I suppose, that general idea is great. Some details are missing, but I suppose during implementation of clients we will add more details and redefine some parts.
вт, 6 июл. 2021 г., 09:59 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > Ivan, Val, and others - are there any open objections or questions? > Can we accept the proposal? > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:28 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > I've updated the IEP to support "Live Schema" [1] from IEP-54. > > Some operations now have schemaless variants, where tuples are serialized > > as maps (String -> val). > > > > [1] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach#IEP54:SchemafirstApproach-Dynamicschemaexpansion(Live-schema) > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:31 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Val, my understanding about it was exactly the same as yours, but, > again, > >> I > >> heard a different opinion. > >> > >> But nevertheless, binary protocol should not be about objects, records > aka > >> tuples are the best varii, simple and powerful. > >> > >> As for me, I want to take part in implementing python and golang thin > >> clients for ignite 3, so consider my remarks using this info. I am not > >> just > >> a rude critic, > >> I am just interested in consice and universal binary prorocol > >> чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 20:23 Valentin Kulichenko < > >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > >> > Ivan, > >> > > >> > KV view does work over the tuples. Nested objects and arbitrary > >> structures > >> > can be stored as blobs. So if you need a basic KV cache, you can > always > >> > create a table with two blob fields - one for key and one for value - > >> and > >> > store anything there. > >> > > >> > -Val > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:55 AM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Val, am I right, that kv view over the tuples is just simple mapping > >> from > >> > > POJO to tuple? No collections, no nested objects? I have discussed > >> this > >> > in > >> > > private with Igor and Pavel and they told me different info. > >> > > > >> > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 19:43 Valentin Kulichenko < > >> > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com > >> > > >: > >> > > > >> > > > Ivan, > >> > > > > >> > > > I was answering your question about the KV API. The API I provided > >> has > >> > > been > >> > > > discussed and agreed upon. One of the goals of the protocol is to > >> > > implement > >> > > > this API, so it should give you a clear idea of what we're looking > >> for. > >> > > > > >> > > > Of course, I agree with you that the protocol should be simple and > >> > > flexible > >> > > > enough to allow other implementations for different languages and > >> > > > platforms. > >> > > > > >> > > > -Val > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:38 AM Ivan Daschinsky < > ivanda...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Andrey, yep, you are right. This was just a quick idea. As for > >> me, I > >> > > just > >> > > > > don't want to repeat the same problem with compactFooter in thin > >> > client > >> > > > api > >> > > > > of ignite 2.x. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 19:22 Andrey Mashenkov < > >> > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > >> > > >: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I suppose that we should describe this more verbose and > >> > explicit. I > >> > > > > > > nevertheless suggest to also consider writing values this > way: > >> > > > > > > - arr of fields names (if name is missed, corresponding > field > >> is > >> > > nil) > >> > > > > > > - arr of rows (row as array, length equal to fields array) > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ivan, > >> > > > > > I think GET and PUT operation parameters should be consistent. > >> > > > > > With PUT operation this way may be tricky. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > SQL INSERT operation (which is similar PUT operation) semantic > >> > allows > >> > > > > > skipping columns that have a default value. > >> > > > > > Assume we have smth like this: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > CREATE TABLE t1 ( > >> > > > > > 'id' INT; > >> > > > > > 'colname' VARCHAR DEFAULT "abc"; > >> > > > > > ) > >> > > > > > INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1) > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Actually, this will add a row (1, "abc") > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Your suggestion related to missed fields will not work this > way > >> as > >> > it > >> > > > is > >> > > > > > impossible to distinct > >> > > > > > case with 'null' value from the case with a default value. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 5:51 PM Ivan Daschinsky < > >> > ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Here is the description of TUPLE_GET_ALL: > >> > > > > > > - UUID: table ID > >> > > > > > > - int: schema ID > >> > > > > > > - arr of arr: array of rows with values for all columns in > >> given > >> > > > schema > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I suppose that we should describe this more verbose and > >> > explicit. I > >> > > > > > > nevertheless suggest to also consider writing values this > way: > >> > > > > > > - arr of fields names (if name is missed, corresponding > field > >> is > >> > > nil) > >> > > > > > > - arr of rows (row as array, length equal to fields array) > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It is quite simple and if we use str8 (it is more than > enough > >> for > >> > > any > >> > > > > > utf-8 > >> > > > > > > reasonable field name), overhead will be negligible, but > >> > > realization > >> > > > > of a > >> > > > > > > client will be way simpler > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 16:57 Pavel Tupitsyn < > >> ptupit...@apache.org>: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > No it isn't, I have carefully read code and IEP, in your > >> code > >> > > you > >> > > > > > write > >> > > > > > > > > schema id in each tuple. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is no code for batch operations yet. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Here is the description of TUPLE_GET_ALL: > >> > > > > > > > - UUID: table ID > >> > > > > > > > - int: schema ID > >> > > > > > > > - arr of arr: array of rows with values for all columns in > >> > given > >> > > > > schema > >> > > > > > > > (nil when value is missing for a column) > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > As you can see, schema ID is written once for all rows. > >> > > > > > > > A row is just a set of values according to the schema. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, my biggest concern -- extra serde step. I suppose > we > >> > > should > >> > > > > > pass > >> > > > > > > > > bytearray to internal api, and use msgpack throughout > all > >> > wire > >> > > > > > > protocols, > >> > > > > > > > > as tarantool does. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree. But this was decided before in IEP-54, and is out > >> of > >> > > scope > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > current IEP. > >> > > > > > > > Would you like to start a separate thread to discuss this? > >> Or I > >> > > can > >> > > > > do > >> > > > > > > this > >> > > > > > > > a bit later. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 4:41 PM Ivan Daschinsky < > >> > > > ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > This is described in all operations that include > >> multiple > >> > > > tuples. > >> > > > > > > > > No it isn't, I have carefully read code and IEP, in your > >> code > >> > > you > >> > > > > > write > >> > > > > > > > > schema id in each tuple. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, my biggest concern -- extra serde step. I suppose > we > >> > > should > >> > > > > > pass > >> > > > > > > > > bytearray to internal api, and use msgpack throughout > all > >> > wire > >> > > > > > > protocols, > >> > > > > > > > > as tarantool does. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 16:15 Pavel Tupitsyn < > >> > ptupit...@apache.org > >> > > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Ivan, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > that there is not neccesary to write schema > versions > >> in > >> > > each > >> > > > > row > >> > > > > > > > > > > in collectionof tuples > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > This is described in all operations that include > >> multiple > >> > > > tuples. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > it is not clear from your code (probably > >> > > > > > > > > > > mistake?) how differ key tuples and value tuples > from > >> > each > >> > > > > other > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Key tuples include only key columns. Key columns come > >> first > >> > > in > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > schema. > >> > > > > > > > > > Value tuples include all columns, key and value. Added > >> "Key > >> > > > > tuples" > >> > > > > > > > > > section. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > As for me, these excercises with schema's doesn't > >> worth a > >> > > lot > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'll add a benchmark and we'll see. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 3:17 PM Ivan Daschinsky < > >> > > > > > ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I suppose, that there is not neccesary to write > schema > >> > > > versions > >> > > > > > in > >> > > > > > > > each > >> > > > > > > > > > row > >> > > > > > > > > > > in collectionof tuples. Also it is not clear from > your > >> > code > >> > > > > > > (probably > >> > > > > > > > > > > mistake?) how differ key tuples and value tuples > from > >> > each > >> > > > > other. > >> > > > > > > In > >> > > > > > > > > > > readTuple you always read full schema and check for > >> full > >> > > > > length. > >> > > > > > As > >> > > > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > > > me, > >> > > > > > > > > > > these excercises with schema's doesn't worth a lot. > >> I.e. > >> > > > > postgres > >> > > > > > > > just > >> > > > > > > > > > > writes field names and then simpy rows with data. > >> Saving > >> > > few > >> > > > > > bytes > >> > > > > > > > > > doesn't > >> > > > > > > > > > > make much deal. Btw, msgpack has special types for > >> short > >> > > > > strings > >> > > > > > > > (i.e. > >> > > > > > > > > > > str8). It is much easier use it and write field name > >> as > >> > is. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 14:56 Pavel Tupitsyn < > >> > > > ptupit...@apache.org > >> > > > > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan, tuple serialization section added to the > IEP, > >> let > >> > > me > >> > > > > know > >> > > > > > > if > >> > > > > > > > it > >> > > > > > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > > > > > > clear enough. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:06 PM Ivan Daschinsky < > >> > > > > > > > ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find any description of tuple > >> serialization > >> > in > >> > > > IEP, > >> > > > > > > only > >> > > > > > > > in > >> > > > > > > > > > > code > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 13:59 Pavel Tupitsyn < > >> > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > >> > > > > > > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0. The IEP is not in progress, it is ready for > >> > review > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > > > > > discussion. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Tuple serialization is described in the IEP > >> and > >> > > > > > > demonstrated > >> > > > > > > > > in > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > PoC > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (see ClientMessageHandler#readTuple), let me > >> know > >> > if > >> > > > more > >> > > > > > > > details > >> > > > > > > > > > are > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > required > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Tuple schema serialization is described in > >> > > > SCHEMAS_GET > >> > > > > > > > > section. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Table > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema (configuration) needs more details, you > >> are > >> > > > right > >> > > > > - > >> > > > > > > I'll > >> > > > > > > > > add > >> > > > > > > > > > > > them. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. This IEP is about tables (tuple-based) API > >> only, > >> > > > since > >> > > > > > it > >> > > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > > > > only > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > API that we have right now, as noted in Risks > >> and > >> > > > > > > Assumptions. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 1:53 PM Ivan > Daschinsky < > >> > > > > > > > > > ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, is there any clear information about > KV > >> > api? > >> > > Is > >> > > > > > there > >> > > > > > > > any > >> > > > > > > > > > > plan > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implement it? Or is there any proposal about > >> it? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 13:51 Ivan Daschinsky < > >> > > > > > > > ivanda...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > > > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, but IEP is in progress, isn't it? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. There is not any information about > tuple > >> > > > > > > serialization. > >> > > > > > > > > And > >> > > > > > > > > > > > there > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > isn't > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a clear consensus about it. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. There is not any information about > schrma > >> > > > > > > serialization > >> > > > > > > > > > > format. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > And > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK, there isn't a clear consensus also. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 13:26 Pavel Tupitsyn < > >> > > > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > >> > > > > > > > > > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please review the IEP for thin client > >> protocol > >> > > in > >> > > > > 3.0 > >> > > > > > > [1]. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> PoC is in progress [2] > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1] > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-76+Thin+Client+Protocol+for+Ignite+3.0 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [2] > >> > https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/191 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
