Using NSFetchedResultsController Without UITableView - iphone

Is it wrong to use an NSFetchedResultsController purely for data management, i.e., without using it to feed a UITableView?
I have a to-many relationship in a Core Data iPhone app. Whenever data in that relationship changes, I need to perform a calculation which requires that data to be sorted. In Apple's standard Department/Employees example, this would be like determining the median salary in a given Department. Whenever an Employee is added to or removed from that Department, or an Employee's salary changes, the median calculation would need to be performed again.
Keeping data sorted and current and getting notifications when it changes sounds like a great job for NSFetchedResultsController. The only "problem" is that I'm not using a UITableView. In other words, I'm not displaying sorted Employees in a UITableView. I just want an up-to-date sorted array of Employees so I can analyze them behind the scenes. (And, of course, I don't want to write a bunch of code that duplicates much of NSFetchedResultsController.)
Is it a bad idea to use an NSFetchedResultsController purely for data management, i.e., without using it to feed a UITableView? I haven't seen this done anywhere, and thought I might be missing something.

I would not call it bad but definitely "heavy".
It would be less memory and CPU to watch for saves via the NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification and do the calculation there. The notification will come with three NSArray instances in its userInfo and you can then use a simple NSPredicate against those arrays to see if any employee that you care about has changed and respond.
This is part of what the NSFetchedResultsController does under the covers. However you would be avoiding the other portions of the NSFetchedResultsController that you don't care about or need.
Heavy
NSFetchedResultsController does more processing than just watch for saved objects. It handles deltas, makes calls to its delegates, etc. I am not saying it is bad in any way shape or form. What I am saying is that if you only care about when objects have changed in your relationship, you can do it pretty easily by just watching for the notifications.
Memory
In addition, there is no reason to retain anything since you are already holding onto the "Department" entity and therefore access its relationships. Holding onto the child objects "just in case" is a waste of memory. Let Core Data manage the memory, that is part of the reason for using it.

There's nothing wrong with using NSFetchedResultsController without a view. Your use case sounds like a good reason to not re-invent the wheel.

To me, this sounds like an appropriate use of NSFetchedResultController. it might be a bit overkill, as its primary use IS to help populate and keep up to date tableViews, but if you are willing to put up with the added complexity, there is no reason to not use it as such. Correct use of notifications would be the other method and it is just as complex i would estimate.

Related

Alternative to NSFetchedResultsController?

Currently I have a UITableView with its data source being an NSFetchedResultsController. The most important thing the NSFetchedResultsController does is automatically update my table if there are any changes, via delegate methods. However, I no longer need to do a fetch to get my entity, call it "Pictures" for now. I have another entity called Folder, and folders have a relationship with Pictures, so every folder has an NSSet pictures.
So instead of fetching all pictures that belong to a certain folder, now I can just do folder.pictures, and that returns what I need, and I can assign that to an array and set that as my tableView source. However, this doesn't give me automatic table updates like an NSFetchedResultsController would.
My question is how can I have the functionality of an NSFetchedResultsController (that is, the delegate methods that automatically update my table) without executing a fetch? I don't need to fetch anymore since I have an NSSet with the desired NSManagedObjects.
What's wrong with the fetched results controller? Just keep it and use the dot notation for relationship sets as well - you get the best of both worlds.
The real advantage of the fetched results controller is actually hidden. It will fetch your objects (folders) alright - but maybe it will not fetch all the relationship attributes (pictures). This is called faulting. It means that core data will get the data in the background if it is needed. It is automatically optimized for speed and good memory usage. For example, the potentially huge array of your datasource will not have to be all in memory at once, something that is unavoidable with an array.
Thus, you really do not want to get rid of the FRC. She is your friend. Stay faithful to her. ;-)

Core Data get sum of values. Fetched properties vs. propagation

I'm relatively new to Core Data (coming from an SQLite background). Just finished reading the 'Core Data for iOS' book but I'm left with a number of baffling questions when I started modelling an app which has the following model:
'Accounts' entity which has a to-many 'transactions' relationship and a 'startingBalance' property
'Transaction' entity which has a to-many 'payments' relationship (and an inverse to Accounts)
'Payment' entity which contains details of the actual 'amount' paid
For performance reasons I wanted to de-normalize the model and add a 'TotalAmountSpent' property in the 'Accounts' entity (as suggested by the book) so that I could simply keep updating that when something changed.
In practice this seems difficult to achieve with Core Data. I can't figure out how to do this properly (and don't know what the right way is). So my questions are:
a) Should I change the 'TotalAmountSpent' to a Fetched Property instead? Are there performance implications (I know it's loaded lazily but I will almost certainly be fetching that property for every account). If I do, I need to be able to get the total amount spent against the 'startingBalance' for a given period of time (such as the last three days). This seems easy in SQL but how do I do this in Core Data? I read I can use a #sum aggregate function but how do I filter on 'date' using #sum? I also read any change in the data will require refreshing the fetched property. How do I 'listen' for a change? Do I do it in 'Payment' entity's 'willSave' method?
b) Should I use propagation and manually update 'TotalAmountSpent' each time a new payment gets added to a transaction? What would be the best place to do this? Should I do it in an overridden NSManagedObject's 'willSave' method? I'm then afraid it'll be a nightmare to update all corresponding transactions/payments if the 'startingBalance' field was updated on the account. I would then have to load each payment and calculate the total amount spent and the final balance on the account. Scary if there are thousands of payments
Any guidance on the matter would be much appreciated. Thanks!
If you use a fetched property you cannot then query on that property easily without loading the data into memory first. Therefore I recommend you keep the actual de-normalized data in the entity instead.
There are actually a few ways to easily keep this up to date.
In your -awakeFromFetch/-awakeFromInsert set up an observer of the relationship that will impact the value. Then when the KVO (Key Value Observer) fires you can do the calculation and update the field. Learning KVC and KVO is a valuable skill.
You can override -willSave in the NSManagedObject subclass and do the calculation on the save. While this is easier, I do not recommend it since it only fires on a save and there is no guarantee that your account object will be saved.
In either case you can do the calculation very quickly using the KVC Collection Operators. With the collection operators you can do the sum via a call to:
NSNumber *sum = [self valueForKeyPath:#"transactions.#sum.startingBalance"];

Is it necessary to cache data returned from CoreData?

