It is very easy to set up pagination with Relay however there's a small detail that is unclear to me.
both of the relevant parts in my code are marked with comments, other code is for additional context.
const postType = new GraphQLObjectType({
name: 'Post',
fields: () => ({
id: globalIdField('Post'),
title: {
type: GraphQLString
},
}),
interfaces: [nodeInterface],
})
const userType = new GraphQLObjectType({
name: 'User',
fields: () => ({
id: globalIdField('User'),
email: {
type: GraphQLString
},
posts: {
type: postConnection,
args: connectionArgs,
resolve: async (user, args) => {
// getUserPosts() is in next code block -> it gets the data from db
// I pass args (e.g "first", "after" etc) and user id (to get only user posts)
const posts = await getUserPosts(args, user._id)
return connectionFromArray(posts, args)
}
},
}),
interfaces: [nodeInterface],
})
const {connectionType: postConnection} =
connectionDefinitions({name: 'Post', nodeType: postType})
exports.getUserPosts = async (args, userId) => {
try {
// using MongoDB and Mongoose but question is relevant with every db
// .limit() -> how many posts to return
const posts = await Post.find({author: userId}).limit(args.first).exec()
return posts
} catch (err) {
return err
}
}
Cause of my confusion:
If I pass the first argument and use it in db query to limit returned results, hasNextPage is always false. This is efficient but it breaks hasNextPage (hasPreviousPage if you use last)
If I don't pass the first argument and don't use it in db query to limit returned results, hasNextPage is working as expected but it will return all the items I queried (could be thousands)
Even if database is on same machine (which isn't the case for bigger apps), this seems very, very, very inefficient and awful. Please prove me that Im wrong!
As far as I know, GraphQL doesn't have any server-side caching therefore there wouldn't be any point to return all the results (even if it did, users don't browse 100% content)
What's the logic here?
One solution that comes to my mind is to add +1 to first value in getUserPosts, it will retrieve one excess item and hasNextPage would probably work. But this feels like a hack and there's always excess item returned - it would grow relatively quickly if there are many connections and requests.
Are we expected to hack it like that? Is it expected the return all the results?
Or did I misunderstand the whole relationship between database and GrahpQL / Relay?
What if I used FB DataLoader and Redis? Would that change anything about that logic?
Cause of my confusion
The utility function connectionFromArray of graphql-relay-js library is NOT the solution to all kinds of pagination needs. We need to adapt our approach based on our preferred pagination models.
connectionFromArray function derives the values of hasNextPage and hasPrevisousPage from the given array. So, what you observed and mentioned in "Cause of my confusion" is the expected behavior.
As for your confusion whether to load all data or not, it depends on the problem at hand. Loading all items may make sense in several situations such as:
the number of items is small and you can afford the memory required to store those items.
the items are frequently requested and you need to cache them for faster access.
Two common pagination models are numbered pages and infinite scrolling. The GraphQL connection specification is not opinionated about pagination model and allows both of them.
For numbered pages, you can use an extra field totalPost in your GraphQL type, which can be used to display links to numbered pages on your UI. On the back-end, you can use feature like skip to fetch only the needed items. The field totalPost and the current page number eliminates the dependency on hasNextPage or hasPreviousPage.
For infinite scrolling, you can use the cursor field, which can be used as the value for after in your query. On the back-end, you can use the value of cursor to retrieve the next items (value of first). See an example of using cursor in Relay documention on GraphQL connection. See this answer about GraphQL connection and cursor. See this and this blog posts, which will help you better understand the idea of cursor.
What's the logic here?
Are we expected to hack it like that?
No, ideally we're not expected to hack and forget about it. That will leave technical debt in the project, which is likely to cause more problems in the long term. You may consider implementing your own function to return a connection object. You will get ideas of how to do that in the implementation of array-connection in graphql-relay-js.
Is it expected the return all the results?
Again, depends on the problem.
What if I used FB DataLoader and Redis? Would that change anything about that logic?
You can use facebook dataloader library to cache and batch-process your queries. Redis is another option for caching the results. If you load (1) all items using dataloader or store all items in Redis and (2) the items are lightweight, you can easily create an array of all items (following KISS principle). If the items are heavy-weight, creating the array may be an expensive operation.
