I'd like Drill approach, worked and debugged with something similar, it's more easy to support
Buuut, you have an implemented prototype (it votes for Phoenix in my mind) вт, 10 дек. 2019 г. в 17:19, Vladimir Ozerov <ppoze...@gmail.com>: > Hi Roman, > > Why do you think that Drill-style will not let you exploit collation? > Collation should be propagated from the index scan in the same way as in > other sorted operators, such as merge join or streaming aggregate. Provided > that you use converter-hack (or any alternative solution to trigger parent > re-analysis). > In other words, propagation of collation from Drill-style indexes should be > no different from other sorted operators. > > Regards, > Vladimir. > > вт, 10 дек. 2019 г. в 16:40, Zhenya Stanilovsky <arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid > >: > > > > > Roman just as fast remark, Phoenix builds their approach on > > already existing monolith HBase architecture, most cases it`s just a stub > > for someone who wants use secondary indexes with a base with no > > native support of it. Don`t think it`s good idea here. > > > > > > > > > > >------- Forwarded message ------- > > >From: "Roman Kondakov" < kondako...@mail.ru.invalid > > > >To: dev@ignite.apache.org > > >Cc: > > >Subject: Adding support for Ignite secondary indexes to Apache Calcite > > >planner > > >Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:55:52 +0300 > > > > > >Hi all! > > > > > >As you may know there is an activity on integration of Apache Calcite > > >query optimizer into Ignite codebase is being carried out [1],[2]. > > > > > >One of a bunch of problems in this integration is the absence of > > >out-of-the-box support for secondary indexes in Apache Calcite. After > > >some research I came to conclusion that this problem has a couple of > > >workarounds. Let's name them > > >1. Phoenix-style approach - representing secondary indexes as > > >materialized views which are natively supported by Calcite engine [3] > > >2. Drill-style approach - pushing filters into the table scans and > > >choose appropriate index for lookups when possible [4] > > > > > >Both these approaches have advantages and disadvantages: > > > > > >Phoenix style pros: > > >- natural way of adding indexes as an alternative source of rows: index > > >can be considered as a kind of sorted materialized view. > > >- possibility of using index sortedness for stream aggregates, > > >deduplication (DISTINCT operator), merge joins, etc. > > >- ability to support other types of indexes (i.e. functional indexes). > > > > > >Phoenix style cons: > > >- polluting optimizer's search space extra table scans hence increasing > > >the planning time. > > > > > >Drill style pros: > > >- easier to implement (although it's questionable). > > >- search space is not inflated. > > > > > >Drill style cons: > > >- missed opportunity to exploit sortedness. > > > > > >There is a good discussion about using both approaches can be found in > > [5]. > > > > > >I made a small sketch [6] in order to demonstrate the applicability of > > >the Phoenix approach to Ignite. Key design concepts are: > > >1. On creating indexes are registered as tables in Calcite schema. This > > >step is needed for internal Calcite's routines. > > >2. On planner initialization we register these indexes as materialized > > >views in Calcite's optimizer using VolcanoPlanner#addMaterialization > > >method. > > >3. Right before the query execution Calcite selects all materialized > > >views (indexes) which can be potentially used in query. > > >4. During the query optimization indexes are registered by planner as > > >usual TableScans and hence can be chosen by optimizer if they have lower > > >cost. > > > > > >This sketch shows the ability to exploit index sortedness only. So the > > >future work in this direction should be focused on using indexes for > > >fast index lookups. At first glance FilterableTable and > > >FilterTableScanRule are good points to start. We can push Filter into > > >the TableScan and then use FilterableTable for fast index lookups > > >avoiding reading the whole index on TableScan step and then filtering > > >its output on the Filter step. > > > > > >What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > >[1] > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/New-SQL-execution-engine-tt43724.html#none > > >[2] > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-37%3A+New+query+execution+engine > > >[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2047 > > >[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-6381 > > >[5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-3929 > > >[6] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7115 > > > > > > > > >
