When working with CRUD operation in flex, I want to know how to open only one time for all update and delete operations. How can I do this?
As Flextra's mentioned in his comment above, Flex doesn't access the database directly. You'll have to make a RemoteObject call to another layer that will perform the actual CRUD operations.
That being said, unless you want to perform all of your CRUD operations in one giant batch, I would not recommend keeping the database connection open just waiting for something to do. That's generally considered poor practice. I would recommend opening and closing the connection to your database as needed when performing each operation.
It depends on the server-side technology if you aren't talking about a local SQLite database.
PHP has the mysql_pconnect() for a persistent connection for example.
Related
AFAIK, Memcached does not support synchronization with database (at least SQL Server and Oracle). We are planning to use Memcached (it is free) with our OLTP database.
In some business processes we do some heavy validations which requires lot of data from database, we can not keep static copy of these data as we don't know whether the data has been modified so we fetch the data every time which slows the process down.
One possible solution could be
Write triggers on database to create/update prefixed-postfixed (table-PK1-PK2-PK3-column) files on change of records
Monitor this change of file using FileSystemWatcher and expire the key (table-PK1-PK2-PK3-column) to get updated data
Problem: There would be around 100,000 users using any combination of data for 10 hours. So we will end up having a lot of files e.g. categ1-subcateg5-subcateg-78-data100, categ1-subcateg5-subcateg-78-data250, categ2-subcateg5-subcateg-78-data100, categ1-subcateg5-subcateg-33-data100, etc.
I am expecting 5 million files at least. Now it looks a pathetic solution :(
Other possibilities are
call a web service asynchronously from the trigger passing the key
to be expired
call an exe from trigger without waiting it to finish and then this
exe would expire the key. (I have got some success with this approach on SQL Server using xp_cmdsell to call an exe, calling an exe from oracle's trigger looks a bit difficult)
Still sounds pathetic, isn't it?
Any intelligent suggestions please
It's not clear (to me) if the use of Memcached is mandatory or not. I would personally avoid it and use instead SqlDependency and OracleDependency. The two both allow to pass a db command and get notified when the data that the command would return changes.
If Memcached is mandatory you can still use this two classes to trigger the invalidation.
MS SQL Server has "Change Tracking" features that maybe be of use to you. You enable the database for change tracking and configure which tables you wish to track. SQL Server then creates change records on every update, insert, delete on a table and then lets you query for changes to records that have been made since the last time you checked. This is very useful for syncing changes and is more efficient than using triggers. It's also easier to manage than making your own tracking tables. This has been a feature since SQL Server 2005.
How to: Use SQL Server Change Tracking
Change tracking only captures the primary keys of the tables and let's you query which fields might have been modified. Then you can query the tables join on those keys to get the current data. If you want it to capture the data also you can use Change Capture, but it requires more overhead and at least SQL Server 2008 enterprise edition.
Change Data Capture
I have no experience with Oracle, but i believe it may also have some tracking functionality as well. This article might get you started:
20 Using Oracle Streams to Record Table Changes
I'm working on the following scenario:
I have a console up that populates a SQL Server database with some data. I have one more web app that reads the same database and displays the data on a front-end. Both of the applications use Entity Framework to communicate with the database (they have the same connection string).
I wonder how can the web app be notified for any changes that have occurred to the database. Bear in mind that the two applications are not referenced, whatsoever.
Is there event provided by EF that fires when some has changes. In essence, I would like to know when a change has happened, as well as, the nature of that change
I had a similar requirement and I solved it using the EF function:
[context].Database.CompatibleWithModel(throwIfNoMetadata: true)
It will return if your model matches the underlying database structure using the metadata table.
Note that I was using a Code First approach.
The msdn definition is below:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.entity.database.compatiblewithmodel(v=vs.103).aspx
Edit:
Just found an amazing article with a demonstration:
http://blog.oneunicorn.com/2011/04/08/code-first-what-is-that-edmmetadata-table/
This is not something that is related to EF at all. EF is just a library that makes SQL calls and maps them to objects. It has no inside knowledge of the database. As such, when data changes in one application, another application doesn't know unless they query to see if that data changes (and you're not going to be constantly running queries to know that, it's too impractical).
There are, potentially some ways to do this, such as adding triggers to the database, which then call extended stored procs to send messages to the app, but this is a lot of work to go through, and it can possibly compromise the robustness of the database.
There used to be something called Notification Services, but that was deprecated. There's now something called SqlDependency objects, which may help you in some cases.. but it all depends on what you're trying to do exactly.