I store data in an iPhone app using CoreData. The data stored is intended to represent a tree, with each record being a node (with pointer to its parent). As the user navigates through this tree, I cache the current parent and current set of children in an NSArray. I initially thought this made sense because it could allow quicker access of sibling nodes (useful when the data is presented in a UITableView and the user scrolls). I felt that using CoreData to perform a "get all children" query each time the next child is required would be inefficient (i.e. I'd be making the same query n times for n children, and just returning the ith result each time).
Now, I am not so sure this is necessary nor smart (mostly because I've learned that CoreData is a beast I have yet to fully understand).
Does anybody know whether this is good practice? I know CoreData does a lot for free including the caching of results, but since I know my data is going to be used like a tree, would my implementation (or some other outside-of-CoreData cache implementation) be more efficient?
when you use coredata and an UITableView you should use a NSFetchedResultsController. It does all the caching for you, and for sure it does it better than you.
the fetchedResultsController also takes care of deletion, changing and insertion of coredata objects, ie it tells you when to update the tableview. but for the latter to function you have to set up the fetchedresultscontroller delegate methods. there is a complete example of the delegate functions included in the documentation.
in general, get rid of your caching, it's not needed.

iphone SDK: Arbitrary tableview row reordering with core data

What is the best way to implement arbitrary row reordering in a tableview that uses core data? The approach that seems obvious to me is to add a rowOrder attribute of type Int16 to the entity that is being reordered in the tableview and manually iterate through the entity updating the rowOrder attributes of all the rows whenever the user finishes reordering.
That is an incredibly inelegant solution though. I'm hoping there is a better approach that doesn't require possibly hundreds of updates whenever the user reorders things.
If the ordering is something that the data model should modal and store, then the ordering should be part of the entity graph anyway.
A good, lightweight solution is to create an Order entity that has a one-to-one relationship to the actual entity being ordered. To make updating easy, create a linked-list like structure of the objects. Something like this:
Order{
order:int;
orderedObject<--(required,nullify)-->OrderObject.order
previous<--(optional,nullify)-->Order.next;
next<--(optional,nullify)-->Order.previous;
}
If you create a custom subclass, you can provide an insert method that inserts a new object in the chain and then sends a message down the next relationships and tells each object to increment its order by one then the message to its next. A delete method does the opposite. That makes the ordering integral to the model and nicely encapsulated. It's easy to make a base class for this so you can reuse it as needed.
The big advantage is that it only requires the small Order objects to be in alive in memory.
Edit:
Of course, you can extend this with another linked object to provide section information. Just relate that entity to the Order entity then provide the order number as the one in the section.
There is no better way and that is the accepted solution. Core Data does not have row ordering internally so you need to do it yourself. However it is really not a lot of code.

Faulting a CoreData relationship when fetching the main entity

I have an entity with a number of to-many relationships. I present certain properties of the entity in a tableview, using a NSFetchedResultsController. Of all the relationships the entity has, the values of only 1 of the relationships are displayed (they are currently faulted in the cellforrowat... method). It seems to me that this could have a performance impact. Is it possible to fault a specific relationship at the time of creating the Fetch request, so that CoreData does not have to fetch the values when the table is being scrolled?
I'm not sure that I understand the data model you're describing. If you are only displaying members of one of your entity's to-many relationships as the content for the table's rows, then you can fetch only the properties on display in each of the visible rows using -setPropertiesToFetch: on your fetch request, like in the following example:
NSArray *propertiesToFetch = [[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects:#"title", #"thumbnailImage", nil];
[fetchRequest setPropertiesToFetch:propertiesToFetch];
[propertiesToFetch release];
However, if what you're describing is a list of entities, with one of the displayed elements in the table row being from a to-one relationship, you can use -setRelationshipKeyPathsForPrefetching: like Barry suggests. However, in that case I'd suggest denormalizing your data model and moving that property from being within a relationship to being directly within the original entity. Traversing relationships is much more expensive than accessing properties.
First, I would not assume that the default Core Data behavior is less performant than your proposed approach: without data to back up your efforts, optimization is almost certainly going to go awry.
That said, I believe -[NSFetchRequest setRelationshipKeyPathsForPrefetching:] will accomplish what you want.
You could manually fault in objects, but I don't think you'll gain anything. Whether you fault in all the objects at once, or you fault them in one at a time as needed, each object is still going to be faulted in individually.
I have written apps that do exactly what you describe, fault in a large amount of data to display in a table view, and have never noticed a performance penalty. Remember, only the objects that correspond to table view cells that will be displayed will be faulted in.
In general, I'd say don't try to outsmart Core Data. It's got years of performance optimizations in it at this point. While, intuitively, it may seem like faulting in 100 objects would require 100 database queries, this is not necessarily the case.