We're hoping to get key-only queries out in the next release.
- Jason
2009/4/26 Alkis Evlogimenos ('Αλκης Ευλογημένος) evlogime...@gmail.com
The sample code does:
MyModel.all().fetch(1000)
This means fetch 1000 entities of MyModel. If each entity is 10kb this
means 10MB of data read from
Just like this:
threads = []
for i in xrange(10):
threads.append(threading.Thread(target=add)) # add is a function to add
some data
for thread in threads:
thread.start()
2009/4/30 Sri sri.pan...@gmail.com
how did you create the threads?? did you create and destroy them each
time or did
how did you create the threads?? did you create and destroy them each
time or did you mantain a pool/manager ??
On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, 风笑雪 kea...@gmail.com wrote:
I only tested insert and delete.
And they works slower( maybe because of including threads' starting time ).
2009/4/30 Sri
In my test, using multiple threads is the same speed as 1 thread.
2009/4/29 Sri sri.pan...@gmail.com
Actually Ive started doing multiple threads couple of nights ago and
it was pretty fast...
Same applied with uploading new data. Ofcourse now I am just out of
quota... :D
thanks for the
actually ive tried using multiple threads..
i found uploads were faster ... deletes on (non overlapping) data was
someone what similar..
On Apr 29, 10:37 pm, 风笑雪 kea...@gmail.com wrote:
In my test, using multiple threads is the same speed as 1 thread.
2009/4/29 Sri sri.pan...@gmail.com
I only tested insert and delete.
And they works slower( maybe because of including threads' starting time ).
2009/4/30 Sri sri.pan...@gmail.com
actually ive tried using multiple threads..
i found uploads were faster ... deletes on (non overlapping) data was
someone what similar..
On Apr
Yes but you can hit them repeatedly and from multiple threads until
everything is deleted.
2009/4/28 Sri sri.pan...@gmail.com
Right you mean have handlers that delete data instead of using
remote_api?
But wouldnt that limit my requests to 30 seconds (well i guess I could
1000 delete 100
You can do it from multiple threads like Alkis proposed but I think
that you then try to delete an object multiple times. The index is
only updated last, and committed when the delete operation succeeds.
If a request comes in short after another request that is still busy
with the
AJAX
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
Sorry for the lame question but whats a Meta Refresh? Fancy Term or
Fancy Technique?
cheers
Sri
On Apr 28, 11:56 pm, Tom Wu service.g2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks 风笑雪
Meta refresh is much easier than AJAX.
It got my vote.
Best Regards
Tom Wu
2009/4/28 风笑雪 kea...@gmail.com
Simply
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Meta+Refresh
2009/4/28 Sri sri.pan...@gmail.com:
Sorry for the lame question but whats a Meta Refresh? Fancy Term or
Fancy Technique?
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Meta+Refresh
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
ha ha nice one mate...
it would have been easier for you to just say Fancy Term for
refreshing with meta headers
On Apr 29, 6:55 am, djidjadji djidja...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Meta+Refresh
2009/4/28 Sri sri.pan...@gmail.com:
Sorry for the lame question but whats a Meta
But the issue is that i dont really have the keys on me... does that
mean that each time i load the datastore il have to keep track of the
keys as well locally.. so that when i want to clear them i can use
them..
cheers
Sri
On Apr 27, 8:50 am, Alkis Evlogimenos ('Αλκης Ευλογημένος)
If you don't its better to do it on the server side rather
than transferring data through the net.
No you don't need to keep the keys locally.
2009/4/27 Sri sri.pan...@gmail.com
But the issue is that i dont really have the keys on me... does that
mean that each time i load the datastore il
Right you mean have handlers that delete data instead of using
remote_api?
But wouldnt that limit my requests to 30 seconds (well i guess I could
1000 delete 100 items requests) right?
On Apr 27, 5:09 pm, Alkis Evlogimenos ('Αλκης Ευλογημένος)
evlogime...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't its
Can you explain this further? I don't see any reference to key_name
in the sample code.
More importantly, to me, what's the cost differential between using
string representation of keys and key_names? I've been passing around
key_names to the browser because they're shorter, under the
The sample code does:
MyModel.all().fetch(1000)
This means fetch 1000 entities of MyModel. If each entity is 10kb this means
10MB of data read from datastore, 10MB of data sent through the network to
your running instance and 10MB of data server from the running instance to
your machine running
Doing it over the remote api means you are going to transfer all your data +
transmission overhead over the wire. You are probably better off doing
something like this on the server side through an admin protected handler.
Also if you happen to know the keys of your data (you used key_name) your
18 matches
Mail list logo
