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.
Related
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.
When i first query a CouchDB/Couchbase view it needs to be calculated. This can take a good while if there are large number of docs and that for each single view..
Is there any way of replicate an already calculated view from one Couch to another?
Not directly through CouchDB replication, no, there's all sorts of practical complexities in how that would have to be implemented that make it impractical I'm afraid.
For starters it means that CouchDBs have to carefully manage replication of view calculation of changes simultaneously somehow exactly in sync with the actual data (so you don't ever get newer view calculations than data), and that then gets further complicated by the fact that views only get updated when requested, so view data on either end could be out of date (and if users are querying with stale=ok, it might even be required to stay out of date).
I believe you can do it by directly copying the view index files (in /var/lib/couchdb/.DBNAME_design/SOMEHASH.view by default I think), if you just need a once-off view sync. I'd recommend against doing that frequently as a general solution though, since it's not officially supported AFAIK and is likely to be pretty fragile.
This isn't directly the answer to your question, although as PimTerry pointed out, replicating the view index is not supported, especially between different implementation.
What you can do instead is follow the procedure described here:
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/How_to_deploy_view_changes_in_a_live_environment
This way you can have your couchdb calculate the new index "in background" without blocking the usage of your application.
Hope this helps.
I have a general requirement in my current project to make an existing XPage application faster. One thing we looked at was how to speed up some slower type-ahead fields, and one solution to this which seems to be fast, is implementing it using FTSearch rather than the DBColumn we originally had. I want to get advice on whether this would be an OK approach, or if there are any suggestions to do what we need in a different way.
Background:
While there are a number of factors affecting the speed (like network latency, server OS, available server memory etc.), as we are using 8.5.3, we have optimized the application in general as far as we can, making use of the IBM Toolkit to find problem areas, and also using the features IBM added to help with this in 8.5.3 (e.g. Partial Execution, using the optimized JS and CSS option, etc.). Unfortunately we are stuck with the server running on a 32bit Windows OS with 3.5Gb Ram for another few months.
One of the slowest elements to respond are in certain type-aheads which reference a large number of documents. The worst one averages around 5 or 6 seconds before the suggested list appears for a type-ahead enabled field.
It uses SSJS to call a java class to perform a dbcolumn call (using Ferry Kranenburg's XPages Snippet) to get a unique list from a view, then back in SSJS it loops though the array to check if each entry contains the search key value, and if found it adds a highlight (bold) html tag around the search text in the word, then returns the formatted list back to the browser.
I added a print statement to output the elapsed time it takes to run the code, and on average today on our dev server it is around 3250 ms.
I tried a few things to see how we could make this process faster:
Added a Java class to do all processing (so not using SSJS). This only saved an average of 100ms.
Using a view-scoped Managed Bean, I loaded the unique Lookup list into memory when the page is loaded. This produces a really fast type-ahead response (16ms), but I suspect this is a very bad way to do this with a large data set - and could really impact the general server if multiple users were accessing the application. I tried to find information on what would be considered a large object, but couldn't find any guidance or recommendation on how much is too much to store in memory (I searched JSF and XPage sites). Does anyone have any suggestions on this?
Still in a Java class - instead of performing a dblookup to get the 'list' of all values to search through, I have the code run a FT Search to get the doc collection, then loop each doc to extract the field value I want and add those to a 'SortedSet' (which automatically doesn't allow duplicates), then loop the sorted set to insert the bold tags around the search term, and return that to the browser. This takes on average 100ms - which is great and barely noticeable. Are there an drawbacks to this approach - or reasons I should not do it this way?
Thanks for any feedback or advice on this.
Pam.
Update Aug, 14. 2013: I tried another approach (inspired by the IBM/Tony McGuckin Insights application on OpenNtf) as the Company Search type-ahead in that is using managed beans and is fast across a lot of data.
4 . Although the Insights application deals with data split across multiple databases, the principle for the type-ahead is similar. I couldn't use a view with getAllEntriesByKey though as I needed to search for a string within the text too, not just at the start of the entry. I tried creating a ViewEntryCollection based on a view FTSearch, but as we have a lot of duplicate names in the column, this didn't give the unique list I wanted. I then tried using a NotesViewNavigator on a categorized view, and looping through that. This produced the unique list I needed, but it turned out to be slower than any of the other methods above. (I did implement these ViewNavigator performance tips).
From my standpoint, performance may be affected by any of many layers every Domino application (not only XPages) consists of.
From top - browser (DOM, JS, CSS, HTML...), network (latencies, DNS, SSO...) to application layer (effective algorithms, caches), database/API (amount of data, indexes, reader names...) and OS/hardware (disks, memory...)
According to things you tested:
That is interresting, but could be expected: SSJS is cached and may use lower level API to get data (NAPI).
For your environment (32bit/3.5G RAM - I expect your statement about 3.5M is typo) I DO NOT recommend to cache big lists, especially if you apply it as a pattern to many fields/forms/applications. Cache in WeakHashMap could be more stable, though.
Use of FT search is perfectly fine, unless you need data that update frequently. FT index need some time and resources to update.
My suggestion is: go for FT, if it solves your problem. Definitely, troubleshoot FT performance in some heavy performance test on your server first.
(I cannot comment because of my low reputation)
I have recently been tackling with a similar problem. Here are some additional points to consider:
Are there many duplicate keywords in the view? Consider making a categorized view for #DbColumn.
FTSearching a view is often slower than a database, I believe. See Andre Guirard's article. Consider using db.FTSearch() and refining your FT query to include view's selection #Formula, if possible.
The FT index can be updated programmatically with db.updateFTIndex(). If keywords are added rarely, but need to be instantly available, you can perform index update in keyword document's QuerySave event (or similar). We used this approach when the keywords were stored in different (much smaller) database and the update was very fast.
The memory consumption can be checked this way:
Install XPages Toolbox from OpenNTF.
Open your application.
Create a JVM memory dump (Session dumps - Generate Heap Dump).
Install Eclipse Memory Analyzer Tool
Install IBM Diagnostic Tool Framework into Memory Analyzer.
Load your memory dump into MAT. You will see every Java object and their sizes.
In the end, I believe that there is no single general answer to your question. You need to test different approaches to find the fastest solution in your environment.
One problem with FT search is this error:
The full text index for this database is in use
Based on my experience this will occur for a while (maybe a few seconds) when the indexer task starts to index the database. If your users are not very demanding they can just try again and it will probably work.
But in many cases you want to minimize the errors the users get and will have to handle this error nicely. I've built my own FTSearch method which waits a bit and tries again until the error is not received. This will show as slowness to the user instead of error.
I'm building a little library applications to have a visual catalogue of my programming ebooks.
By now, I've added some of my ebooks info into a ko.observableArray in my BooksViewModel.js file.
Later, I'll be implementing a NodeJS applications with all the data saved in a MongooseDB and access them from there, but by now, I'm just experimenting directly from Knockout.js.
By default, my library shows all the books I added, desorganized, so I'm looking forward to implement "categories" by language. Every book object contains a language attribute.
I want to filter the books showed by language but I'm a little bit confused on how will be the best way to do this.
The books on the array are not organized, they are all dropped there.. some talks about javascript, other C and so on.
At first I thought about creating a separated array for each language, and then implemeting a method in the ViewModel to select the corresponding array of the language you requested.
Later, I would implementa NodeJS API, to get them by language, lets say:
GET /languages/C // will get a json corresponding all the books that talks about C
The ViewModel could contain a method:
self.findByLanguage = function(lang) {
self.books = // GET /languages/:lang
};
But that would query the database every time. I guess is better to load the whole books json first, saved all of them to an array on the client side, and then filter them. That way only one request would be made.
I could have a global array containing all the books, and then implement the filter with ko.utils.ArrayFilter.
What do you guys think will be the best approach? Maybe there is a better way.
Thanks in advance!
If "my programming ebooks" means this application is for you only, there's a trivial difference between querying all and only the selected few books as the database load will generally be close to zero in either of these cases. The number of books would be a few hundred perhaps.
But wait, what's the actual benefits from loading them all at once?
Upsides of storing the whole list client-side
If you are always looking at most of the categories will save you some milliseconds of database load and all bandwith just from changing categories.
Downsides
Bandwith usage is awful, initial page loading is slower giving you plenty of books you don't want or need.
The database system you're using is having speed as important optimization factor. Add an index on language and querying should be done in no time, anyhow. For the time you're using arrays as data source, this might not show in comparison to 'just sending the whole array'.
Opening the page in multiple windows/browsers/on multiple pcs will require you to syncrhonize all changes to all clients. If you don't do this, you'll have old objects until you reload the page which is exactly what you should avoid if having the list client-side.
If you're planning to run this on your local computer or within your local network, speed should be a trivial issue, so why not let the database do the work? If you're not and speed is an issue, I would personally value "I can load category X pretty fast" over "Initial page loading is slow, but it's fast once everything's loaded".
I have some basic views and some map/reduce views with logic. Nothing too complex. Not too many documents. I've tried with 250k, 75k, and 10k documents. Seems like I'm always waiting for view indexing.
Does better, more efficient code in the view help? I'm assuming it's basically processing the view at all levels of aggregation. So there must be some improvement there.
Does emit()-ing less data help? emit(doc.id, doc) vs specifying fewer fields?
Do more or less complex keys impact view indexing?
Or is it all about memory, CPU cores, and processor speed?
There must be some documentation out there, but I can't find anything referencing ways to improve performance.
I would take a deeper look into the reduce function. Try to use the built-in Erlang functions like _sum, _count, instead of writing Javascript.
Complex views can take hours and more, that's normal.
Maybe post such not too complex map/reduce.
And don't forget: indexing all docs is only done once after changing the view (or pushing a whole bunch of new docs). Subsequent new docs are indexed incrementally.
Use a view with &stale=ok to retrieve the "old" data instantly, so you don't have to wait. (But pay attention: you always have to call a view without stale=ok at least once to trigger the indexing process). Or better: use stale=update_after.
The code you write in views is more like CREATE INDEX than SELECT. It should be irrelevant how long it takes, as long as the view builds keep up with the document change rate. Building a view is a sunk (one-time) cost.
When you query the view, that is always a binary tree scan, which operates against a static data set in logarithmic time. That is usually the performance people care about more (in production.)
If you are not seeing behavior like I describe, perhaps we could discuss your view functions and your general approach to your problem. CouchDB is very different from relational databases. In the latter, you have highly structured data and free-form queries. In CouchDB, you have free-form data but highly structured index definitions (views). Except during development, changing and rebuilding views should be rare.
not emitting anything will help, but doing the view creation in smaller batches ( there are scripts that do this automagically ) helps more than anything other than not emitting anything at all, which can't be helped sometimes.