You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have a use case where I may need to scan a table for millions of items. I am unable to allocate an array that large. What I really want is to be able to operate on it like a stream. Would you accept a PR adding an overload that returns an AsyncSeq instead of an array? It would require taking a dependency on https://github.com/fsprojects/FSharp.Control.AsyncSeq.
Thank you for all your hard work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think that getting millions of items need to be done with paging so why use AsyncSeq and not create function that get page size and callback function?
I made a start on paging support a year or so ago but never finished. It seems a more flexible approach as you’d often want to paginate data via an API or a user interface. I can have another go at this if it seems useful?
You could certainly then wrap a paginated query in AsyncSeq (and I think this is worthwhile for admin-type scripts).
rtkelly13
added a commit
to rtkelly13/FSharp.AWS.DynamoDB
that referenced
this issue
Jan 12, 2019
See @bartelink’s comment here: #16 (comment) - I think there’s value in implementing scans & queries using TaskSeq, it may need some thought around the API design. I wouldn’t be fundamentally opposed to returning a TaskSeq as standard from all unbounded scans/queries
I have a use case where I may need to scan a table for millions of items. I am unable to allocate an array that large. What I really want is to be able to operate on it like a stream. Would you accept a PR adding an overload that returns an AsyncSeq instead of an array? It would require taking a dependency on https://github.com/fsprojects/FSharp.Control.AsyncSeq.
Thank you for all your hard work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: