Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rewrite intro to materialize #335

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

miparnisari
Copy link
Contributor

@miparnisari miparnisari commented Mar 19, 2025

My goal was to make the text flow better. So I structured it like so:

  • what it is
  • what it is good for
  • limitations

Copy link

vercel bot commented Mar 19, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Apr 11, 2025 4:45pm


## Current Limitations
on the path of permissions computed by Materialize, it will error out. However, your schema can still include them.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be confirmed: does it error out? It is just my assumption

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

correct, so long it's not in the reachability path of a watched permission, Materialize will not complain. If it does, the hydrator will fail

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can I mention "hydrator" here or is that too much information?

Copy link
Contributor

@tstirrat15 tstirrat15 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See comments, otherwise LGTM

Updates occur after a relationship is written that affects a subject's membership in a permission set or a set’s permission on a specific resource.
The intent is for users to process these updates and store them to form a precomputed and denormalized view of SpiceDB permissions.
AuthZed Materialize is inspired by the Leopard index component described in the [Zanzibar paper](https://zanzibar.tech/2IoYDUFMAE:0:T).
Much like the concept of a materialized view in relational databases, AuthZed Materialize is a service that computes how permissions change after relationships

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Much like the concept of a materialized view in relational databases, AuthZed Materialize is a service that computes how permissions change after relationships
Much like the concept of a materialized view in relational databases, AuthZed Materialize precomputes specified permissions defined in your SpiceDB schema.

[Dedicated]: ../guides/picking-a-product#dedicated
AuthZed Materialize is inspired by the Leopard index component described in the [Zanzibar paper](https://zanzibar.tech/2IoYDUFMAE:0:T).
Much like the concept of a materialized view in relational databases, AuthZed Materialize is a service that computes how permissions change after relationships
are written, when those relationships affect a subject's membership in a permission set or a set’s permission on a specific resource.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not only relationships - but also schemas


## Current Limitations
on the path of permissions computed by Materialize, it will error out. However, your schema can still include them.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

correct, so long it's not in the reachability path of a watched permission, Materialize will not complain. If it does, the hydrator will fail

@miparnisari miparnisari force-pushed the rewrite-intro-materialize branch from 25c9f34 to 9697381 Compare April 11, 2025 16:44
Copy link
Contributor

@tstirrat15 tstirrat15 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants