5 ms·
It's a paginated list of 1000 objects of 1kb size each. Any nontrivial API will have responses like that. My entire point was that Rails is not designed for th
by jupp0r 3y ago
It's a paginated list of 1000 objects of 1kb size each. Any nontrivial API will have responses like that.
My entire point was that Rails is not designed for this.
- the_gastropod 3y agoBut you could return the 1000 objects (or less? 1000 records sounds like a lot for any UI to show at once) of 1kb size and allow the clients to request specific pages with a request parameter. There may be applications where you need to ship the full 1M records I guess, but that seems like very much an edge case as far as web apps go.
- wredue 3y ago1,000 records is absolutely not a lot on modern computers or connections. On a business LAN, this request should take well under a second full latency. On an average mobile connection, it’s maybe a second or so.
- the_gastropod 3y agoYou’re right. It’s not a lot for a machine. The point isn’t the speed capability. It’s why? What UI has 1,000 rows in, e.g., a table all at once (much less 1M)?
- jupp0r 3y agoYour assumption that humans consume this data is wrong. It's actually machines that need it.
- radus 3y agoMany plots contain thousands of data points. Eg: 10 x 100 heatmap which supports sorting by various metadata. This is a common visualization for biological data where your data matrix is samples x proteins, so potentially much larger than 1000 data points.
- tauchunfall 3y agoTrue, you would not return 1000 objects at once to the frontend. I first thought it's just a backend use-case, where processing 1000 records in a paginated result is common, but the parent mentions "rails", so it sounds like a frontend use-case.
- jupp0r 3y agoIt's a backend use case.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]