Is is possible to create a new Vespa doc and have one key/value pair immutable for the life of that doc?
There's no build-in support for that so you'd need to create a document processor to reject updates to that field.
If you also want to reject attempts to put the whole document again, the processor would have to use the document API to check if each document already existed. That is doable but would slow down your write rate.
Related
Let's say I use Elasticsearch in my application for searching restaurants near me.
I get all sorted restaurants id from Elasticsearch. And using these ids, I get all data like name, location, popular menus of restaurant from RDB.
As you can guess, it takes some time to get data from RDB. If I store all data used by application in Elasticsearch, then I can make it faster.
But I'm wondering what is the recommended way to store data in Elasticsearch and what to consider for choosing it.
I think there are some ways like below,
To store data only used for search
To store all data for search and display
Thanks!
This is a very interesting but very common question and normally every application needs to decide this, I can provide some data points which would help you to take a informed decision.
Elasticsearch is a NRT search engine and there will always be some latency when you update ES from your RDB. so some of your items which are in RDB will not be in ES and thus will not be in your search results.
Considering above, why you want to make a call again to RDB, to fetch the latest info from your RDB, on your ES search result or some other reasons like avoid fetching/storing the large data from ES ?
With every field ES provides a way to store it or not using store param or using _source enabled by default, if both are not enabled, you can't fetch the actual value, then you have to go to RDB.
RDB call to fetch the values of fields put a penalty on performance, have you benchmark it versus fetching the values directly from ES.
Every search system has its own functional and non-functional requirement and based on above points, hope you got more information, which will help you take a better decision.
Just a question regarding NoSQL DB. As far as I know, operations are done by the app/website outside the DB. For instance, if I need to add an value to a list, I need to
download the intial list
add the new value in the list on my device
upload the whole updated list.
At the end, a lot of data is travelling (twice the initial list) with no added value.
Is there any way to request directly the DB for simple operations like this?
db.collection("collection_key").document("document_key").add("mylist", value)
Or simply increment a field?
Same for knowing the number of documents in a collection: is it needed to download the whole set of document to get the number ?
Couple different answers:
In Firestore, many intrinsic operations can be done "FieldValues", such as increment/decrement (by supplied value, so really Add/subtract). Also array unions, field deletes, etc. Just search the documentation for FieldValue. Whether this is true for NoSQL in general, I can't say.
Knowing the number of documents, on the other hand. is not trivially done in Firestore - but frankly, I can't think of any situations other than artificially contrived examples where you would need to know. Easy enough to setup ways to "count" documents as you create/delete them, and keep that separately, if for some reason you find yourself needing it.
Or were you just trying to generically put down NoSQL as a concept?
I wish to create a generic component which can save the Object Name and field Names with old and new values in a BigObject.
The brute force algo says, on every update of each object, get field API names using describe and check old and new value of those fields. If it gets modified insert it into new BigObject.
But it will consume a lot of CPU time and I am looking for an optimum solution to handle this.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Well, do you have any code written already? Maybe benchmark it and then see what you can optimise instead of overdesigning it from the start... Keep it simple, write test harness and then try to optimise (without breaking unit tests).
Couple random ideas:
You'd be doing that in a trigger? So your "describe" could happen only once. You don't need to describe every single field, you need only one operation outside of trigger's main loop.
Set<String> fieldNames = Account.sObjectType.getDescribe().fields.getMap().keyset();
System.debug(fieldNames);
This will get you "only" field names but that's enough. You don't care whether they're picklists or dates or what. Use that with generic sObject.get('fieldNameHere') and it's a good start.
or maybe without describe at all. sObject's getPopulatedFieldsAsMap() will give you cool Map which you can easily iterate & compare.
or JSON.serialize the old & new version of the object and if they aren't identical - you know what to do. No idea if they'll always serialise with same field order though so checking if the maps are identical might be better
do you really need to hand-craft this field history tracking like that? You have 1M records free storage but it could explode really easily in busier SF org. Especially if you have workflows, processes, other triggers that would translate to multiple updates (= multiple trigger runs) in same transaction. Perhaps normal field history tracking + chatter feed tracking + even salesforce shield (it comes with 60 more fields tracked I think) would be more sensible for your business needs.
My app receives a new document and save it to database at any time. How can I make sure that there will not be conflict in the worst case that I read existing documents while a new document is being saved?
