I have a project that I'm working on that uses a background thread to insert data into the database from a different source. Now one of the problems that I have occasionally, once the user interacts with the database an error due to "could not serialize access due to concurrent update" is triggered.
Because my data source generates a lot of data my background thread is always busy keeping up and inserting the data and I've written the algorithm to basically "retry" whenever a row is locked, so I can live with the occasional error that occurs on the background thread.
The real problem is that my users basically interact with the database via a website that has ORM mapping in various layers and it seems that occasionally the user might be modifying the same record that is being worked on by the background thread.
Is there any recommendation of what I could do make my not be confronted with the serialization errors?
Presumably your users have been presented with some data from the database, and based on what they saw have decided to change something. If the data they looked at is obsolete, why would you expect that decision based on obsolete information to still stand? In general, they need to look at the more-current data and decide if they still want to make the change.
If those decisions are "easy" to make, then why do you have humans making them in the first place? And if they are hard to make, what choice is there but to have the people re-make them? There may be particular answers to this, but I don't see any general answers, and you haven't given us any particular details to work with.
Related
I'm currently stuck with designing my endpoints in a way so that they are conform with the REST principles but also ensure the integrity of the underlying data.
I have two resources, ShadowUser and RealUser whereas the first one only has a first name, last name and an e-mail.
The second user has much more properties such like an Id under which the real user can be addressed at other place in the system.
My use-case it to convert specific ShadowUsers into real users.
In my head the flow seems pretty simple:
get the shadow users /GET api/ShadowUsers?somePropery=someValue
create new real users with the data fetched /POST api/RealUsers
delete the shadow-users /DELETE api/ShadowUSers?somePropery=someValue
But what happens when there is a problem between the creation of new users and the deletion of the shadow ones? The data would now be inconsistent.
The example is even easier when there is only one single user, but the issue stays the same as there could be something between step 2 and 3 leaving the user existing as shadow and real.
So the question is, how this can be done in a "transactional" manner where anything is good and persisted or something went wrong and nothing has been changed in the underlying data-store?
Are there any "best practices" or "design-patterns" which can be used?
Perhaps the role of the RESTful API GETting and POSTing those real users in batch (I asked a question some weeks ago about a related issue: Updating RESTful resources against aggregate roots only).
In the API side, POSTed users wouldn't be handled directly but they would be enqueued in a reliable messaging queue (for example RabbitMQ). A background process would be subscribed to the whole queue and it would process both the creation and removal of real and shadow users respectively.
The point of using a reliable messaging system is that you can implement retry policies. If the operation is interrupted in the middle of finishing its work, you can retry it and detect which changes are still pending to complete the task.
In summary, using this approach you can implement that operation in a transactional way.
Can people give me examples of why they would use coreData in an application?
I ask this because most apps are just clients to a central server where an API of some sort gives you the information you need.
In my case I'm writing a timesheet application for a web app which has an API and I'm debating if there is any value in replicating the data structure on my server in core data(Sqlite)
e.g
Project has many timesheets
employee has many timesheets
It seems to me that I can just connect to the API on every call for lists of projects or existing timesheets for example.
I realize for some kind of offline mode you could store locally in core data but this creates way more problems because you now have a big problem with syncing that data back to the web server when you get connection again.. e.g. the project selected for a timesheet no longer exists.
Can any experienced developer shed some light on there experiences on when core data is best practice approach?
EDIT
I realise of course there is value in storing local persistance but the key value of user defaults seems to cover most applications I can think of.
