Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I upvoted you, because I think this is a total legitimate question and I don't get the downvotes either. This was exactly the question I had, when I read about Redux at first. After all, the Redux docs say that "don't worry about performance, unless you have tens of thousands of objects".

So, the answer I can give you as someone, who starts to get Redux, but I'm nowhere near being an advanced user:

In your Rails app, you wouldn't render all 500k sales records on the same page as well. You'd probably have some sort of pagination. With Redux, it's the same. You don't have 500K objects in store, but only the 30 sales calls you're currently displaying. Redux contains the state of the current view and if you want to load more data, you'd have some async methods to fetch data from the DB or an API and refresh the Redux store.

Your Redux store isn't:

    [sales_call01, sales_call02, ..., sales_call500000]
It's more like:

    { viewCalls: [sales_call452, sales_call453, sales_call454] }
But still: Many tutorials are way too simple and gloss over the details. They make it sound as if Redux is the architecture and the store holds all data for the entire app.

What I haven't figured out: Say, you're using Redux on the server and need to update all 500,000 sales calls. With Redux, you'd have to write a reducer that modifies the state tree. But if 500,000 sales calls don't fit into memory, how do you do it?




it doesn't sound like redux is the right tool for the job. You're looking for a stream/file.

You could still have a redux store, but it's role would be to manage the stream(process updates, keep track of errors, kill the stream if there are too many errors) rather than store the data for the job.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: