On 06-Nov-2012, at 3:09 PM, Vijaykumar Natarajan wrote:
> Isn't listAccounts available to an admin only? Its available for all. Let me know if it doesn't fit your case. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:nitin.me...@citrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 06:08 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Should we have separate "Count" API? > > > > +1 to adding countOnly flag. > > > On 06-Nov-2012, at 7:02 AM, Vijaykumar Natarajan wrote: > >> IMHO, >> >> Instead of a count or countOnly API for each resource type, it'd be better >> to create a stats API which returns counts for all resources (no of vms, >> no of Ips etc.). This is typically the use case (in dashboards etc) for >> which the count is really useful and will avoid multiple calls to get all >> this information. Not averse to the suggestion below (which can always >> exist in addition to the stats API), though. >> >> -- Cheers >> Vijay >> > > > I think listAccounts already gives that info for vms, ips, volumes count etc. > belonging to that account. > Thats what the UI also uses to get the count info for a particular account. > > >> On 11/6/12 5:42 AM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> I like the "countOnly" idea. If it were a proper REST API, it would be >>> GET /vm/count?state=Running >>> And >>> GET /vm?state=Running >>> >>> On 11/5/12 4:03 PM, "Min Chen" <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Alena. Maybe we should support a query parameter "countOnly" or >>>> something for count only case to avoid issuing extra sql queries. >>>> >>>> -min >>>> >>>> From: Alena Prokharchyk >>>> <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com<mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>> >>>> Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 3:43 PM >>>> To: >>>> "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-...@incubator.apac >>>> h >>>> e.org>" >>>> <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-...@incubator.apac >>>> h >>>> e.org>>, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com<mailto:min.c...@citrix.com>> >>>> Subject: Re: Should we have separate "Count" API? >>>> >>>> Min, >>>> >>>> We didn't use separate call as well as didn't use resource count table >>>> because we "count" field represents the number of DB resources matching >>>> the search criteria (ignoring page/pageSize info) specified in the list* >>>> api call. For example: >>>> >>>> listVirtualMachines&state=Running&hostId=1&page=1&pageSize=1 >>>> >>>> In the "count" field we expect to see the only how many vms in Running >>>> state, running on hostId=1 exist in the system; not the entire number of >>>> vms in the system that we keep per account in resource_count table. >>>> And although only one vm object will be returned (as you requested >>>> page=1&pageSize=1), you'll know how many vms in the system satisfy the >>>> search criteria. >>>> >>>> As variation of parameters depends on particular API call, the count has >>>> to be returned as a part of list* command response. >>>> >>>> -Alena. >>>> >>>> From: Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com<mailto:min.c...@citrix.com>> >>>> Reply-To: >>>> "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-...@incubator.apac >>>> h >>>> e.org>" >>>> <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-...@incubator.apac >>>> h >>>> e.org>> >>>> To: >>>> "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-...@incubator.apac >>>> h >>>> e.org>" >>>> <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-...@incubator.apac >>>> h >>>> e.org>> >>>> Subject: Should we have separate "Count" API? >>>> >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> In fixing the bug regarding count of a list API today, I cannot help >>>> wondering why we cannot have separate "Count" api for such purpose rather >>>> than bundling this information with list API, where we basically return >>>> some information that some users will just throw away since they only >>>> care about count for dashboard purpose. I also noticed that in our DB >>>> schema, we actually have a table "resource_count" there, not sure the >>>> original rational behind this table. If we can take advantage of this >>>> table (and keep the information there up-to-date), we may be able to >>>> provide a very efficient way to implement such "Count' apis for most >>>> commonly used cases. >>>> Any thoughts on this? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -min >>>> >>> >> >
