Hi Robert - As a builder of UI, API and library code who has also done developer training on a variety of technologies, one simple fix might be go ahead and not require indexes to be built, but then to put a big NOTE at the beginning of the "Mango Getting Started" guide (I would assume there is such a piece of documentation) that states: "Note that the examples in this document do not require you to build an index, but for performance reasons we HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you do so. *Click here* for more information about how to do that" (or some such verbiage).
My 2 cents. Cheers, - Bill On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Robert Kowalski <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi list, > > At the end of the mail I would like to invite the other folks from the > mailing list that build interfaces for humans (APIs, CLIs or even UIs) > to chime in again with their opinions. So all people one the ML, the > mail is not just a response to Paul, feedback is welcome :) > > Hi Paul, I agree with the timeout. It could lead to very unpleasant > errors which are hard to debug and support. > > I added some thoughts to the other points you made: > > > a) know that the slow queries logs exist, > > Hmm... If I take a look at the 1.x logging it was very > straightforward. As a developer you would spin up a CouchDB and you > get all the log messages into your terminal. It was quite handy in > general for all kind of debugging. That the logs are not displayed > directly on stdout/stderr is in my opinion a general 2.x problem. The > problem does occur with all kinds of log message we produce in CouchDB > for 2.x and is not specific to the slow-query-logging. > > > > Ie, "You can try queries with testing:true, when you're ready to move to > production you can > > POST your selector to _index to create the index which allows you to > > remove testing:true". > > I really like the migration path you mentioned here with the API to > create indexes. I am worried to have a too high entry barrier for > absolute newcomers, people that you want to play around before they > are ready to think about indexes, e.g. by putting coupling the index > topic from the beginning to the querying. > > When I throw too much things to learn on people (which may not have > used a database before), most people get discouraged and does not take > a look. The usual things they feel or say are : "too complicated", "I > have not enough time", "product XY is easier to use". > > I would argue that newcomers to a database will launch a high traffic, > multi-gigabyte product with the database from day one. Day one is the > day where they learn how to query the data and put data into the > database. Even for scenarios where people have a running high traffic > system, and have used other databases at a medium to large scale I > would expect given they migrate to Couch, that they run both systems > in parallel for the first time in order to fix the issues that occur > during a migration. > > I think we we share the same goal (getting beginners started quickly) > and the cool thing about your suggestion is that everyone gets the > required knowledge to run a production system right from the very > start. My suggestion leaves some parts out, but reduces the cognitive > load required to get the very first basic results, e.g. in a > university class setting - or junior developers on their "casual > friday 20% time". My big hope is, once those folks build high traffic > systems, they remember how easy the usage of CouchDB was and that they > start to learn more about CouchDB in order to run it in a system with > more than a few thousand documents. > > > For us both I think the "what" is clear, but the "how" is a bit > different. I also think this discussion still makes progress, but I am > afraid it could stall. I see that we both have very good rudiments and > I would like to invite the other folks from the mailing list that > build interfaces for humans (APIs, CLIs or even UIs) to chime in again > with their opinions - of course I'm also looking forward to your > answer :) > > Best, > Robert :) > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> - is a timeout solving the root cause or the symptoms? Could it be a > >>> temporary or additional step as in conjunction with query optimisation > >>> tooling? > >> > >> It really depends. From my CouchDB admin and user perspective, this > >> doesn't seem so important to me right now. However, I recognize that > >> there are different usage scenarios with different requirents (e.g. the > >> ones at Cloudant). > > > > I don't think there's anything special about Cloudant in this > > discussion. Its just a question of how do we allow new users the > > ability to easily test and learn the selector/query API while also > > preventing them from going too far without creating indexes for their > > queries. The slow queries messages are fine, but just as any other > > database they don't really prompt the developer to make the correct > > change. Ie, the developer has to be savvy enough to a) know that the > > slow queries logs exist, b) understand that creating an index would > > speed things up, and then c) know which index to create based on the > > logged query. > > > > In my experience, the group of users that we're concerned about in > > this discussion most likely don't know about any of those three > > things, hence why the current API is designed to force them to learn > > about and understand indexes as part of learning the API. Granted the > > `_id > null` trick muddies that learning process. I would think that > > replacing the _id trick with `"testing": true` or similar would be an > > obvious indication to users that this is a dev/debug type feature and > > when they went to production they would still be pushed to using an > > index. If we add the "create index from selector" API then I think > > this would be a relatively straightforward method to on ramping to > > both the query and index sides of the API. Ie, "You can try queries > > with testing:true, when you're ready to move to production you can > > POST your selector to _index to create the index which allows you to > > remove testing:true". > > > > That's also why I don't particularly care for the timeout approach. > > It's a binary threshold that a user would (maybe) meet after some > > unknown amount of time after they falsely believe their app is working > > correctly. The feedback is "Everything is fine until it isn't". > > Consider an app that's been working for a week or a month or more that > > suddenly starts throwing timeouts for a query. From the user's > > perspective the database broke because the query that used to work > > fine no longer does. And then there's the follow on question on how > > that timeout might instruct the user that they need an index, and that > > the fix may be as easy as POSTing their selector to the _index > > endpoint. Sure Google would most likely have the answer if our docs > > are good enough, but by that point the developer is probably already > > experiencing downtime if their app is live which means they're > > frantically trying to fix the thing. From my point of view, a few road > > blocks that guide developers towards the correct usage early on would > > be better than letting them get to the adrenaline fueled expletive > > fountain of downtime. >