You shouldn't think of CoreData simply as an SQLite database. It's not JUST an SQLite database. Sure, SQLite is an option, but there are other options as well, such as in-memory and, as of iOS5, a whole slew of custom data stores. The biggest benefit with CoreData is persistence, obviously. But even if you are using an in-memory data store, you get the benefits of a very well structured object graph, and all of the heavy lifting with regards to pulling information out of or putting information into the data store is handled by CoreData for you, without you necessarily needing to concern yourself with what is backing that data store. Sure, today you don't care too much about persistence, so you could use an in-memory data store. What happens if tomorrow, or in a month, or a year, you decide to add a feature that would really benefit from persistence? With CoreData, you simply change or add a persistent data store, and all of your methods to get information out or in remain unchanged. The overhead for that sort of addition is minimal in comparison to if you were trying to access SQLite or some other data store directly. IMHO, that's the biggest benefit: abstraction. And, in essence, abstraction is one of the most powerful things behind OOP. Granted, building the Data Model just for in-memory storage could be overkill for your app, depending on how involved the app is. But, just as a side note, you may want to consider what is faster: Requesting information from your web service every time you want to perform some action, or requesting the information once, storing it in memory, and acting on that stored value for the remainder of the session. An in-memory data store wouldn't persistent beyond that particular session.
Additionally, with CoreData you get a lot of other great features like saving, fetching, and undo-redo.
There are basically two kinds of apps. Those that provide you with local functionality (games, professional applications, navigation systems...) and those that grant access to a remote service.
Your app seems to be in the second category. If you access remote services, your users will want to access new or real-time data (you don't want to read 2 week old Facebook posts) but in some cases, local caching makes sense (e.g. reading your mails when you're on the train with unstable network).
I assume that the value of accessing cached entries when not connected to a network is pretty low for your customers (internal or external) compared to the importance of accessing real-time-data. So local storage might be not necessary at all.
If you don't have hundreds of entries in your timetable, "normal" serialization (NSCoding-protocol) might be enough. If you only access some "dashboard-data", you will be able to get along with simple request/response-caching (NSURLCache can do a lot of things...).
Core Data does make more sense if you have complex data structures which should be synchronized with a server. This adds a lot of synchronization logic to your project as well as complexity from Core Data integration (concurrency, thread-safety, in-app-conflicts...).
If you want to create a "client"-app with a server driven user experience, local storage is not necessary at all so my suggestion is: Keep it as simple as possible unless there is a real need for offline storage.
It's ideal for if you want to store data locally on the phone.
Seriously though, if you can't see a need for it for your timesheet app, then don't worry about it and don't use it.
Solving the sync problems that you would have with an "offline" mode would be detailed in your design of your app. For example - don't allow projects to be deleted. Why would you? Wouldn't you want to go back in time and look at previous data for particular projects? Instead just have a marker on the project to show it as inactive and a date/time that it was made inactive. If the data that is being synced from the device is for that project and is before the date/time that it was marked as inactive, then it's fine to sync. Otherwise display a message and the user will have to sort it.
It depends purely on your application's design whether you need to store some data locally or not, if it is a real problem or a thin GUI client around your web service. Apart from "offline" mode the other reason to cache server data on client side might be to take traffic load from your server. Just think what does it mean for your server to send every time the whole timesheet data to the client, or just the changes. Yes, it means more implementation on both side, but in some cases it has serious advantages.
EDIT: example added
You have 1000 records per user in your timesheet application and one record is cca 1 kbyte. In this case every time a user starts your application, it has to fetch ~1Mbyte data from your server. If you cache the data locally, the server can tell you that let's say two records were updated since your last update, so you'll have to download only 2 kbyte. Now you should scale up this for several tens of thousands of user and you will immediately notice the difference of the server bandwidth and CPU usage.
I am using iCloud with Core Data, based on the SQLite "Library-style" application design as specified by Apple. While the basic functionality works very well, I am concerned about the transaction logs and how they are managed.
While the database for my app is not large, it is very active and the core data stack is saved many times while the app is in use. I have noticed that a new transaction log is created for every core data save. The end result is that I have a TON of transaction logs and they take up much more space than the actual database.
1) Do the transaction logs ever get automatically pruned / coalesced, or will they continue to grow indefinitely, eventually numbering in the thousands and taking up many megabytes? It seems that the only way to manually purge the transaction logs and recreate a .baseline archive would be to disable and then re-enable iCloud (removing the ubiquity container and starting fresh). But this is obviously not a good solution.
