Hi, I've left a comment in your PR, could you please have a look? On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 6:09 AM 18624049226 <18624049...@163.com> wrote:
> Hello team, > > I think this is a very valuable optimization. This patch has been > developed for a long time, I don't think there is any reason to continue > to delay the release of this patch to version 2.12. > Is anyone willing to push this forward and merge this patch into the > master? > > 2021/1/27 δΈε4:52, Maxim Muzafarov ει: > > Stanislav, > > > >> I think the most compatibility impact will be on the in-memory caches > with SQL and without explicitly specified inline sizes. > > I don't think that this is `true` compatibility issue. But I think we > > should at least mentioned it on our documentation pages and in the > > release notes. So, I'm +1 to proceed with the merge. > > > > Should we include the issue into 2.10 release? > > > > On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 16:50, Stanislav Lukyanov <stanlukya...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Igniters, > >> > >> I'd like to discuss the change implemented by Evgeniy Rudenko in the > ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13364. > >> I see that the fix is ready for review and merging, and I'm interested > in it so I'd like to pick it up on the last mile. > >> I also wanted to bring community's attention to it before the merge as > it changes the default behavior. > >> > >> The patch changes how SQL index inline size is calculated. > >> > >> Specifically: > >> > >> 1. When inline size is calculated for a variable-sized field, a > constant 10 (configurable via IGNITE_VARIABLE_TYPE_DEFAULT_INDEX_SIZE) is > added to the calculated size instead of setting the entire calculation > result to 10. > >> For example, consider the following cases > >> > >> Index (int, int, string) > >> Before the change: inline size = 10 > >> After the change: inline size = 5 + 5 + 10 = 20 > >> > >> Index (long, long, long, long, string) > >> Before the change: inline size = 10 > >> After the change: inline size = 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 10 = 46 > >> > >> 2. If there is a VARCHAR_FIXED, e.g. VARCHAR(5), then instead of the > default IGNITE_VARIABLE_TYPE_DEFAULT_INDEX_SIZE Ignite will use the value > provided in the calculation > >> > >> 3. If the calculated size exceeds > IGNITE_MAX_INDEX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_DEFAULT=64, it will be truncated to 64. > >> > >> All of this only affects calculated inline sizes of new indexes. > >> Existing indexes should not be affected. > >> Indexes with explicitly specified inline size should not be affected. > >> > >> I think the most compatibility impact will be on the in-memory caches > with SQL and without explicitly specified inline sizes. > >> After the upgrade these caches may slightly increase in size (because > the inline is likely to become bigger) while SQL is also likely to become > faster. > >> > >> Please comment. > >> If there are no concerns, I'll proceed with finding a committer to > review and merge the fix at the end of the next week. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Stan >
