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

Are you concerned about that for performance reasons or for ease-of-use reasons? To address the latter, I made a separate transaction format for Biff that allows merging (it's similar to Firebase's transaction format). So e.g.

  {[:users #uuid "some-user-uuid"] {:db/merge true
                                    :username "foo"}}

gets converted to

  [[:crux.tx/put (merge (crux/entity db #uuid "some-user-uuid")
                        {:username "foo"})]]

There is a race condition though; if another tx updated that document after the crux/entity call but before `:username "foo"` was written, then that tx would get clobbered. I'm planning to add `:crux.tx/match` operations automatically to prevent that from happening. There was talk on #crux in Clojurians slack today of using the newly-added transaction function feature to do merges. Haven't looked into that myself.



Just for ease-of-use. In Datomic/Datahike you can update a single datom/fact. I'll have to look into making some similar sort of helpers for what you've done.


https://opencrux.com/docs#_transaction_functions ``` (crux/submit-tx node [[:crux.tx/put {:crux.db/id :crux.fn/assoc :crux.db/fn '(fn [ctx eid k v] (let [db (crux.api/db ctx) entity (crux.api/entity db eid)] [[:crux.tx/put (assoc entity k v)]]))}]])

(crux/submit-tx [[:crux.tx/fn :crux.fn/assoc doc-id k v]]) ```




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: