CODEWITHSUNDEEP
pythongoogle-app-enginetransactionsgoogle-cloud-datastoreconsistency
PythonPower
PythonPower

Reputation:

AppEngine: Maintaining DataStore Consistency When Creating Records

I've hit a small dilemma! I have a handler called vote; when it is invoked it sets a user's vote to whatever they have picked. To remember what options they previously picked, I store a VoteRecord options which details what their current vote is set to.

Of course, the first time they vote, I have to create the object and store it. But successive votes should just change the value of the existing VoteRecord. But he comes the problem: under some circumstances two VoteRecords can be created. It's rare (only happened once in all 500 votes we've seen so far) but still bad when it does.

The issue happens because two separate handlers both do essentially this:

query = VoteRecord.all().filter('user =', session.user).filter('poll =', poll)

if query.count(1) > 0:
 vote = query[0]

 poll.votes[vote.option] -= 1
 poll.votes[option] += 1
 poll.put()

 vote.option = option
 vote.updated = datetime.now()
 vote.put()
else:
 vote = VoteRecord()
 vote.user = session.user
 vote.poll = poll
 vote.option = option
 vote.put()

 poll.votes[option] += 1
 poll.put()

 session.user.votes += 1
 session.user.xp += 3
 session.user.put()

 incr('votes')

My question is: what is the most effective and fastest way to handle these requests while ensuring that no request is lost and no request creates two VoteRecord objects?

Upvotes: 3

Views: 1169

Answers (2)

Nick Johnson
Nick Johnson

Reputation: 101139

The easiest way to do this is to use key names for your vote objects, and use Model.get_or_insert. First, come up with a naming scheme for your key names - naming it after the poll is a good idea - and then do a get_or_insert to fetch or create the relevant entity:

vote = VoteRecord.get_or_insert(pollname, parent=session.user, user=session.user, poll=poll, option=option)
if vote.option != option:
  # Record already existed; we need to update it
  vote.option = option
  vote.put()

Upvotes: 3

gravitation
gravitation

Reputation: 1957

The issue is this part: 

if vote.count(1) == 0:
    obj = VoteRecord()
    obj.user = user
    obj.option = option
    obj.put()

Without a transaction, your code could run in this order in two interpreter instances:

if vote.count(1) == 0:
    obj = VoteRecord()
    obj.user = user


if vote.count(1) == 0:
    obj = VoteRecord()
    obj.user = user
    obj.option = option
    obj.put()


    obj.option = option
    obj.put()

Or any weird combination thereof. The problem is the count test runs again before the put has occured, so the second thread goes through the first part of the conditional instead of the second.

You can fix this by putting the code in a function and then using

db.run_in_transaction()

to run the function.

Problem is you seem to be relying on the count of objects returned by a query for your decision logic that needs to be put in the transaction. If you read the Google I/O talks or look at the group you'll see that this is not recommended. That's because you can't transactionalize a query. Instead, you should store the count as an entity value somewhere, query for it outside of the transaction function, and then pass the key for that entity to your transaction function.

Here's an example of a transaction function that checks an entity property. It's passed the key as a parameter:

def checkAndLockPage(pageKey):
  page = db.get(pageKey)
  if page.locked:
    return False
  else:
    page.locked = True
    page.put()
    return True

Only one user at a time can lock this entity, and there will never be any duplicate locks.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions