If I had to implement something like GQL "like" I think I would try to build
many queries or a method like GQL IN without the limitations GQL IN has. I
think non-rel db:s handles one problem much better: Everything from a HTTP
request is a string like a parameter representing a boolean value must have
some conversion somewhere and we don't want do to conversion since type
conversion is expensive.
Since Google's environment for app engine is much more integrated than a
traditional SQL system "stack" you patch together from different
manufacturer, GQL much less has the problem of what or where a boolean
variable is "True" True and not just 0 or 1 so I have places in my code how
to represent a checkbox without doing any type conversion
if self.request.POST.get('group_article') == '1':
article.group_article = True #checkbox variable
at some other place I also try to represent a boolean variable in a similar
way but it's a onliner:
a.phoneview = self.request.get('phone_hidden', None) is not None
# dummy variable for whether phone number is visible
The later way I don't face the problem what is 1, '1', True etc it just
abstracts away the difference so I should rewrite the first example to be
more like the second
though I don't really understand the part "is not None"...
Cheers \niklas
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM, roberto.cr <[email protected]> wrote:
> there are many differences between traditional relational databases
> (like mysql) versus non-relational databases, aka nosql (like gae's
> datastore)
>
> but yes, "Full-text search over Datastore" is coming really soon
>
> App Engine Product Roadmap
> http://code.google.com/intl/en/appengine/docs/roadmap.html
>
> Google I/O 2011: Full Text Search
> Bo Majewski, Ged Ellis
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7FyU9wW8Y
> (I recommend everyone here to take a look at it, it's really nice)
>
> there were 2 main problems when I switched from my traditional mysql-
> thinking to datastore-thinking: geo search and full text search.
> the first is solved using GeoModel (made by some fine Google
> employees), the second will come as a Google solution (see the video).
>
> so I'm extremelly happy with GAE :) I hope you enjoy it too, Bruce.
>
> On Sep 28, 10:18 am, Niklas Rosencrantz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > These are among the drawbacks, minuses and reasons why app engine should
> be
> > cheaper than traditional hosting:
> > - no join, no like, no full text search while sql-based system have these
> > - extremely difficult to migrate from M/S to HRD while sql-based system
> > usually can migrate even large blobs
> > - sitemap.xml.gz has no good solution, you have to roll your own whereas
> > legacy systems have ready solution to make a sitemap
> > - admin console with federated login breaks (other have phpmyadmin or
> tons
> > of other solution while I don't have a backup system so my system is not
> > real)
> > - "it's not good but it's the best we got"? regards \niklas
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
--
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.
