![]() The time it takes for the write to complete (while you await) should be long enough that you wouldn’t need to include an additional timeout.įor the first option, it’d look like this: peopleHolidaysTable.createRecordsAsync(people.map(person =>. You could also do what you suggested (split the calls and await each previous one). You could switch your code to use the batch createRecordsAsync instead of createRecordAsync to get around this. Your current code looks like it does a separate API call for each person, so you’re running into the 15 writes per second limit. I’ve written extensively about that after studying about 10 different backups and restoration strategies.We rate-limit blocks to 15 writes per second and batch methods allow modification of 50 records in one call. Backups can be complicated: Due to the lack of support for reading the database schema, it’s very hard to efficiently save the whole database.No way to retrieve table/fields metadata: The API only allows to interact with resources, not with the database schema.This limitation might be overcome using a custom App that acts as a listener and call your own server upon detecting changes. No webhook: There is no native/simple way to be notified about a change in the data, there is no WebHook support.And, because their API is REST-ish, it only supports fetching one “table” at once, meaning you must send 1 request for each table. This design is bad for us, in particular because we send many requests when building our SSG pages. It’ll simply respond with some 429 error code when reached. ![]() You can’t really know when you’ll reach the limit, there is no header or such that might help you foreseen reaching the limit. Unofficially, they increased it to around 20-30 requests/second due to customer complaints.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |