Re: [google-appengine] Re: Transaction across entities in different groups

2010-01-30 Thread djidjadji
If you want to get multiple objects with a list of ids and it only
works if they have the same parent then it is a bug, if the parent
parameter of Model.get_by_id([1,2,3],parent=None) is None. The code of
Model.get_by_id(ids) only constructs a list of keys with
db.Key.from_path and calls db.get(keys)
The having same parent is only needed if you specify the parent
parameter of the Model.get_by_id([1,2,3],parent=aparent) call.

There is a small type in the doc for Model.get_by_id(ids) :
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/modelclass.html#Model_get_by_id

If ids is a string representing one name, 

should be

If ids is an integer representing one id, 

And the doc string for Model.get_by_id(ids) refers to a parameter
key_names, that should be ids


2010/1/30 dburns drrnb...@gmail.com:
 You're right, it's not entirely clear why Model.get_by_id(ids)
 requires all entities to have the same parent, while Model.get(keys)
 doesn't have that requirement.  Presumably some implementation
 detail.  But whatever the reason, using Model.get(keys) is a good
 idea.  I'll give that a shot when I get a chance.  Thanks for the
 idea!

 On Jan 29, 4:06 pm, Danny Tuppeny da...@tuppeny.com wrote:
 I don't know if I was drunk when I sent this message, but I don't
 think it makes any sense at all. If you're calling get() on SS, it's
 quite clear what the kind is!

 On Jan 28, 7:20 am, Danny Tuppeny da...@tuppeny.com wrote:

  On Jan 24, 12:29 am, dburns drrnb...@gmail.com wrote:

   Making a User instance the parent of a SS (snapshot) instance seems
   like a natural fit, except then I can't fetch all the favourites via:
   favs = SS.get_by_id(user.fav_ids).  The reason is that all parents
   have to be the same to use SS.get_by_id (according 
   tohttp://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/modelclass.htm...),
   but those favourites may have been created by various users (hence the
   parents would be different).

  Can you use SS.get(keys) instead?

  I think the reason that get_by_id requires the parent is because IDs
  are not full keys (and presumably an ID can be duplicated for
  different kinds). If you create Keys for them (you'll need to know
  their Kind), you could call SS.get(keys) and get them all in one go.



 --
 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-appeng...@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.



-- 
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-appeng...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.



Re: [google-appengine] Re: Transaction across entities in different groups

2010-01-23 Thread Robert Kluin
You can page using the reference query.  Since it is a query object,
just be sure that you order in a stable way, then you can use one of
the methods suggested in the app engine articles to page.  Have you
checked to see if as the size of the list property grows get_by_id()'s
performance gets closer to the query's performance?

Otherwise you might consider implementing something like Nick's
distributed transactions:
http://blog.notdot.net/2009/9/Distributed-Transactions-on-App-Engine

Robert







On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:14 PM, dburns drrnb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks for the reply.  Using a ReferenceProperty from the SS to the
 User does at first sound ideal, but the problem is that the back-
 reference that this gives you is actually a Query object.  So that
 would essentially put me back to where I was initially (as I described
 in the second-last paragraph).  Using the Query seems to be a bit
 slower than fetching all the objects by a list of ids, but the more
 important difference is that the list of ids lends itself to paging (I
 simply chop the list of ids into groups of 20 or whatever).

 One other optimization I get from using lists of ids (fav_ids and
 owned_ids) is that I can optimize the two get_by_id calls into a
 single call by concatenating the lists into one, then splitting the
 returned list since I know how many are favourites and how many are
 owned.  There are a lot of things I like about the current set-up I
 have.  The only thing I don't like is the lack of atomic operations.
 If I can't find a way out, I'll try to make the code more resilient to
 corrupted data just in case it ever happens.

 I appreciate the feedback.


 On Jan 23, 9:51 pm, Wooble geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
 Why not use a ReferenceProperty pointing to a User in the SS model
 instead of an unindexed StringProperty?  The User model can then use
 the backreference collection to get a list of photos owned by the
 user.

 I don't see a problem with a simple ListProperty of favorites,
 although making this a list of db.Keys instead of a list of integer
 IDs is probably preferable, because if you do decide to make photos
 children of another entity the IDs won't be globally unique while the
 db.Keys still will be.

 On Jan 23, 7:29 pm, dburns drrnb...@gmail.com wrote:

  I'd appreciate any insight into the best design for this problem.  I
  have a photo-sharing app.  I want people to be able to mark a photo as
  a favourite, just as YouTube does with videos.

  I have two kinds: Snapshots and Users.  Given a user, I need to be
  able to get a list of their favourites, and a list of the snapshots
  they created.  I need the inverse too, i.e. given a snapshot, I need
  to know who made it.

  The problem I have is ensuring consistency across these two kinds, but
  I don't think I can put them into the same entity group.  First, here
  they are:

  # The snapshot class.
  class SS(db.Model):
      owner = db.StringProperty(indexed=False) # Who created this (user
  id).
      #Other data about the snapshot here

  # The user class (the key_name is the user id)
  class User(db.Model):
      owned_ids = db.ListProperty(int, indexed=False) # IDs of owned
  snapshots (i.e. created by this user)
      fav_ids = db.ListProperty(int, indexed=False)       # IDs of
  favourite snapshots

  The issue is that when a user either creates or deletes a snapshot,
  there's a potential for those to get out of sync if an exception
  happens just at the wrong moment (e.g. a snapshot could exist where
  the creating user doesn't have it in the owned_ids list).

  Making a User instance the parent of a SS (snapshot) instance seems
  like a natural fit, except then I can't fetch all the favourites via:
  favs = SS.get_by_id(user.fav_ids).  The reason is that all parents
  have to be the same to use SS.get_by_id (according 
  tohttp://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/modelclass.htm...),
  but those favourites may have been created by various users (hence the
  parents would be different).

  Originally I had no owned_ids in User, and did a query to find that
  user's snapshots (owner in SS was indexed).  But that was slow and
  didn't lend itself to paging.  So I switched to get_by_id.

  Documentation note: run_in_transaction 
  athttp://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/functions.html
  doesn't mention the restriction that entities have to be in the same
  group.  I discovered it by seeing the exception, then read up in more
  detail elsewhere.  I naturally started there so it probably should be
  mentioned.



 --
 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-appeng...@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message