Well, I never thought about term “table” as a replacement for “cache”, but it appears to be good candidate.
This is used by many some major vendors whose underlying storage is indeed a kind of key-value data structure. Most well-known example is MySQL with its MyISAM engine. Table can be used for both fixed and flexible (e.g. JSON) schemas, as well as key-value access (hash map -> hash table, both are good). Another important thing - we already use term “table”, and it is always hard to explain our users how it relates to “cache”. If “cache” is dropped, then a single term “table” will be used everywhere. Last, but not least - “table” works well for both in-memory and persistent modes. So if we are really aim to rename “cache”, then “table” is the best candidate I’ve heard so far. чт, 18 окт. 2018 г. в 8:40, Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw....@gmail.com>: > Or we could extend our SQL commands by "GET BY KEY = X" and "PUT (x1, x2, > x3) BY KEY = X" and the IgniteTable could be correct. > Agree with Denis that each table in the 3rd normal form is like key-value > store. Key-value operations are only subset of rich SQL commands. > > The problem with IgniteData that it's too common. Also, it's difficult to > understand is it a plural or single object? For instance, the bunch of > IgniteTables could be IgniteData. But the set of IgniteData? IgniteDatum? > > > > чт, 18 окт. 2018 г. в 4:18, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > Key-value calls are just primary key based calls. From a user > perspective, > > it's the same as "SELECT * FROM table WHERE primary_idx = X", just > > different API. > > > > -- > > Denis > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:58 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I've been calling everything "tables" instead of "caches" for a > while. > > > The > > > > main reason is the maturity of our SQL engine - seeing more SQL users > > and > > > > deployments which talk "tables" language. > > > > > > > > > > > I think "IgniteTable" only implies SQL, not key-value. We need both. > > > > > >
