Hi, Ivan! I agree about String. It looks like there is someone who just forgot to document it.
But what about binary? H2 supports varbinary type (along with varchar). So I think we can easily support it. Also it will open the door to an improved inline size calculation for binary types the same way as it's aiming to do for varchar (ticket [1] "Improve inline index defaults"). Igniters, WDYT? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13364 On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 1:12 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I suppose that we should add javadoc to QuerySqlFileds. It is weird > that this feature is not documented. > > ср, 11 авг. 2021 г. в 00:08, Maksim Timonin <timonin.ma...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi, Igniters! > > > > I dived to the precision param of QuerySqlField and SQL data types. The > > javadocs of QuerySqlField say that the param is for decimal type only. > But > > actually it works for String fields out of the box. So it looks like an > > easter egg. I think we should either document it or forbid it. > > > > Also I wonder why it works for String, but not for byte[] (analogue of > > binary SQL data type). I made a few minor fixes and then it started to > work > > [1]. > > > > I think that QuerySqlField precision should work the same way as for SQL > > variable length types - varchar, binary. Then I propose to allow apply > > QuerySqlField.precision on String and byte[]. Is there a known reason to > > avoid it? > > > > WDYT? > > > > [1] I've prepared a PR with patch for binary types, and tests for > precision > > (QuerySqlField and SQL), and fix the javadoc - > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9315 > > > > P.S. I discovered that IgniteDataStreamer ignores the precision parameter > > for QuerySqlField. I found a ticket that is also broken for notNull - > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10999. It just doesn't work > > at > > all, not only about notNull. > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy >
