Jay, Thanks for all the various links - most useful.
To map this into keystone context, if we were to follow this logic we would: 1) Support 'limit' and 'marker' (as opposed to 'page', 'page_szie', or anything else). These would be standard, independent of what backing store keystone was using. If neither are included in the url, then we return the first N entires, where N is defined by the cloud provider. This ensures that for at least smaller deployments, non-pagination aware clients still work. If either 'limit' or 'marker' are specified, then we paginate, passing them down into the driver layer wherever possible to ensure efficiency (some drivers may not be able to support pagination, hence we will do this, inefficiently, at a higher layer) 2) If we are paginating at the driver level, we must, by definition, be doing all the filtering down there as well (otherwise it all gets mucked) 3) We should look at supporting the other standard options (sort order etc.), but irrespective of that, by definition, we must ensure that we any driver that is paginating must be getting is entries back in a consistent order (otherwise, again, pagination doesn't work reliably) Henry On 13 Aug 2013, at 18:10, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 08/13/2013 12:55 PM, Lyle, David (Cloud Services) wrote: >> The marker/limit pagination scheme is inferior. > > A bold statement that flies in the face of experience and the work already > done in all the other projects. > > >The use of page/page_size allows access to arbitrary pages, whereas > >limit/marker only allows forward progress. > > I don't see this as a particularly compelling use case considering the > performance manifestations of using LIMIT OFFSET pagination. > > >In Horizon's use case, with page/page_size we can provide the user access to > >any page they have already visited, rather than just the previous page > >(using prev/next links returned in the response). > > I don't see this as a particularly useful thing, but in any case, you could > still do this by keeping the markers for previous pages on the client > (Horizon) side. > > The point of marker/limit is to eliminate poor performance of LIMIT OFFSET > queries and to force proper index usage in the listing queries. > > You can see the original discussion about this from more than two years and > even see where I was originally arguing for a LIMIT OFFSET strategy and was > brought around to the current limit/marker strategy by the responses of > Justin Santa Barbara and Greg Holt: > > https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg02548.html > > Best, > -jay > >> -David >> >> On 08/13/2013 10:29 AM, Pipes, Jay wrote: >> >>> On 08/13/2013 03:05 AM, Yee, Guang wrote: >>>> Passing the query parameters, whatever they are, into the driver if >>>> the given driver supports pagination and allowing the driver to >>>> override the manager default pagination functionality seem reasonable to >>>> me. >> >>> Please do use the standards that are supported in other OpenStack services >>> already: limit, marker, sort_key and sort_dir. >> >>> Pagination is meaningless without a sort key and direction, so picking a >>> sensible default for user/project records is good. I'd go with either >>> created_at (what Glance/Nova/Cinder use..) or with the user/project >UUID. >> >>> The Glance DB API pagination is well-documented and clean [1]. I highly >>> recommend it as a starting point. >> >>> Nova uses the same marker/limit/sort_key/sort_dir options for queries that >>> it allows pagination on. An example is the >>> instance_get_all_by_filters() call [2]. >> >>> Cinder uses the same marker/limit/sort_key/sort_dir options for query >>> pagination as well. [3] >> >>> Finally, I'd consider supporting the standard change-since parameter for >>> listing operations. Both Nova [4] and Glance [5] support the parameter, >>> which is useful for tools that poll the APIs for "new" >events/records. >> >>> In short, go with what is already a standard in the other projects... >> >>> Best, >>> -jay >> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/master/glance/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L429 >>> [2] >>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L1709 >>> [3] >>> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/common/sqlalchemyutils.py#L33 >>> [4] >>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L1766 >>> [5] >>> https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/master/glance/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#L618 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
