I wanted to get a better understanding on how writes to Firestore take place in case a client's internet connection might be intermittent.
I know there's batch writes for instances when you want to update multiple docs for an all or nothing write.
What I wanted to know is if I'm writing to a single document that has let's say 30 fields. Is Firestore write an all or nothing write per document or could there be a case where only part of the 30 fields update whereas the others fail due to internet issues?
Thanks!
A document write is all or nothing. It's not possible for a document to end up partially written in any circumstance.
Related
This is MongoDB's api:
db.foo.watch([{$match: {"bar.baz": "qux" }}])
Let's say that collection foo contains millions of documents. The arguments passed into watch indicate that for every single document that gets updated the system will filter the ones that $match the query (but it will be triggered behind the scenes with any document change).
The problem is that as my application scales, my listeners will also scale and my intuition is that I will end up having n^2 complexity with this approach.
I think that as I add more listeners, database performance will deteriorate due to changes to documents that are not part of the $match query. There are other ways to deal with this, (web sockets & rooms) but before prematurely optimizing the system, I would like to know if my intuition is correct.
Actual Question:
Can I attach a listener to a single document, such that watch's performance isn't affected by sibling documents?
When I do collection.watch([$matchQuery]), does the MongoDB driver listen to all documents and then filters out the relevant ones? (this is what I am trying to avoid)
The code collection.watch([$matchQuery]) actually means watch the change stream for that collection rather than the collection directly.
As far as I know, there is no way to add a listener to a single document. Since I do not know of any way, I will give you a couple tips on how to avoid scalability problems with the approach you have chosen. Your code appears to be using change streams. It should not cause problems unless you open too many change streams.
There are two ways to accomplish this task by watching the entire collection with a process outside of that won't lead to deterioration of the database performance.
If you use change streams, you can open only a single change stream with logic that checks for all the conditions you need to filter for over time. The mistake is that people often open many change streams for single document filtering tasks, and that is when people have problems.
The simpler way, since you mentioned Atlas, is to use Triggers. You can use something called a match expression in your Triggers configuration to prevent any operations on your collection unless the
match expression evaluates to true. As noted in the documentation, the trigger function will not execute unless a field status in this case is updated to "blocked", but many match expressions are available:
{
"updateDescription.updatedFields": {
"status": "blocked"
}
}
I hope this helps. If not, I can keep digging. I think with change streams or Triggers, you are ok if you want to write a bit of code. :)
I am attempting to figure out a solid strategy for handling schema changes in Firestore. My thinking is that schema changes would often require reading and then writing to every document in a collection (or possibly documents in a different collection).
Here are my concerns:
I don't know how large the collection will be in the future. Will I hit any limitations on how many documents can be read in a single query?
My current plan is to run the schema change script from Cloud Build. Is it possible this will timeout?
What is the most efficient way to do the actual update? (e.g. read document, write update to document, repeat...)
Should I be using batched writes?
Also, feel free to tell me if you think this is the complete wrong approach to implementing schema changes, and suggest a better solution.
I don't know how large the collection will be in the future. Will I hit any limitations on how many documents can be read in a single query?
If the number of documents gets too large to handle in a single query, you can start paginating the results.
My current plan is to run the schema change script from Cloud Build. Is it possible this will timeout?
That's impossible to say at this moment.
What is the most efficient way to do the actual update? (e.g. read document, write update to document, repeat...)
If you need the existing contents of a document to determine its new contents, then you'll indeed need to read it. If you don't need the existing contents, all you need is the path, and you can consider using the Node.js API to only retrieve the document IDs.
Should I be using batched writes?
Batched writes have no performance advantages. In fact, they're often slower than sending the individual update calls in parallel from your code.
Currently we write a lot of records into MongoDB, while doing findAndModify in another process (basically we want an atomic update on one field of the record when we are querying). The problem is, findAndModify seems to slow at 30 ops/sec, that's not acceptable for our request, is there any good way to optimize it?
Thanks!
If you could post your exact query that would help, but I suspect that you are not currently specifying the fields
fields:{"myLongField":0},
Try specifying not to return fields you don't need - remember this is FIND and modify
So it fetches a document, as well as modifying it.
Is there any way to verify that all documents of a mongodb are correctly entered i.e. to check that the data in JSON file and the inserted data are same?
If yes how to do it? Consider that there are 3 millions documents in db.
I want to do it with java script.
Thanks
You will have to run a find for every document that you expect to be in the database, verifying that there is in fact an exact match present (just use the entire document as the match criteria).
In the future, you can use safe mode (safe=True in most drivers, but the syntax varies slightly) to make sure your writes do not fail. Using safe mode will alert you as to the results of the write.
Is there a way to use the cursor returned by the previous query as a value for $in in the next query? For example, something like this:
var users = db.user.find({state:1})
var offers = db.offer.find({user:{$in:users}})
I think this can reduce the traffic between mongodb and client in case the client doesn't need user information at all, just offers. Am i wrong?
Basically you want to do a join between two collections which Mongo doesn't support. You can reduce the amount of data being transferred from the server by limiting the fields returned from the first query to only the unique user information (i.e. the _id) that you need to get data from the offers collection.
If you really just want to make one query then you should store more information in the offers collection. For example, if you're trying to find offers for active users then you would store the active state of the user in the offers collection.
To work from your comment:
Yes, that's why I used tag 'join' in a question. The idea is that I
can make a first query more сomplex using a bunch of fields and
regexes without storing user data in other collections except
references. In these cases I always have to perform two consecutive
queries, but transfering of the results of the first query is not
necessary neither for me nor for the mongodb itself. I just want to
understand could it be done now, will it be possible to do so in the
future or it cannot be implemented for some technical reasons
As far as I understand it there is no immediate hurry to make this possible. Also the way it is coded atm will make this quite a big change to the way cursors work and are defined. A change big enough to possibly cause implementation breaks for other people. It is really a case of whether to set safe for inserts and updates for all future drivers. It is recognised that safe should be default but this will break implementation for other people who expect it the other way around.
It is rather inefficient if you don't require the results of the first query at all however since most networks are prepped with high traffic in mind and the traffic is cheap there hasn't been a demand to make it able to do chained queries server side in the cursor.
However subselects (which this basically is, it is selecting a set of rows based upon a sub selection of previous rows) have been on mongodb-user a couple of times and there might even be a JIRA for it somewhere, if not might be useful to make one.
As for doing it right now: there is no way.