I'm experimenting with Core Data, plist files, flat files and sqlite.
I can't seem to differentiate in terms of efficiency for small data sets.
In terms of the differences on the surface ( i.e the API ), i know the difference.
But what I'm trying to get a feel for is which persistence model is best for which situation.
For small data sets, if you need read - write capability, you should go with NSUserDefaults - if gives you the power of key-value store and retrieval without too much hassle.
If you need read-only access, plist files are a viable option, as it keeps the abstraction to the concept of key-value and offers an accessible API to work with.
Flat files would be recommended if you need a different model of persistence than key-value, otherwise it would mean just reinventing the wheel.
Sqlite would fit the case where your data is organized in a strong relational manner and instead of key-value, you'd rather prefer having the power of sql to work directly with your data.
If for your dataset, however small it may be, would be an unnecessary inconvenience to manage the low-level storage and retrieval, then you could choose CoreData. With CoreData, code can retrieve and manipulate data on a purely object level without having to worry about the details of storage and retrieval, so you'd be more focused on your domain logic rather than fitting it to the storage and data manipulation logic.
Related
I need to know what should I use to store the property?
I'm still confused. Should I use SQLit or core data?
I will have a lot of data, user data and real estate data. It will also appear in the map.
Core Data contains sqlite as a storage facility. It's not an actual database, but rather a graph database.
SQLite on the other hand is a database. Different methodology, can be used for small chunks of data (I use it extensively) efficiently and mostly to implement a pure RDBMS system (with primary/foreign key, unions, and stuff like this, SQL powered).
For Core Data, you use graph relationships (which means objects connected to other objects by references).
The outcome is the same, different programming though, depending on the complexity you want to have (or actually have designed) in your app, so lay down your plans to see which one suits you. For SQLite I recommend FMDB wrapper, since it's easier instead of doing 2 to 3 checks for every SQL statement.
Your app seems interesting, and since it's real estate based you might want to spice it up a little bit later with a small technology called "augmented reality" :)
I am working on an application for the iPhone (iOS 5). What I have to do is create a map by using binary data that I reveive from a server. Some issues actually work quite well:
I can connect to a server, send requests and receive binary data from it
I can interprete this data, create objects (polygons and paths) from it and draw them within a view
But now it comes to the hard part. The map that I create should be zoomable and moovable. So I have to send new requests to the server and redraw the map. This also works nicely, but the data I already received now needs to be stored, because I should not request the same data from the server twice (e.g. if I zoom out and then back in).
Finally here is my question: What would be the best way to store my data? Until now I thought about using CoreData or SQLite. Are there even better solutions? And what data should I save - the binary data or my created objects?
I hope this was understandable and you can help me with at least one of my issues...
Core data is the only way to go.
Core data is not a storage system, is an object graph and persistence framework, witch can use SQlite to store data.
If you use core data you can refactor your project and use managedObjects subclass as models.
Take a look at Core Data Programming Guide, The differences between Core Data and a Database
Edit:
From Core Data Performance
Core Data is a rich and sophisticated object graph management
framework capable of dealing with large volumes of data. The SQLite
store can scale to terabyte sized databases with billions of
rows/tables/columns. Unless your entities themselves have very large
attributes (although see “Large Data Objects (BLOBs)”) or large
numbers of properties, 10,000 objects is considered to be a fairly
small size for a data set.
It really depends on the size of your data objects and how you access them. If your objects are small, you could store them in Core Data. But, if your map data is coming as images from a bunch of URLs, I would use Core Data to store the mappings to the map image URLs and use NSURLConnection to manage the caching of your objects.
I recommend reading the Apple Core Data Programming Guide Large Data Objects (BLOBs), it discusses the size and number of objects. Some excerpts are below:
The exact definition of "small", "modest", and "large" is fluid and depends on an application's usage. A loose rule of thumb is that objects in the order of kilobytes in size are of a "modest" sized and those in the order of megabytes in size are "large" sized.
For small to modest sized BLOBs (and CLOBs), you should create a separate entity for the data and create a to-one relationship in place of the attribute.
It is better, however, if you are able to store BLOBs as resources on the filesystem, and to maintain links (such as URLs or paths) to those resources. You can then load a BLOB as and when necessary.
Is Core Data still a good option to use for the iOS even if they data will only be quite temporary. i.e – data being sent up to a server in the cloud once within range of a network, and then never needed again on the mobile device.
You don't have to use Core Data to persist data.
If you don't want to persist the data at all, you can define an in-memory store which never writes to disk.
Core Data's true function is the management of an object graph i.e. it handles the relationships between objects. It's real advantage is the ability to automatically handle complexity.
That complexity can arise from the data objects themselves or from their needed relationships to controller or view objects. Either way, Core Data makes it easy to tie all the objects together without great gobs of custom code. Where the objects end up being persisted or even persisted at all, is really secondary.
Yes, if there could ever be a large number of records (e.g. user is overseas, doesn't have a data connection), use Core Data. The point of the Core Data abstraction is just this - if you only have 10 records max, ever, it may just use a flat file of data, or maybe a Sqlite database if more than that -- by "handing the problem" over to Core Data, you make storage decisions Apple's problem, and for free you'll get all the optimizations that Apple'll throw into the Core Data framework in the coming years.
Core Data is complex when you first look at it. Apple's API docs aren't bad, but there are a few "gotchas". If you've worked with anything like the Entity ORM framework, etc, it's really easy to pick up.
Alternatively, if you're reasonably certain that you're only going to get 5-10 records, and the data is anything that conforms to NSCoder, you could just archive it and save it, and then unarchive it when you launch the app. Also, if it's array data, a plist is pretty nice.
The approach I take is to insert entities into a NIL context and provide a base class for insertion into a valid context when I wish to persist them. Code can be found here... Temporary Core Data
I have in my app a considerable amount of data that it needs to access, but will never be changed by the app. Currently I'm using this data in other applications in JSON files and SQL databases, but neither seems very straightforward to use in iOS.
I don't want to use CoreData, which provides tons of unnecessary functionality and complexity.
Would it be a good idea store the data in PropertyList file and build an accessor class? Are there any simple ways to incorporate SQLite without going the CoreData route?
You can only use plist if the amount of data is relatively small. Plist are entirely loaded into memory so you can only really use them if you can sustain all the objects created by the plist in memory at once for as long as you need them.
Core Data has a learning curve but in use it is usually less complex than SQL. In most cases the "simpler" SQL leads to more coding because you end up having to duplicate much of the functionality of Core Data to shoehorn the procedural SQL into the object-oriented API. You have to manually manage the memory use of all the data by tracking retention. You've write a lot of SQL code every time you want data. I've updated several apps from SQL to Core Data and in all cases the Core Data implementation was smaller and cleaner than the SQL.
Neither is the memory or processor "overhead" any larger. Core Data is highly optimized. In most cases, off the shelf Core Data is more efficient than hand tuned SQL. One minor sub optimization in SQL usually destroys any theoretical advantage it might have.
Of course, if you're already highly skilled at managing SQL in C then you personally might get the app to market more quickly by using SQL. However, if you're wondering what you should plan to use in general on on Apple Platforms, Core Data is almost always the answer and you should take the time to learn it.
You can just use SQLite directly without the overhead of Core Data using the SQLite C API.
Here is a tutorial I found on your use-case - simply loading some data from an SQLite database. Hope this helps.
Depending on the type of your data, the size and how often it changes, you may desire to just keep things simple and use a property list. Otherwise, using SQLite (documented in Jergason's answer) would be where I'd go. Though let me say that if you have a relatively small (less than a couple hundred) set of basic types (arrays, dictionaries, numbers, strings) that don't change frequently, then a property list will be a better choice in my opinion.
As an example to that, in one of my games, I create the levels from a single property list per difficulty. Since there are only a handful of levels per difficulty (99) and a small set of parameters for each (number of elements in play, their initial positions, mass, etc) then it makes sense, and I avoid having to deal with SQLite directly or worse yet, setting up and maintaining CoreData.
What do you mean by "best"? What kind of data?
If it's a bunch of objects, then JSON or (binary) plist aren't terrible formats, since you'll want the whole thing loaded in memory to walk the object graph. Compare space efficiency and loading performance to pick which one to use.
If it's a bunch of binary blobs, then store the blobs in a big file, memory-map the file (NSDataReadingMapped a.k.a. NSMappedRead), and use indexes into the blobs. iOS frameworks use a mixture of these (e.g. there are a lot of .pngs, but also "other.artwork" which just contains raw image data).
You can also use NSKeyedArchiver and friends if your classes implement the NSCoding protocol, but there's some object graph management overhead and the plist format it produces isn't exactly nice to work with.
My plan is to display a list of items alphabetically in a table view that has about 100 items. Each item has an image, a list of times and a description that the tableview will drill down to. What I am struggling with is the correct way to store and load this data. Some have told me that a plist will be too data heavy and that core data is too new. Should I just create arrays?
You're not clear about what you intend to do with this data. Plists and Core Data are both persistence formats (on disk). Arrays are an in-memory format (and can also be slapped onto disk, I suppose, if that's what you want to do, but inventing your own binary disk format is only something you should consider very rarely, and certainly not in the case you probably have).
In memory, you can probably just use an array (NSArray) and have each element perhaps be an NSDictionary of the other properties relative to that entry. That sounds like the model of your MVC design, which you can then hook up to the table view.
As far as persisting this to disk, it depends on whether 100 items is a fixed amount, a ballpark, or a minimum, etc. Plists (see NSKeyedArchiver) are great for all the data except possibly the raw image data-- you might want to keep those "to the side" as separate image files with filenames in the plist.
I don't know much about Core Data, but it's not that new, and it's not untested, so if it does what you want without much hassle, go for it.
Serialize it into an Archive using NSCoding Protocol. See Guide.
I'd use an NSArray of business objects implementing NSCoding and then just archive them.
I usually default to Core Data unless I have a compelling reason not to. (Of course, I have learned Core Data so that makes it easy for me to this.)
Core Data has the following advantages:
It has an editor in which you can create complex object graphs easily
It can generate custom classes for you data model objects.
The generated classes are easily modified.
Core Data manages the complexity of adding, deleting and saving objects.
Core Data makes persisting an object graph almost invisible.
NSFetchedResultsController is custom designed to provide data for tables.
100 objects is a small graph that Core Data can handle easily. It's a lot easier to use Core Data than it is to write custom coders to archive custom objects. For exmaple, at present, I have an app with over a dozen major entities each with two or three relationships to other entities. Hand coding all that would be a nightmare.
Core Data has something of a steep learning curve especially if you've never worked with object graphs before but if you're planning on writing a lot of Apple platform software, learning it is well worth the time.