So to summarize the above mess, If I get it right: Batch put* for entities 
from the same entity group* is not atomic. Right? Why can not somebody say 
it?

On Monday, March 14, 2011 6:52:55 PM UTC+1, Alfred Fuller wrote:
>
> Batch put is not atomic. When using a batch put across entity groups it is 
> very important to make sure the operation is idempotent (for example by not 
> using auto id allocation) as retrying a failed batch put may produce 
> duplicate/orphaned entities (if some succeed or some fail).
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Robert Kluin <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Matija,
>>  The batch-put gets 'parallelized,' that is part of the reason I do
>> not think the put (across multiple entity groups) will be able to be
>> atomic;  I don't think you'll be able to figure out which entities did
>> or did not get written if you get an exception.  Unless, of course,
>> the app engine datastore guys are working on cross-entity group nested
>> transactions.  Of course, then you would probably lose some of the
>> performance benefits of the batch put being parallelized.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 06:07, Matija <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Hi Robert,
>> > if you think of batch put as simple code helper for multiple entity put
>> > statement everything is pretty clear.
>> > But because latency for single and batch put is almost same batch put 
>> is not
>> > simple code helper. I don't ask for some kind of multiple entity group
>> > serialization isolation level. I ask if HR datastore batch put has 
>> atomicity
>> > guarantee or not.
>> > After every successful put statement I am able to get entity key for 
>> every
>> > stored entities but I don't need this information very often. I think 
>> that
>> > it would be nice to have in any kind of async/no response way that they 
>> can
>> > provide atomic batch put statement. I think that this 
>> paxos/transactional
>> > log replication/'jada jada' arhitecture provides means for this very
>> > interesting database concept. Or maybe I am wrong. So wrong :D
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/ZRmOYkd1VGAJ.
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.

Reply via email to