Julian, that is _exactlty_ what I was looking for. Counting up to a future time to create descending values... It seems so obvious now! It's a much better solution than the de-accumulator handler that I wrote.
Thanks! On Feb 14, 11:57 pm, Julian Namaro <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not sure about the mathematics of it, but intuitively there is no > perfect algorithm for constructing timestamps in a reverse > lexicographical ordering, because adding a character to a string will > always make it lexicographically superior. > > But I noticed the mapreduce library just pick a "ridiculously future > time" and go in reverse order from > there:http://code.google.com/p/appengine-mapreduce/source/browse/trunk/pyth... > > The library also add a random string to reduce the chance of > duplicates, maybe that can be replaced by an UUID if you're really > concerned by uniqueness. > > On Feb 14, 5:57 am, Joseph Letness <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Calvin and Robert, thanks for your replies. I should have been > > more clear about what I am doing, here is some more info: > > > Calvin, thanks for the link to Ikai's blog post, I haven't seen that > > one and it was very interesting. > > > Robert, here are specific answers to your questions: > > > >>Why do you say: " I can't use a composite index since it would explode > > >>with my use case"? > > > I'm using Brett Slatkin's "Relation Index" method of building and > > querying set memberships (Google I/O 2009 - Building Scalable, Complex > > Apps on App Engine). According to Brett, using a composite index on > > this kind would cause explosion, so any ordering of results will need > > to be done in-memory during the request. If the sort order is > > immutable, sorted key names can be used to order results based on the > > their lexicographical position. > > > Since a creation timestamp is "immutable" data, I figured that using > > lexicographic key names would be the way to go. > > > >>What would be fine if you could handle your entire result set in one > > >>request? > > > Ordering the result set in-memory. > > > >>What are you trying to do? > > > The app is a digital-asset manager. Users need to be able to query a > > set (using the relation index method) and have the results return the > > most recent additions first. The result set could easily be a few > > thousand, so I want to use cursor-pagination to display the results > > which would preclude any in-memory ordering. > > > (I'm actually refactoring my existing app that I use to manage/deliver > > graphic assets to my clients so that they can add their own data.) > > > >>Is there a single global LIFO stack, or are there multiple stacks? > > > The entities are all of the same kind, however, LIFO behavior is > > localized to individual user groups. > > > >>How are new items added to the stack(s)?, What is the addition rate? > > > Just one item per user request. User groups would be just a few > > individual users probably less than twenty. The rate per group would > > be so low that chances of contention on any sort of accumulator would > > be almost nonexistent. > > > >>Is there a requirement that the items are precisely ordered or are some > > >>(or small) mis-orderings acceptable? > > > Precision is NOT critical. Close approximation of chronology is just > > fine. > > > --The auto-generated ids are not strictly increasing > > > I did not know that. Thanks! > > > --Using the current time may also be problematic since the machines > > will have slight variations, and in some cases significant variations. > > > I was aware of that, but since absolute precision is not necessary I > > could still use the timestamp as an accumulator if there is some thing > > as an "inverse-timestamp algorithm"!?!? > > > So... > > > After spending some more time thinking about this, here is what I plan > > to do: > > > Create a counter model kind that is created with an IntegerProperty > > starting value of ten billion (I'd like to see somebody reach the > > bottom of that!). Give each user group it's own counter and de-count > > the values in a transaction (or not, it might be simpler to dismiss > > contention and write a handler that ensures uniqueness of the key name > > but maintains approximate lexicographic position). When the counter > > value is read, convert the value to a padded string and concatenate it > > with the user group name and a leading lowercase letter (k9999999836/ > > usergroupname) and use that as the key name for the new asset. > > > Furthermore, it occurred to me that as a result set is reduced to a > > manageable in-memory size, I could test for the length of results and > > offer the user the ability to custom order their results (asset name > > alphanumeric or asset kind, for example). Just a thought. > > > Thanks again for the replies, If anyone thinks there is a better > > approach please let me know, I kind of make this stuff up as I go > > along.. > > > --Joe > > > On Feb 12, 10:52 pm, Robert Kluin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Joe, > > > What are you actually trying to do? Is there a single global LIFO > > > stack, or are there multiple stacks? How are new items added to the > > > stack(s)? In batches to one stack at a time, batches across stacks? > > > What is the addition rate? How are items removed / processed from the > > > stack(s)? Is there a requirement that the items are precisely ordered > > > or are some (or small) mis-orderings acceptable? > > > > Why do you say: " I can't use a composite index since it would > > > explode with my use case"? > > > > The auto-generated ids are not strictly increasing. What would be > > > fine if you could handle your entire result set in one request? > > > > Using the current time may also be problematic since the machines > > > will have slight variations, and in some cases significant variations. > > > > Robert > > > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 14:38, Joseph Letness <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Hi everybody, I was wondering if anybody has any good ideas for > > > > generating LIFO (Last In FIrst Out) key names. I can't use a > > > > composite index since it would explode with my use case. > > > > > Currently, I can think of two methods: > > > > > Use the auto generated id (which, I believe is accumulative), query > > > > for keys only and reverse the list in memory. This would be fine if I > > > > can guarantee that my entire result set can be handled within a single > > > > request. > > > > > OR > > > > > Create a de-accumulator Entity in the datastore and have it count down > > > > from some reasonably high integer and create my key name with that (a > > > > composite of the de-accumulation and the entity nam). The draw back > > > > for this method is that I'm incurring an additional read-write every > > > > time a new LIFO entity is created and possible contention on the de- > > > > accumulator if I run it in a transaction (I haven't decided if > > > > consistency of the de-accumulation is imperative for my use case yet). > > > > > I'm using Python. If anybody has any better ideas it would be much > > > > appreciated! > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > --Joe > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > athttp://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 [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.
