Re: Transactions and paged_each
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 9:47:52 PM UTC-7, Trevor Turk wrote: > > Hello, > > I've been reading about paged_each and it seems to work well in my > testing, but I'm concerned about using it in production because the > documentation says it uses a transaction internally. > > I plan to make a "backfill" script that iterates over all rows in a > production database and enqueues background jobs for processing them etc. > > Would using paged_each lock the table and prevent my (Sinatra) app from > functioning regularly? > > Thank you! > - Trevor > Dataset#paged_each shouldn't lock the entire table, as it just selects rows, but the behavior in regards to locking depends on the database. It would probably be best for you to try it in a test environment to be sure it functions as you expect, before using it in production. Thanks, Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sequel-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sequel-talk@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Transactions and paged_each
Hello, I've been reading about paged_each and it seems to work well in my testing, but I'm concerned about using it in production because the documentation says it uses a transaction internally. I plan to make a "backfill" script that iterates over all rows in a production database and enqueues background jobs for processing them etc. Would using paged_each lock the table and prevent my (Sinatra) app from functioning regularly? Thank you! - Trevor -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sequel-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sequel-talk@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: "delay_add_association" plugin and one_to_one relationship
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 7:50:48 AM UTC-7, David Espada wrote:
>
> 2016-08-31 16:00 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Evans :
>
>> I suppose that is something I would consider as an addition to
>> delay_add_association. Do you want to work on a pull request for it?
>>
>> I have seen lightly the code and... it frightens me a little, but can try
> it :)
>
> What I wish is having changed behaviour in all cases, when entity is new
> and when is not. If you assign a related entity in ANY case, persistence
> and linking is delayed until main (root) entity is persisted. What do you
> think of that option?
>
That's certainly not the behavior of delay_add_association in the *_many
association case, so it wouldn't make sense for it to be the default in the
one_to_one case. If you want that behavior, you can probably write your
only plugin, or just do:
plugin :instance_hooks
def association=(v)
after_save_hook{super}
end
Thanks,
Jeremy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sequel-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sequel-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sequel-talk@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: "delay_add_association" plugin and one_to_one relationship
2016-08-31 16:00 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Evans : > I suppose that is something I would consider as an addition to > delay_add_association. Do you want to work on a pull request for it? > > I have seen lightly the code and... it frightens me a little, but can try it :) What I wish is having changed behaviour in all cases, when entity is new and when is not. If you assign a related entity in ANY case, persistence and linking is delayed until main (root) entity is persisted. What do you think of that option? Thank you. -- David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sequel-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sequel-talk@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: "delay_add_association" plugin and one_to_one relationship
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:36:40 AM UTC-7, David Espada wrote: > > Hi all. > > There is a good little Sequel plugin called "delay_add_association" that > avoids persistence when adding a child (one_to_many) to an entity. That is > good in my > system, because I like to have a consistent object representation without > persisting nothing until the end of the work cycle. > > But I have a problem for generalizing that behaviour with one_to_one > relations. > In that case I can't do assignation between entities avoiding persistence. > > Can we have a similar solution for one_to_one as in one_to_many? I think > that > consistent behaviour is good for Sequel practices :) > I suppose that is something I would consider as an addition to delay_add_association. Do you want to work on a pull request for it? Thanks, Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sequel-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sequel-talk@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
"delay_add_association" plugin and one_to_one relationship
Hi all. There is a good little Sequel plugin called "delay_add_association" that avoids persistence when adding a child (one_to_many) to an entity. That is good in my system, because I like to have a consistent object representation without persisting nothing until the end of the work cycle. But I have a problem for generalizing that behaviour with one_to_one relations. In that case I can't do assignation between entities avoiding persistence. Can we have a similar solution for one_to_one as in one_to_many? I think that consistent behaviour is good for Sequel practices :) Thank you very much. -- David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sequel-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sequel-talk@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
