Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Docs update #62

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Mar 7, 2023
Merged

Conversation

chuck-alt-delete
Copy link
Collaborator

What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)

  • ♻️ Refactor
  • ✨ Feature
  • 🐛 Bug Fix
  • 👷 Optimization
  • 📝 Documentation Update
  • 🚩 Other

Description

Giving the documentation a facelift, as well as some minor aesthetic changes. Still on progress on a longer end-to-end demo with Materialize.

@chuck-alt-delete
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chuck-alt-delete commented Mar 7, 2023

Ran into an issue for the end-to-end example:

It would make more sense for a purchase to have a list of items rather than just a single item.

workaround option 1

As a workaround, I am treating purchases as an append-only source, where we can group by purchases.id and aggregate purchases.item_id into a list. This has the benefit of contrasting UPSERT with append-only and showing off aggregations along with joins, so I kinda like it, actually.

Another side effect of this workaround is that it's possible for multiple users to take part in a single purchase, which I think is fine.

workaround option 2

A different option would be to make purchase ID a uuid and say that every purchase can only be for one item. This is a little neater in that a purchase would have only one user associated. I don't like it as much as option 1 though because it's more boring.

conclusion

I think when we implement lists, it would be good to refactor this back into each purchase having a list of items so that only one user is a part of every purchase.

README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@bobbyiliev bobbyiliev mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2023
8 tasks
@chuck-alt-delete
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I’ll go ahead and merge this for now and I’ll take feedback and do a follow-on PR

@chuck-alt-delete chuck-alt-delete merged commit a9fdf78 into MaterializeInc:main Mar 7, 2023
@chuck-alt-delete chuck-alt-delete deleted the docs/update branch March 10, 2023 19:27
recursethis pushed a commit to recursethis/materialize-datagen that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2024
* move -s before -f and modify wording of -c description

* skip schema registration on dry run

* add alert library to schema registry config so proper alert is triggered when no sr url is found

* bump version to 0.1.3

* add example-schemas folder

* remove extraneous hydra.key from avsc file

* update readme

* rename compose.yml to docker-compose.yml for clarity

* rename and move files

* remove unused code in sql parser

* make sql parser pick up primary key

* work in progress ecommerce demo

* work on end to end example

* work on  ecommerce tutorial

* finish draft of end-to-end tutorial

* small bugfix for producer

* add new --prefix option to readme
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants