Altering uniqueness and cardinality attributes works, with the exception
of enabling uniqueness from nothing.
:db/noHistory and :db/isComponent changes are implemented but untested,
and aren't really supported by Datomish anyway.
The test would fail because we would have an [a v] pair with a string
value, but we were looking for the fulltext rowid in <avs. Using
all_datoms correctly looks up the string value, at the cost of crippling
the speed of <avs.
This sorts fulltext values inserted in a single transaction, not across
transactions. This makes the rowids assigned in the fulltext_values
table internally consistent, even as the order of entities and datoms
changes (as the transaction applying algorithm evolves over time). The
test changes simply make the fulltext values sort easily.
In theory, these fulltext values could be very large, and sorting might
be very expensive. In practice, we expect values to differ in their
first few characters, so that this is efficient (i.e., proportional to
the number of fulltext values inserted and not their size).
This uses a common table expression and multiple SQL calls rather than a
temporary table, since transactions with huge numbers of distinct
lookup-refs are likely to be very rare.
We mark lookup-refs with `lookup-ref`, which is a little awkward because
binding `(let [[a v] lookup-ref] ...)` doesn't directly work, but avoids
some ambiguity present in Datomic and DataScript around interpreting
lookup-refs as multiple value lists. (Which bit the tests in an earlier
version of this patch!)
There's no distinction made for fulltext attributes, since the values
found by the retractAttributes SELECT are already rowids into the
fulltext_values table and therefore need no additional mapping.
We'd like this to be part of the query syntax itself, but doing so
requires extending DataScript's parser.
Instead we generalize our `args` to `options`, and take `:limit`
and `:order-by-vars`. The former must be an integer or nil, and the
latter is an array of `[var direction]` pairs.
This commit includes descriptive error messages and tests for success
and failure.
* Alter how clauses are concatenated. They now preserve order more accurately.
* Track mappings between vars and extracted type columns.
* Generate type code constraints.
* Push known types down into :not.
* Push known types down into :or.
* Tests and test fixes.
This is almost complete; it passes the test suite save for retracting
fulltext datoms correctly.
There's a lot to say about this approach, but I don't have time to give
too many details. The broad outline is as follows. We collect datoms
to add and retract in a tx_lookup table. Depending on flags ("search
value" sv and "search value type tag" svalue_type_tag) we "complete" the
tx_lookup table by joining matching datoms. This allows us to find
datoms that are present (and should not be added as part of the
transaction, or should be retracted as part of the transaction, or
should be replaced as part of the transaction. We complete the
tx_lookup (in place!) in two separate INSERTs to avoid a quadratic
two-table walk (explain the queries to observe that both INSERTs walk
the lookup table once and then use the datoms indexes to complete the
matching values).
We could simplify the code by using multiple lookup tables, both for the
two cases of search parameters (eav vs. ea) and for the incomplete and
completed rows. Right now we differentiate the former with NULL checks,
and the latter by incrementing the added0 column. It performs well
enough, so I haven't tried to understand the performance of separating
these things.
After the tx_lookup table is completed, we build the transaction from
it; and update the datoms materialized view table as well. Observe the
careful handling of the "search value" sv parameters to handle replacing
:db.cardinality/one datoms.
Finally, we read the processed transaction back to produce to the API.
This is strictly to match the Datomic API; we might make allow to skip
this, since many consumers will not want to stream this over the wire.
Rough timings show the transactor processing a single >50k datom
transaction in about 3.5s, of which less than 0.5s is spent in the
expensive joins. Further, repeating the processing of the same
transaction is only about 3.5s again! That's the worst possible for the
joins, since every single inserted datom will already be present in the
database, making the most expensive join match every row.