In any event, it's usually easier to find a different way to do what you want. This is complex topic, and really requires a lot of sql server knowledge.
I have been successfully using SQLite as a data store for my web applications, but now I am implementing a web site with mod_perl, and am running into database locking issues.
As expected, my entire web application is loaded by the Plack Apache handler (Plack::Handler::Apache2) when the web server is started. Well, the first db query creates a lock on the entire database, and any subsequent query that has to modify the db fails.
What is my way out? Can I use SQLite in a persistent web environment or not? Should I be looking for some other db store?
I am not a fan of MySQL, and don't want to use it. I could potentially use PostGres, but I'd rather use something lightweight, and preferably sql-based as using key/value databases such as Tokyo Cabinet would require learning a whole new way. I'd rather really use SQLite.
If you have an open handle to the database, it can cause this issue. I have had problems when iterating over a result set during a log process causes the lock to stick around.
Try and fetch all the rows for the query and call $sth->finish() to clear up the lock. You will use a little more memory, but you will avoid the locking.
Knowing you are going to do this, you can make use of $sth->fetchall_arrayref() or $sth->fetchall_hashref()
Use Tokyo Cabinet's table database.
Python --> SQLite --> ASP.NET C#
I am looking for an in memory database application that does not have to write the data it receives to disc. Basically, I'll be having a Python server which receives gaming UDP data and translates the data and stores it in the memory database engine.
I want to stay away from writing to disc as it takes too long. The data is not important, if something goes wrong, it simply flushes and fills up with the next wave of data sent by players.
Next, another ASP.NET server must be able to connect to this in memory database via TCP/IP at regular intervals, say once every second, or 10 seconds. It has to pull this data, and this will in turn update on a website that displays "live" game data.
I'm looking at SQlite, and wondering, is this the right tool for the job, anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks!!!
This sounds like a premature optimization (apologizes if you've already done the profiling). What I would suggest is go ahead and write the system in the simplest, cleanest way, but put a bit of abstraction around the database bits so they can easily by swapped out. Then profile it and find your bottleneck.
If it turns out it is the database, optimize the database in the usual way (indexes, query optimizations, etc...). If its still too slow, most databases support an in-memory table format. Or you can mount a RAM disk and mount individual tables or the whole database on it.
Totally not my field, but I think Redis is along these lines.
The application of SQlite depends on your data complexity.
If you need to perform complex queries on relational data, then it might be a viable option. If your data is flat (i.e. not relational) and processed as a whole, then some python-internal data structures might be applicable.
Perhaps AppFabric would work for you?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/ee695849.aspx
SQLite doesn't allow remote "connections" as far as I know, it only supports being invoked as an in-process library. However, you could try to use MySQL which, while heavier, supports remote connections and does have in-memory tables.
See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/memory-storage-engine.html
Are there well-known best practices for synchronizing tasks across a server farm? For example if I have a forum based website running on a server farm, and there are two moderators trying to do some action which requires writing to multiple tables in the database, and the requests of those moderators are being handled by different servers in the server farm, how can one implement some locking functionality to ensure that they can't take that action on the same item at the same time?
So far, I'm thinking about using a table in the database to sync, e.g. check the id of the item in the table if doesn't exsit insert it and proceed, otherwise return. Also probably a shared cache could be used for this but I'm not using this at the moment.
Any other way?
By the way, I'm using MySQL as my database back-end.
Your question implies data level concurrency control -- in that case, use the RDBMS's concurrency control mechanisms.
That will not help you if later you wish to control application level actions which do not necessarily map one to one to a data entity (e.g. table record access). The general solution there is a reverse-proxy server that understands application level semantics and serializes accordingly if necessary. (That will negatively impact availability.)
It probably wouldn't hurt to read up on CAP theorem, as well!
You may want to investigate a distributed locking service such as Zookeeper. It's a reimplementation of a Google service that provides very high speed distributed resource locking coordination for applications. I don't know how easy it would be to incorporate into a web app, though.
If all the state is in the (central) database then the database transactions should take care of that for you.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_(database)
It may be irrelevant for you because the question is old, but it still may be useful for others so i'll post it anyway.
You can use a "SELECT FOR UPDATE" db query on a locking object, so you actually use the db for achieving the lock mechanism.
if you use ORM, you can also do that. for example, in nhibernate you can do:
session.Lock(Member, LockMode.Upgrade);
Having a table of locks is a OK way to do it is simple and works.
You could also have the code as a Service on a Single Server, more of a SOA approach.
You could also use the the TimeStamp field with Transactions, if the timestamp has changed since you last got the data you can revert the transaction. So if someone gets in first they have priority.