Hello Luís,

> Offset is an integer? I've only noticed it being resolved as a long so
far.

You are right, offset is a long.

As for timestamp / other types, I left a comment in your PR about handling
tie breakers.

> Given these arguments, is this point something that you absolutely must
have?

No I do not have a strong use case in mind to go with arbitrary byte
arrays, was just thinking that if we are going to enhance log compaction
why not generalize it more :)

Your concern about the memory usage makes sense. I'm happy to take my
suggestion back and enforce only long typed fields.


Guozhang





On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:44 AM, Luís Cabral <luis_cab...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> bq. have a integer typed OffsetMap (for offset)
>
> Offset is an integer? I've only noticed it being resolved as a long so far.
>
>
> bq. long typed OffsetMap (for timestamp)
>
> We would still need to store the offset, as it is functioning as a
> tie-breaker. Not that this is a big deal, we can be easily have both (as
> currently done on the PR).
>
>
> bq. For the byte array typed offset map, we can use a general hashmap,
> where the hashmap's CAPACITY will be reasoned from the given "val memory:
> Int" parameter
>
> If you have a map with 128 byte capacity, then store a value with 16 bytes
> and another with 32 bytes, how many free slots do you have left in this map?
>
> You can make this work, but I think you would need to re-design the whole
> log cleaner approach, which implies changing some of the already existing
> configurations (like "log.cleaner.io.buffer.load.factor"). I would rather
> maintain backwards compatibility as much as possible in this KIP, and if
> this means that using "foo" / "bar" or "2.1-a" / "3.20-b" as record
> versions is not viable, then so be it.
>
> Given these arguments, is this point something that you absolutely must
> have? I'm still sort of hoping that you are just entertaining the idea and
> are ok with having a long (now conceded to be unsigned, so the byte arrays
> can be compared directly).
>
>
> Kind Regards,Luis
>



-- 
-- Guozhang

Reply via email to