On Tue 30 Jun 2020, 13:51 Ilya Kasnacheev, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello! > > You can also use Binary Object (POJO) as a key, i.e., you can use an > Object with String email and String phone fields. > > I don't recommend mangling strings further than concatenation. String key > is no worse than numeric key. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > вт, 30 июн. 2020 г. в 15:17, Eugene McGowan <[email protected]>: > >> >> We would like to create an Ignite key by concatenating data. This is a >> standard distributed system pattern for key-value, and would allow the >> reader and writer consistently access the cache. The data is a combination >> of strings and integers. To simplify our use case, lets say its an email >> address ([email protected]) and phone number (123444) we want to use to build >> our key.Our key could therefore be:[email protected]_123444 >> <[email protected]_123444>The advantage of this approach is the key can easily >> be read/debugged. Is there a more optimum format for Ignite though? For >> regular RDBMS, it seems integers were the default choice. We could convert >> [email protected] to an int, e.g. f converts to 6, o to 15, etc. >> This naïve first attempt of conversion would of-course lead to clashes, >> as 111 could map to either aaa or ak. This could be worked around >> potentially, so looking for an initial steer on what Ignite would prefer as >> a key (i.e. strings or ints). Is hashing something that would be >> recommended either? In terms of any partitioning type logic, we are >> guessing not, but just more around creating deterministic, unique keys >> >
