add ordering notes #40
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
vweevers
reviewed
May 1, 2022
|
|
||
| The value of `result` could be either `1` or `2` depending on thread pool scheduling. | ||
|
|
||
| Furthermore since reads fetch the snapshot immediatly, writes will not be visible until at latest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not entirely true: Level/leveldown#796 (same applies to classic-level).
Let's leave this paragraph (and the example) out for now, because I fear it will only create more confusion, at least until we fix Level/leveldown#796 (or decide that the current behavior is desirable, maybe).
vweevers
reviewed
May 1, 2022
Co-authored-by: Vincent Weevers <mail@vincentweevers.nl>
juliangruber
requested changes
May 1, 2022
Co-authored-by: Julian Gruber <julian@juliangruber.com>
vweevers
added a commit
to Level/abstract-level
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 25, 2022
At the moment, this is a documentation-only PR, acting as an RFC. In particular I'd like review of my choice to use a token-based approach (as first suggested by Rod Vagg in Level/community#45) as opposed to a dedicated snapshot API surface (as suggested by Julian Gruber in Level/community#47). Main reasons for not choosing the latter: - It would be a third API surface. We have the main database API, the sublevel API which is equal to that except for implementation- specific additional methods, and would now add another API which only has read methods (get, iterator, etc, but not put and batch). If the API was reusable, meaning you could pass around a snapshot as if it was a regular database (like you can with sublevels) then I'd be cool with it. But for that to happen, we'd have to implement transactions as well, which I consider to be out of scope although transactions are in fact a use case of snapshots. - It would have a higher complexity once you factor in sublevels. I.e. to make `db.sublevel().snapshot().get(key)` read from the snapshot but also prefix the given key. By instead doing `db.sublevel().get(key, { snapshot })`, the sublevel can just forward that snapshot option to its parent database. - Furthermore, with the token approach, you can pass a snapshot to multiple sublevels, which cleanly solves the main use case of retrieving data from an index (I included an example in the docs). I renamed the existing snapshot mechanism to "implicit snapshots" and attempted to clarify the behavior of those as well. If accepted, some related issues can be closed, because this PR: - Includes (a more complete write-up than) Level/classic-level#40. - Mentions Level/leveldown#796 (which should be moved rather than closed). - Answers Level/classic-level#28. - Solves the main use case as described in Level/leveldown#486. - Effectively completes Level/awesome#19.
|
Superseded by Level/abstract-level#42. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #29.