Stop using SetAsync() to save player data

[colbert2677 (ImagineerColbert)]

@ThoughtSpinnr

You say that it will help data be more up-to-date when a player teleports from place to place, but never explain how it does this. Unless it saves the data faster I fail to see how it helps at all.

I’m quite sure I did. Throughout the post, I’ve mentioned that one of the key differences between Set and Update are how they operate - said that a few times.

GetAsync caches. This means that the data you give the DataStore from SetAsync may not necessarily be the same thing that you get from another GetAsync. On the other hand, as UpdateAsync is a callback, not only does it update the data in the DataStore but it also returns the new value that was saved to the DataStore. Even if GetAsync caches at this point, you can use the return from UpdateAsync instead of spending another request on GetAsync.

A place-to-place teleport is a very specific scenario I brought up as a preference, considering I manipulate data fairly often in said project. Multiple servers and places have the opportunity to manipulate data, therefore I don’t want calls to conflict and save the wrong data for players.

The speed difference between SetAsync and UpdateAsync is heavily negligible and not something worth bringing to the table when discussing this. It’s mainly about the practice of which one to use in what scenario, why and what the merits or caveats of each method are.

@ThoughtSpinnr

Perhaps I’m being naive, but I don’t see why respecting previous data is at all important, or even possible in certain scenarios (such as mine where I’m saving complex inventories that can change vastly from save to save).

It’s not just about respecting previous data, it’s also about respecting conflicting calls. UpdateAsync also calls the transform function as many times as needed and ensures that data saves in the DataStore. SetAsync does not do this - it is a one and done, with nothing to be returned.

@ThoughtSpinnr

Being able to “cancel” the save seems useless when you can just not initiate a save in the first place.

While this is a fair point in itself that you can avoid initiating a save, it’s not at all useless. Avoiding using SetAsync if certain conditions do not pass is the same as passing nil in UpdateAsync. That doesn’t make it useless. It’s the same method with a different implementation.

I believe that a cancelled UpdateAsync does not spend any budget. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

@ThoughtSpinnr

If GetAsync() returns an old value, why wouldn’t UpdateAsync() pass an old value?

I’m not too sure what you mean by this. Both pass the value from the DataStore. GetAsync can cache the result, UpdateAsync returns a live result to be used with the transform function. When the update is finished its call, it returns what is currently in the DataStore.

---

This all in mind, your implementation is first and foremost the most important thing between distinguishing which one is best for your use case or if there is any difference at all. I don’t want to parrot anything, though filip’s post above is something to consider.