That link goes to a groups post. I wouldn't use logging for this. Right now we are saving logs for what looks like 90 days, but this may change such that logging is only until you run out of space. Also - you can't programmatically filter on values in logs at the application level easily.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:12 PM, kazunori_279 <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI, here's my another proposal as an alternative to the sharded > counter: LogCounter. > > > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/da02ebd3001223f7/622bc30435097715?show_docid=622bc30435097715 > > The basic idea is to use MemcacheService#increment to get unique and > sequential integer values, while writing logs for them to obtain a > durability. While it should be as durable as the option 4, while it > should be more scalable and faster because the log writing can be in > parallel and there's no point of race condition. > > Thanks, > > Kaz > > On Mar 27, 11:10 pm, jbdhl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nice points. I actually think approach 2) will suffice. Thanks alot! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-appengine%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- Ikai Lan Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine http://googleappengine.blogspot.com | http://twitter.com/app_engine -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
