Yes, I agree. I see it the same. On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:41 PM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote:
> I’m not convinced SAI has demonstrated a practical or theoretical > capability to fully replace secondary indexes anyway. So it would be very > premature to mark them deprecated. > > On 10 Dec 2024, at 06:29, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > ... then we should NOT mark it to be deprecated. > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:27 PM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> I have a hard time getting used to the "terminology" here. If 2i indexes >> are to be marked as deprecated and SAI is beta, then what is actually the >> index implementation we stand behind in the production? It is like we are >> "abandoning" the former but the latter is not bullet-proof yet. The signal >> it sends is that we don't have a non-deprecated bullet-proof index impl. >> >> Maybe it is just about the wording and people are just fine running >> deprecated things knowing they are production-ready, what I am used to is >> that if something is deprecated, then there is always a replacement which >> is recommended. If there isn't a recommended replacement which can fully >> superseed the current implementation then we should mark it to be >> deprecated. >> >> I understand that you are trying to find some "common ground" / >> expressing that we are moving towards SAI but I am not sure the wording is >> entirely correct or we should be careful how we frame it. >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:01 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> > A possibility with SAI is to mark it beta while also marking 2i as >>> > deprecated (and leaving SASI as marked). This sends a clear signal >>> > (imho) that SAI is the recommended solution forward but also being >>> > honest about its maturity and QA. >>> >>> >>> (and leaving SASI as marked *experimental*) >>> >>
