I am building an app in which I have a Room entity that one of its columns is supposed to hold a List.
What is the best approach for doing this in an app that uses Flow, Coroutines and Room?
I tried serializing with Jackson (turning the List to a long json String and then bring it back to a List when fetched) but I am not sure if this is the correct approach.
Thank you,
What is the best approach for doing this in an app that uses Flow, Coroutines and Room?
This is very much open to opinion.
From a database perspective the approach would be to have any list as a table and thus
reducing the JSON bloat and thus reducing efficiency,
reduce duplication and thus be more likely to conform to normalisation
not potentially introducing complexities and even greater inefficiencies (e.g. not mentioned in the answer below but wild-character as the first character must do a full table scan)
perhaps consider this question and answer matching multiple title in single query using like keyword where if the table per list approach were taken then a simple SELECT * FROM task WHERE task_tags IN(:taglist) could do the same
From a coding point of view at first the coding is simpler when embedding JSON as the complex code is within the JSON libraries.
Related
This question is mainly targeted towards Miguel as the creator of MT.Dialog but I would like to hear opinions of others as well.
I'm currently refactoring a project that has many table views. I'm wondering if I should replace All of them with MT.Dialog.
My pros are:
easy to use
simple code
hope that Xamarin will offer it cross platform one day
Cons:
my cells are complete custom made. Does it make sense in that case?
performance? Is that an issue?
breaking the MVC paradigms (source no longer separated from view and controller)
Is it in general better to just use MT.Dialog or inherit from it for specific use cases? What are your experiences?
To address some of your questions.
The major difference between MonoTouch.Dialog and UITableView is that with the former you "load" all the data that you want to render upfront, and then forget about it. You let MonoTouch.Dialog take care of rendering it, pushing views and taking care of sections/elements. With UITableView you need so provide callback methods for returning the number of sections, the titles for the sections and the data itself.
UITableView has the advantage that to render say a million rows with the same size and the same cells, you dont really have to load all the data upfront, you can just wait to be called back. That being said, this breaks quickly if you use cells with different heights, as UITableView will have to query for the sizes of all of your rows.
So in short:
(1) yes, even if you use custom cells, you will benefit from shorter code and a simpler programming model. Whether you use the other features of it or not, is up to you.
(2) For performance, the issue boils down to how many rows you will have. Like I mentioned before, if you are browsing a potentially large data set, you would have to load all of those cells in memory up front, or like TweetStation, add features to load "on-demand".
The reality is that it will consume more memory, because you need to load your data in MonoTouch.Dialog. Your best optimization technique is to keep your Elements very lightweight. Tweetstation for example uses a "TweetElement" that merely holds the ID to the tweet, and loads the actual contents on demand, to keep the size of the TweetElement in memory very small.
With UITableView, you do not pay for that price. But if you are not using a database of some sort, the data will still be in memory.
If your application calls for the data to be in memory, then you might as well move the data to be elements and use that as your model.
(3) This is a little bit of a straw man. Your data "source" is never really independent of UIKit. I know that people like to talk about these models as being reusable, but in practice, you wont ever be able to reuse a UITableViewSource as a source for anything but a UITableView. It's main use is to support scalable controls that do not require data to be loaded in memory up-front, it is not really about separating the Model from the View.
So what you really have is an adaptor class that bridges the world of the UITableView with your actual data model (a database, an XML list, an in-memory array, a Redis connection).
With UITableView, your adaptor code lives in the constructor and the UITableViewSource. With MonoTouch.Dialog your adatpro code lives in the code that populates the initial RootElement to DialogViewController.
So there are reasons to use UITableView over MonoTouch.Dialog, but it is none of those three Cons.
I use MonoTouch.Dialog (and it's brother QuickDialog for objc) pretty much every time I use a tableview. It does help a lot to simplify the code, and gives you a better abstraction of a table.
There's one exception, though, which is when the table will have thousands and thousands of rows, and the data is in a database. MT.D/QD requires you to load all the data upfront, so you can create the sections, and that's simply too slow if you don't already have the objects in memory.
Regarding "breaking MVC", I kind of agree with you. I never really use the reflection bindings in MT.D because of that fact. Usually I end up creating the root from scratch in code, or use something like JSON (in my fork https://github.com/escoz/MonoMobile.Forms), so that my domain objects don't need to know about MT.D.
Is it possible to transform the returned data from a Find query in MongoDB?
As an example, I have a first and last field to store a user's first and last name. In certain queries, I wish to return the first name and last initial only (e.g. 'Joe Smith' returned as 'Joe S'). In MySQL a SUBSTRING() function could be used on the field in the SELECT statement.
Are there data transformations or string functions in Mongo like there are in SQL? If so can you please provide an example of usage. If not, is there a proposed method of transforming the data aside from looping through the returned object?
It is possible to do just about anything server-side with mongodb. The reason you will usually hear "no" is you sacrifice too much speed for it to make sense under ordinary circumstances. One of the main forces behind PyMongo, Mike Dirolf with 10gen, has a good blog post on using server-side javascript with pymongo here: http://dirolf.com/2010/04/05/stored-javascript-in-mongodb-and-pymongo.html. His example is for storing a javascript function to return the sum of two fields. But you could easily modify to return the first letter of your user name field. The gist would be something like:
db.system_js.first_letter = "function (x) { return x.charAt(0); }"
Understand first, though, that mongodb is made to be really good at retrieving your data, not really good at processing it. The recommendation (see for example 50 tips and tricks for mongodb developers from Kristina Chodorow by Oreilly) is to do what Andrew tersely alluded to doing above: make a first letter column and return that instead. Any processing can be more efficiently done in the application.
But if you feel that even querying for the fullname before returning fullname[0] from your 'view' is too much of a security risk, you don't need to do everything the fastest possible way. I'd avoided map-reduce in mongodb for awhile because of all the public concerns about speed. Then I ran my first map reduce and twiddled my thumbs for .1 seconds as it processed 80,000 10k documents. I realize in the scheme of things, that's tiny. But it illustrates that just because it's bad for a massive website to take a performance hit on some server side processing, doesn't mean it would matter to you. In my case, I imagine it would take me slightly longer to migrate to Hadoop than to just eat that .1 seconds every now and then. Good luck with your site
The question you should ask yourself is why you need that data. If you need it for display purposes, do that in your view code. If you need it for query purposes, then do as Andrew suggested, and store it as an extra field on the object. Mongo doesn't provide server-side transformations (usually, and where it does, you usually don't want to use them); the answer is usually to not treat your data as you would in a relational DB, but to use the more flexible nature of the data store to pre-bake your data into the formats that you're going to be using.
If you can provide more information on how this data should be used, then we might be able to answer a little more usefully.
In my travels in Oracle, the 'stragg' function, or 'String Aggregator' was life-saving when I had to create dynamic SQL queries on the fly.
You can read up about it here: http://www.oratechinfo.co.uk/delimited_lists_to_collections.html
The basic use of it was:
select stragg(fruit) from food;
fruit
-----------
apple,pear,banana,strawberry
1 row(s) returned
So simple to use, concatenating chr(13) turned it into a long list, and selecting information from system tables gave a 5 minute solution to dynamically generated SQL, e.g. auditing triggers.
Now I've been charged with transferring oracle functionality related to auditing into Sybase, and a function similar to Stragg would be ideal for this purpose.
E.g.
select #my_table = 'table_of_fruit'
select 'insert into '+#mytable+'_copy (' +char(10)
+ stragg(c.name) +char(10)
+ 'select '
+ stragg('inserted.'+c.name) + char(10)
+ 'from '+#mytable
from syscolumns c
where objectid(#mytable) = c.id
------------------------------------------
insert into table_of_fruit_copy
(fruit, sweetness, price)
select fruit, sweetness,price
from inserted
Done. Simple.
Except I don't know how to get a string-aggregation function working in Sybase.
Does anyone know of an attempt to do this kind of thing, or code that could work the same as stragg that could be used in this way?
The alternative at the moment is printing code based on complex cursors and such (sample LOC: 500), or select statements combining static strings and columns from user tables (sample LOC: 200). Stragg would severely reduce the complexity of this code, and would be a great deal of help in the future (sample LOC: who knows, maybe 50?)
p.s. I'm calling these selects through a shell script then piping them to file, then running the file through iSQL. Not the nicest solution, but it's better than the alternatives.
There are three separate answers
Question
You have made comments about simplicity, which need to be addressed before we get to the solution.
It is a common requirement to be able to take a delimited list of values, say A,B,C,D, and treat this data like it was a set of rows in a table, or vice versa
This one of the Top Ten Worst Programming Practices I read about recently.
In general, Sybase types tend to be somewhat more academically and Relationally qualified than Oracle types, so we simply do not do that sort of thing in SybaseLand or DB2Land.
In 20 years of working with Sybase, I have had to code that as part of my project just once, and that was for non-technical Auditor who loaded the result set into MS Access.
On the other hand, I have had to code that at least 12 times, when producing text files for importation into Oracle databases (fulfilling external requirements is outside my project, but I satisfy any such requirement free). Obviously the target databases were sub-standard and non-relational (loading a column with more than one datum breaks 1NF, and creates Update Anomalies), which is typical of what Oracle types have to do to get some speed.
Therefore, no, it is not simplicity, at least in the sense of that principle. It is by definition, complexity.
Your reference to "arrays" is incorrect. All commercial dbms handle arrays, according to the ISO/IEC/ANSI SQL (STRAGGR and LIST operators are non-standard SQL, therefore not SQL). Sybase is very strong in processing arrays. If it was an array, you would not need special hand coding to handle it (and you do, as per your question). This is not an array, there is no definition to the cells. This is a single concatenated scalar string.
Pivoting is an entirely different process, which uses set-processing; it does not require row-processing. (I understand on good authority, that Oracle is hopeless at scalar subqueries, and thus Oracle people are used to writing them as [very inefficient] joins or inline views, and then filtering: all that can be elevated to set-processing via scalar subqueries, and it will perform much faster. Particularly your Pivots.)
Even the author in your link posts as follows. Please familiarise yourself with the caveats:
It's as simple as this: If you want to have a system with no logical limitation in the number of data elements passed to a given process, then forget the following mechanisms! They are simply the wrong way to approach the problem.
Therefore, know whatever you are doing is sub-standard, non-relational, and limited; and go ahead with your eyes open. No use pretending that: it will not break; it is not limited; it is an "array"; or that Sybase doesn't have a neat little function that Oracle has. Any professional will see through all that. And if the string length is exceeded, for God's sake send some indicator back to the caller ("!Exceeded" in the string) identifying that condition.
Essentially you are turning the set-processing engine on its head, and forcing it into row-processing mode, so it will be very slow. A WHILE loop is distinctly faster than a cursor, but both are in the same class, row-processors.
The alternative at the moment is printing code based on complex cursors and such
What 200 or 500 LoC ? It is possible I am missing something, but my code is the same few lines of code identified under "Using a Table Function" in your link. Maximum 20, if you count nice formatting; the loop; initialisation; error handling. There is nothing "complex" about it. Do the exact reverse to cancatenate a single string from multiple rows. We use stored procedures for this (which oracle does not have, really, PL/SQL is a different animal). If you have ASE 15.0.2 or greater, you can use a User Defined Function, which you can then use in place of a column. Stored procs are better for true arrays.
the concatenation operator in Sybase is the plus sign. For reversal (decomposing the CSV string) you need CHARINDEX and SUBSTRING functions
You may need the Function Reference Manual, if for nothing else, to avoid writing code where we have functions.
Likewise, we do not have a RANK() function. We are quite happy with the 4 lines of code requires for the subquery. It is only required for Oracle because subqueries are crippled.
Ok, I have answered your question, Now to address the approaches.
You will be aware that code using Oracle Extensions to the SQL standard will need to be changed.
Sybase is way more automated than Oracle; if you familiarise yourself with its feature set, in many instances, you can get the same result (as you did in Oracle) without writing any code. Writing code-for-code blocks is the chain gang, rock-breaking method of building roads, in the context of bulldozers. Even if your company had good reason to use that method, you need to the aware that features work quite differently, eg. triggers, which is why I am posting so much detail.
Another issue that will annoy you is that Oracle isn't really ANSI SQL compliant (stretches the definitions in many places, in order to appear to be compliant), and Sybase, given its customer base, is rigidly SQL compliant. So in addition to the same function working differently, or in a different deployment, you need to be aware that code changes may be required to elevate Oracle code to ANSI compliance levels, just to execute on an ANSI SQL compliant platform.
I am not sure if you are trying to write code for the content of a trigger, or if you are trying to capture the changes to a database. I will provide both answers.
Auditing
Capture Changes to Database
We have an very robust, fast and configurable Auditing subsystem, fit for high volumes and banking level auditing requirements. Get your DBA to setup the sybaudit (separate) database, and to configure exactly what changes need to be captured. This facility will perform much faster than any code you or I can write in a trigger (as much as 100 times faster than your row-by-processing required for the above, as it is executed within the engine, within your executing thread). And of course the setup time is a fraction of your coding time.
Triggers
Again, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve, but assuming you want to copy every insert to some table to a COPY of that table (inside the Trigger), that example code you have provided will not work (and I am not counting syntax issues).
Speaking to your example, you need to do way more work, to deal with the different datatypes; column sizes; precisions; scale; etc. And perhaps the UPDATE() function to identify which columns have changed (for an UPDATE trigger of course). If all you are trying to do is convert the various datatypes to strings, check the CONVERT() function.
Triggers are transactional.
Never place row-processing code in a Trigger (it will strangle the table)
You can't place Dynamic SQL in a Trigger.
But in Sybase even that is not necessary. Refer to the User Guide, chapter 19 is devoted to Triggers, with several variations, and examples. Inside the trigger, you should be able to simply:
INSERT table_copy
SELECT column_list -- never use * unless you want the db fixed in cement
FROM inserted
If you are trying to copy the inserts to all tables into one Audit table, then beware. Then I understand your example a little bit more. You will be forcing a highly Symmetric Muli-Threading server (oracle is not a server in the architecture sense) into single-threading through your table. Auditing is multi-threaded.
Last, the use of manual methods of any kind is not required, so if you could expand a bit more on your PS, what the requirement you are trying to fulfil is, I can identify the programmatic method for you. It appears you are trying to use the PL/SQL approach (which is very limited).
Just use the LIST() function. It's a direct replacement for stragg() function. Example:
SELECT LIST(state, ', ') FROM cities
Result:
name
CA, CA, MA, NY
Which data structures I should store the real life 'objects' in?
I am not looking for computer representation. I am looking for different data structures for different item in real life access/storage etc. Is there any study on this?
Update:
Based upon comments, I should remove the 'data' from data structures and simply looking for structures to store various objects in based upon usability rules.
Your question is a bit too vague to answer well, but in general you can think about using existing "objects"/models/representations of the abstract things you want to model or manipulate.
If those don't exist then you build your own.
Which data structure to use completely depends on the type of action you are going to perform on your data.
Some data structures are useful for random access(Arrays) while others are fast for insert delete operation( linked list )
Some store key value pair( HashMap or TreeMap)
Different operation varies arithmetically from each other in terms of time and space.So use the data structure that suit your requirements properly.
I'm trying to create an XML schema to describe some aspects of hospitals. A hospital may have 24 hour coverage on: emergency services, operating room, pharmacist, etc. The entire list is relatively short - around 10. The coverage may be on more than one of these services.
My question is how best to represent this. I'm thinking along the lines of:
<coverage>
<emergencyServices/>
<operatingRoom/>
</coverage>
Basically, the services are optional and, if they exist, the coverage is offered by the hospital.
Alternatively, I could have:
<coverage>
<emergencyServices>true</emergencyServices>
<operatingRoom>true</operatingRoom>
<pharmacist>false</pharmacist>
</coverage>
In this case, I require all the elements, but a value of false means that the coverage isn't offered.
There are probably other approaches.
What's the best practice for something like this? And, if I use the first option, what type should the elements be in the schema?
Best practice here depends really on the consumer.
The short and simple rule is that markup is for structure, and content is for data. So having them contain xs:boolean values is generally the best course.
Now, on to the options:
Having separate untyped elements is simple and clear; sometimes processing systems may have difficulty reading them, because some XML-relational mappers may not see any data in the elements to put in relational tables. But if they had values, like <emergencyServices>true</emergencyServices>, then the relational table would have a value to hold.
Again, if you have fixed element names, it means if your consumer is using a system that maps the XML to a database, every time you add a service, a schema change will have to be made.
There are several other ways; each has trade-offs:
Using a <xs:string> with an enumeration, and allow multiple copies. Then you could have <coverage>emergencyServices</coverage><coverage>operatingRoom</coverage>. It makes adding to the list simpler, but allows duplicates. This scheme does not require schema changes in the database for the consumer.
You could use attributes on the <coverage> element. They would have a xs:boolean type, but still require a schema change. Of course, this evokes the attribute vs. element argument.
One good resource is Chapter 11 of Effective XML. At least this should be read before making a final decision.