Related
I'm developing an application in Quasar/Electron and using Dexie/IndexedDB for my database. I want to find all distinct records in the database that contain both my Event ID and a Dog ID (both key indexed fields). I am able to do this with the following code:
await myDB.runTable
.orderBy('[fk_event+fk_dog]')
.eachUniqueKey((theDuo) => {
this.runsArray.push({eventID: theDuo[0], dogID: theDuo[1]})
})
I'm using a combined key which is working well. However, I need to have more of the records than just the keys. I need a few more fields, is this possible?
I was trying to get records with the unique key function while also using the where function, but that doesn't seem to work.
I need to get all the unique (distinct?) dogs in the table that are in a particular event. And also get their corresponding information. I'm not sure if there is a better, more efficient way to do this? I can always pull out all the records and loop through them to build a custom array, I was just hoping to do this at the table read level. (yeah I'm still in tables/records even though these are collections etc. :p ).
Even the above code gives me all the events, and I can pull out what I need with a filter. I just was thinking it would be faster and more efficient to do it at the read level.
this.enteredRuns = this.runsArray.filter((theEvent) => {
return ( (theEvent.eventID == this.currentEventID) )
})
Try
await myDB.runTable
.orderBy('[fk_event+fk_dog]')
.clone({unique: "unique"})
.toArray()
I know this isn't documented but it should do the work to use unique cursor while still extracting the whole objects and not just the keys. You cannot combine with where but you could use .filter. Just be aware that not all records with be scanned as it will jump over records with same keys - selecting the first visited records only.
I have the following structure in my RTDB (I'm using typescript interface notation to communicate the structure):
interface MyDB {
customers: {
[id: string]: {
firstName: string;
lastName: string;
};
};
projects: {
[id: string]: {
created: string;
customerId: string;
phase: string;
};
};
}
Given that I have two "tables" or document nodes, I'm not certain what the correct format for getting a project, as well as it's associated customer, should be.
I was thinking this:
db.ref('projects').once(projects => {
const customers = db.ref('customers').once(customers => {
const project = projects[SOME_PROJECT_ID];
const customer = customers[project.customerId];
// Proceed to do cool stuff with our customer and project...
});
});
Now, there are plenty of ways to express this. To be honest I did it this way in this example for simplicity, but I would actually not serialize the db.ref calls - I would put them in a combined observable and have them go out in parallel but that doesn't really matter because the inner code wouldn't change.
My question is -- is this how it is expected that one handle multi-document lookups that need to be joined in realtime database, or is there a "better" more "RTDB-y" way of doing it?
The issue I see here is the understanding I have is that we're selecting ALL projects and ALL customers. If I want to only get customers that have associated projects, is there a more efficient way to do that? I have seen that you might want to track project id's on each customer and do a filter there. But, I'm not sure the best way to track multiple project IDs (as a string with some kind of separater, or is there an array search function, etc?)
Thanks
Firebase Realtime Database doesn't offer any type of SQL-like join. If you have two locations to read, it requires two queries. How you do those two queries is entirely up to you. The database and its SDK is not opinionated about how you do that. If what you have works, then go with it.
I’ve seen all around the documentation that Query-based sync is deprecated, so I’m wondering how should I got about my situation:
In my app (using Realm Cloud), I have a list of User objects with some information about each user, like their username. Upon user login (using Firebase), I need to check the whole User database to see if their username is unique. If I make this common realm using Full Sync, then all the users would synchronize and cache the whole database for each change right? How can I prevent that, if I only want the users to get a list of other users’ information at a certain point, without caching or re-synchronizing anything?
I know it's a possible duplicate of this question, but things have probably changed in four years.
The new MongoDB Realm gives you access to server level functions. This feature would allow you to query the list of existing users (for example) for a specific user name and return true if found or false if not (there are other options as well).
Check out the Functions documentation and there are some examples of how to call it from macOS/iOS in the Call a function section
I don't know the use case or what your objects look like but an example function to calculate a sum would like something like this. This sums the first two elements in the array and returns their result;
your_realm_app.functions.sum([1, 2]) { sum, error in
if let err = error {
print(err.localizedDescription)
return
}
if case let .double(x) = result {
print(x)
}
}
I have two Relay mutations that I'm nesting to first add an object then set its name. I believe what I'm passing to the second mutation is in fact data fetched by Relay, but it appears to disagree with me. The code in the React view is as follows:
Relay.Store.update(
new AddCampaignFeatureLabelMutation({
campaign: this.props.campaign
}),
{
onSuccess: (data) => {
Relay.Store.update(
new FeatureLabelNameMutation({
featureLabel: data.addCampaignFeatureLabel.featureLabelEdge.node,
name: this.addLabelInputField.value
})
);
},
onFailure: () => {}
}
);
This does work, but gives me a warning:
Warning: RelayMutation: Expected prop `featureLabel` supplied to `FeatureLabelNameMutation` to be data fetched by Relay. This is likely an error unless you are purposely passing in mock data that conforms to the shape of this mutation's fragment.
Why does Relay think the data isn't fetched? Do I maybe need to explicitly return the new featureLabel in the payload somehow?
I ran into the same problem and it took me some time to figure out what was going on, so this might help others:
As the warning says, you have to provide an entity to the mutation that was fetched by Relay. BUT what the warning does not say is that it has to be fetched with the mutation in mind.
So basically you have to add the mutation you are going to execute on it in the future in the initial query like this:
fragment on Person {
firstname,
lastname,
language,
${UpdatePersonMutation.getFragment('person')}
}
This will add the necessary pieces to the entity in the store which are needed by the mutation.
In you case what you have to do is to add the FeatureLabelNameMutation getFragment to your AddCampaignFeatureLabelMutation query. This will bring back your featureLabel entity with the necessary information for the FeatureLabelNameMutation to succeed without warning.
The Relay documentation is very very poor on this and many other areas.
Relay expects any fragments for your mutation to come from your props. Since you're using data coming from your callback and not something from your container props Relay raises that warning.
Take a look at the source: https://github.com/facebook/relay/blob/master/src/mutation/RelayMutation.js#L289-L307
I've got a repository using LINQ for modelling the data that has a whole bunch of functions for getting data out. A very common way of getting data out is for things such as drop down lists. These drop down lists can vary. If we're creating something we usually have a drop down list with all entries of a certain type, which means I need a function available which filters by the type of entity. We also have pages to filter data, the drop down lists only contain entries that currently are used, so I need a filter that requires used entries. This means there are six different queries to get the same type of data out.
The problem with defining a function for each of these is that there'd be six functions at least for every type of output, all in one repository. It gets very large, very quick. Here's something like I was planning to do:
public IEnumerable<Supplier> ListSuppliers(bool areInUse, bool includeAllOption, int contractTypeID)
{
if (areInUse && includeAllOption)
{
}
else if (areInUse)
{
}
else if (includeAllOption)
{
}
}
Although "areInUse" doesn't seem very English friendly, I'm not brilliant with naming. As you can see, logic resides in my data access layer (repository) which isn't friendly. I could define separate functions but as I say, it grows quite quick.
Could anyone recommend a good solution?
NOTE: I use LINQ for entities only, I don't use it to query. Please don't ask, it's a constraint on the system not specified by me. If I had the choice, I'd use LINQ, but I don't unfortunately.
Have your method take a Func<Supplier,bool> which can be used in Where clause so that you can pass it in any type of filter than you would like to construct. You can use a PredicateBuilder to construct arbitrarily complex functions based on boolean operations.
public IEnumerable<Supplier> ListSuppliers( Func<Supplier,bool> filter )
{
return this.DataContext.Suppliers.Where( filter );
}
var filter = PredicateBuilder.False<Supplier>();
filter = filter.Or( s => s.IsInUse ).Or( s => s.ContractTypeID == 3 );
var suppliers = repository.ListSuppliers( filter );
You can implement
IEnumerable<Supplier> GetAllSuppliers() { ... }
end then use LINQ on the returned collection. This will retrieve all suppliers from the database that are then filtered using LINQ.
Assuming you are using LINQ to SQL you can also implement
IQueryable<Supplier> GetAllSuppliers() { ... }
end then use LINQ on the returned collection. This will only retrieve the necessary suppliers from the database when the collection is enumerated. This is very powerful and there are also some limits to the LINQ you can use. However, the biggest problem is that you are able to drill right through your data-access layer and into the database using LINQ.
A query like
var query = from supplier in repository.GetAllSuppliers()
where suppliers.Name.StartsWith("Foo") select supplier;
will map into SQL similar to this when it is enumerated
SELECT ... WHERE Name LIKE 'Foo%'