I don't think you should have a problem as the insert and update operations should be atomic in mongoDB
from the docs:
In MongoDB, a write operation is atomic on the level of a single
document, even if the operation modifies multiple embedded documents
within a single document.
I'm a little bit confused by the findAndModify method in MongoDB. What's the advantage of it over the update method? For me, it seems that it just returns the item first and then updates it. But why do I need to return the item first? I read the MongoDB: the definitive guide and it says that it is handy for manipulating queues and performing other operations that need get-and-set style atomicity. But I didn't understand how it achieves this. Can somebody explain this to me?
If you fetch an item and then update it, there may be an update by another thread between those two steps. If you update an item first and then fetch it, there may be another update in-between and you will get back a different item than what you updated.
Doing it "atomically" means you are guaranteed that you are getting back the exact same item you are updating - i.e. no other operation can happen in between.
findAndModify returns the document, update does not.
If I understood Dwight Merriman (one of the original authors of mongoDB) correctly, using update to modify a single document i.e.("multi":false} is also atomic. Currently, it should also be faster than doing the equivalent update using findAndModify.
From the MongoDB docs (emphasis added):
By default, both operations modify a single document. However, the update() method with its multi option can modify more than one document.
If multiple documents match the update criteria, for findAndModify(), you can specify a sort to provide some measure of control on which document to update.
With the default behavior of the update() method, you cannot specify which single document to update when multiple documents match.
By default, findAndModify() method returns the pre-modified version of the document. To obtain the updated document, use the new option.
The update() method returns a WriteResult object that contains the status of the operation. To return the updated document, use the find() method. However, other updates may have modified the document between your update and the document retrieval. Also, if the update modified only a single document but multiple documents matched, you will need to use additional logic to identify the updated document.
Before MongoDB 3.2 you cannot specify a write concern to findAndModify() to override the default write concern whereas you can specify a write concern to the update() method since MongoDB 2.6.
When modifying a single document, both findAndModify() and the update() method atomically update the document.
One useful class of use cases is counters and similar cases. For example, take a look at this code (one of the MongoDB tests):
find_and_modify4.js.
Thus, with findAndModify you increment the counter and get its incremented
value in one step. Compare: if you (A) perform this operation in two steps and
somebody else (B) does the same operation between your steps then A and B may
get the same last counter value instead of two different (just one example of possible issues).
This is an old question but an important one and the other answers just led me to more questions until I realized: The two methods are quite similar and in many cases you could use either.
Both findAndModify and update perform atomic changes within a single request, such as incrementing a counter; in fact the <query> and <update> parameters are largely identical
With both, the atomic change takes place directly on a document matching the query when the server finds it, ie an internal write lock on that document for the fraction of a millisecond that the server confirms the query is valid and applies the update
There is no system-level write lock or semaphore which a user can acquire. Full stop. MongoDB deliberately doesn't make it easy to check out a document then change it then write it back while somehow preventing others from changing that document in the meantime. (While a developer might think they want that, it's often an anti-pattern in terms of scalability and concurrency ... as a simple example imagine a client acquires the write lock then is killed while holding it. If you really want a write lock, you can make one in the documents and use atomic changes to compare-and-set it, and then determine your own recovery process to deal with abandoned locks, etc. But go with caution if you go that way.)
From what I can tell there are two main ways the methods differ:
If you want a copy of the document when your update was made: only findAndModify allows this, returning either the original (default) or new record after the update, as mentioned; with update you only get a WriteResult, not the document, and of course reading the document immediately before or after doesn't guard you against another process also changing the record in between your read and update
If there are potentially multiple matching documents: findAndModify only changes one, and allows you customize the sort to indicate which one should be changed; update can change all with multi although it defaults to just one, but does not let you say which one
Thus it makes sense what HungryCoder says, that update is more efficient where you can live with its restrictions (eg you don't need to read the document; or of course if you are changing multiple records). But for many atomic updates you do want the document, and findAndModify is necessary there.
We used findAndModify() for Counter operations (inc or dec) and other single fields mutate cases. Migrating our application from Couchbase to MongoDB, I found this API to replace the code which does GetAndlock(), modify the content locally, replace() to save and Get() again to fetch the updated document back. With mongoDB, I just used this single API which returns the updated document.