >> `_all_dbs` and `_dbs_info`[3].
> > >>
> > >> E) Enforce low `limit` and `skip` parameters. Enforce maximum values
> > >> there such that response time is likely to fit in one transaction.
> > >> This could be tricky as different runtime environments will have
> > >> different characteristics. Also, if the timeout happens there isn't a
> > >> a nice way to send an HTTP error since we already sent the 200
> > >> response. The downside is that this might break how some users use the
> > >> API, if say the are using large skips and limits already. Perhaps here
> > >> we do both B and D, such that if users want transactional behavior,
> > >> they specify that `transaction=true` param and only then we enforce
> > >> low limit and skip maximums.
> > >>
> > >> F) At least for `_all_docs` it seems providing a point-in-time
> > >> snapshot view doesn't necessarily need to be tied to transaction
> > >> boundaries. We could check the update sequence of the database at the
> > >> start of the next transaction and if it hasn't changed we can continue
> > >> emitting a consistent view. This can apply to C and D and would just
> > >> determine when the stream ends. If there are no writes happening to
> > >> the db, this could potential streams all the data just like option A
> > >> would do. Not entirely sure if this would work for views.
> > >>
> > >> So what do we think? I can see different combinations of options here,
> > >> maybe even different for each API point. For example `_all_dbs`,
> > >> `_dbs_info` are always A, and `_all_docs` and views default to A but
> > >> have parameters to do F, etc.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> -Nick
> > >>
> > >> Some footnotes:
> > >>
> > >> [1] _changes feeds is the only one that works currently. It behaves as
> > >> per RFC
> https://github.com/apache/couchdb-documentation/blob/master/rfcs/003-fdb-seq-index.md#access-patterns
> .
> > >> That is, we continue streaming the data by resetting the transaction
> > >> object and restarting from the last emitted key (db sequence in this
> > >> case). However, because the transaction restarts if a document is
> > >> updated while the streaming take place, it may appear in the _changes
> > >> feed twice. That's a behavior difference from CouchDB < 4.0 and we'd
> > >> have to document it, since previously we presented this point-in-time
> > >> snapshot of the database from when we started streaming.
> > >>
> > >> [2] Our streaming APIs have both skips and limits. Since FDB doesn't
> > >> currently support efficient offsets for key selectors
> > >> (
> https://apple.github.io/foundationdb/known-limitations.html#dont-use-key-selectors-for-paging
> )
> > >> we implemented skip by iterating over the data. This means that a skip
> > >> of say 100000 could keep timing out the transaction without yielding
> > >> any data.
> > >>
> > >> [3] _all_dbs and _dbs_info return a JSON array so they don't have an
> > >> obvious place to insert a last metadata row.
> > >>
> > >> [4] For example they have a constraint that documents "a" and "z"
> > >> cannot both be in the database at the same time. But when iterating
> > >> it's possible that "a" was there at the start. Then by the end, "a"
> > >> was removed and "z" added, so both "a" and "z" would appear in the
> > >> emitted stream. Note that FoundationDB has APIs which exhibit the same
> > >> "relaxed" constrains:
> > >>
> https://apple.github.io/foundationdb/api-python.html#module-fdb.locality
> > >>
> >
> >
>