2) My current architecture saves the core data stack often, even for minor changes. In general, this makes sense as my database is small and saving often ensures that the database file is always up-to-date. However, given the above issues with transaction logs, I am thinking that I should perhaps minimize saves to the database. Maybe doing so on a timed basis and/or on app transition states.
3) Even if I minimize the number of transaction logs by reducing how often I save the database, there seems to be an issue here, as the logs will continue to grow in number over time. Eventually the benefit of the "transaction log" design will become a burden in terms of the amount of iCloud storage used and the initial iCloud sync as a new device is added.
As Apple has provided very sparse information on iCloud and almost nothing in the form of "best practices", I would appreciate any insight from the community.
I filed a radar on this issue and received the following reply. They noted that it should be working correctly in iOS 5.1, though I have not yet verified this myself.
A clarification for any who might misunderstand the following. The transaction logs will be cleaned up by the core data internals. This is NOT something that should be performed by the application itself.
Engineering has provided the following feedback regarding this issue:
The transaction logs are intended to be deleted after all the active
peers have had a chance to read them, and they exceed a threshold of
space consumed. There was a previous issue that prevented the devices
from correctly doing so.
I am writing an app for iOS that uses data provided by a web service. I am using core data for local storage and persistence of the data, so that some core set of the data is available to the user if the web is not reachable.
In building this app, I've been reading lots of posts about core data. While there seems to be lots out there on the mechanics of doing this, I've seen less on the general principles/patterns for this.
I am wondering if there are some good references out there for a recommended interaction model.
For example, the user will be able to create new objects on the app. Lets say the user creates a new employee object, the user will typically create it, update it and then save it. I've seen recommendations that updates each of these steps to the server --> when the user creates it, when the user makes changes to the fields. And if the user cancels at the end, a delete is sent to the server. Another different recommendation for the same operation is to keep everything locally, and only send the complete update to the server when the user saves.
This example aside, I am curious if there are some general recommendations/patterns on how to handle CRUD operations and ensure they are sync'd between the webserver and coredata.
Thanks much.
I think the best approach in the case you mention is to store data only locally until the point the user commits the adding of the new record. Sending every field edit to the server is somewhat excessive.
A general idiom of iPhone apps is that there isn't such a thing as "Save". The user generally will expect things to be committed at some sensible point, but it isn't presented to the user as saving per se.
So, for example, imagine you have a UI that lets the user edit some sort of record that will be saved to local core data and also be sent to the server. At the point the user exits the UI for creating a new record, they will perhaps hit a button called "Done" (N.B. not usually called "Save"). At the point they hit "Done", you'll want to kick off a core data write and also start a push to the remote server. The server pus h won't necessarily hog the UI or make them wait till it completes -- it's nicer to allow them to continue using the app -- but it is happening. If the update push to server failed, you might want to signal it to the user or do something appropriate.
A good question to ask yourself when planning the granularity of writes to core data and/or a remote server is: what would happen if the app crashed out, or the phone ran out of power, at any particular spots in the app? How much loss of data could possibly occur? Good apps lower the risk of data loss and can re-launch in a very similar state to what they were previously in after being exited for whatever reason.
Be prepared to tear your hair out quite a bit. I've been working on this, and the problem is that the Core Data samples are quite simple. The minute you move to a complex model and you try to use the NSFetchedResultsController and its delegate, you bump into all sorts of problems with using multiple contexts.
I use one to populate data from your webservice in a background "block", and a second for the tableview to use - you'll most likely end up using a tableview for a master list and a detail view.
Brush up on using blocks in Cocoa if you want to keep your app responsive whilst receiving or sending data to/from a server.
You might want to read about 'transactions' - which is basically the grouping of multiple actions/changes as a single atomic action/change. This helps avoid partial saves that might result in inconsistent data on server.
