Ian Bambury wrote:
> Well, that is good news. If the index is in date-time order, how does it
> avoid having to scan the index for the status of the 'booked' flag? If the
> index is in 'booked' flag order, how does it avoid having to scan for
> date-time?
Sort the index by date-time and the booked flag.
> Not that is matters if what you say is true, I'm just interested. Can you
> point me to some documentation so I can pass it on to the client, please.
The section on "Queries and Indexes" covers this. Basically any query
the meets all the restrictions only requires a single lookup in the
relevent index. (Queries involving the IN operator and the !=
operator are exception, they combine several queries. See the "GQL
Reference" section in the documentation.)
> That just leaves the problem of billions of records taking up space - surely
> even Google has some limit on this?
A 1.5TB disk costs $200 so it should be within Google's capabilities.
It won't fit in the free preview limits, so you'll have to ask for
higher quotas if you exceed them during the preview period. I don't
know how cost effective it would be compared to traditional SQL
hosting.
One problem with the proposed GAE solution is that you'll need some
way of periodically adding the unbooked records. Currently GAE
doesn't have a way doing this.
Ross Ridge
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