Ultimately, this is a very big topic - especially if server data is shared across multiple clients. At the simplest, you would want to decide on basic policies. Does last save win? Is there some notion of remotely held locks on objects in server data store? How is conflict resolved, when two clients are, say, editing the same property of the same object?
With respect to how things are done on the iPhone, I would agree with occulus that "Done" provides a natural point for persisting changes to server (in a separate thread).
I am working on a regular iPhone app which pulls data from a server (XML, JSON, etc...), and I'm wondering what is the best way to implement synching data. Criteria are speed (less network data exchange), robustness (data recovery in case update fails), offline access and flexibility (adaptable when the structure of the database changes slightly, like a new column). I know it varies from app to app, but can you guys share some of your strategy/experience?
For me, I'm thinking of something like this:
1) Store Last Modified Date in iPhone
2) Upon launching, send a message like getNewData.php?lastModifiedDate=...
3) Server will process and send back only modified data from last time.
4) This data is formatted as so:
<+><data id="..."></data></+> // add this to SQLite/CoreData
<-><data id="..."></data></-> // remove this
<%><data id="..."><attribute>newValue</attribute></data></%> // new modified value
I don't want to make <+>, <->, <%>... for each attribute as well, because it would be too complicated, so probably when receive a <%> field, I would just remove the data with the specified id and then add it again (assuming id here is not some automatically auto-incremented field).
5) Once everything is downloaded and updated, I will update the Last Modified Date field.
The main problem with this strategy is: If the network goes down when I am updating something => the Last Modified Date is not yet updated => next time I relaunch the app, I will have to go through the same thing again. Not to mention potential inconsistent data. If I use a temporary table for update and make the whole thing atomic, it would work, but then again, if the update is too long (lots of data change), the user has to wait a long time until new data is available. Should I use Last-Modified-Date for each of the data field and update data gradually?
I would start by making the update routine atomic, since you'll have enough on your hands figuring out how to get the client-server communication working properly.
After that is a good time to consider tweaking it to be incremental, but only after you do some testing to figure out if it's really necessary. If you're tuning your update protocol to be as low bandwidth as possible, you might discover that even a "big" update is downloaded fast enough.
Another way to look at it is to ask yourself, how often is there going to be network trouble when an average user is doing a sync? You probably don't want to tune for unlikely scenarios.
If you are trying to optimize (minimize) the data transfer you may want to consider a different format than XML, since XML is fairly verbose. Or at least you may want to trade in XML readability for space by making each element name and attribute as small as possible, and eliminate all unnecessary whitespace.
Your basic scheme is good. The thing you need to do is to somehow make your updates idempotent so that you can restart a partially-completed transfer without risk. This is a better way to go than to try to implement some sort of true atomic commit (though you could do that too, using, eg, the SQLite database).
In our experience fairly large updates (10s of KB) can be downloaded quite rapidly, if the server is fast enough. No great need to break updates up into tiny bits. But certainly it won't hurt to try to minimize the amount of data transferred by keeping more granular info on "last update".
(And definitely you should use JSON rather than XML as your transmitted data representation.)
Wonder if you have considered using a Sync Framework to manage the synchronization. If that interests you can take a look at the open source project, OpenMobster's Sync service. You can do the following sync operations
two-way
one-way client
one-way device
bootup
Besides that, all modifications are automatically tracked and synced with the Cloud. You can have your app offline when network connection is down. It will track any changes and automatically in the background synchronize it with the cloud when the connection returns. It also provides synchronization like iCloud across multiple devices
Also, modifications in the Cloud are synched using Push notifications, so the data is always current even if it is stored locally.
In your case,
Criteria are speed (less network data exchange), robustness (data recovery in case update fails), offline access
Speed: Only the changes are sent across the network in both directions
Robustness: It stores data in a transactional store like sqlite and any failed updates are communicated in the SyncML payload. Only the successful operations are processed while the failed operations are re-tried during the next sync
Here is a link to the open source project: http://openmobster.googlecode.com
Here is a link to iPhone App Sync: http://code.google.com/p/openmobster/wiki/iPhoneSyncApp