1) RecordView is the correct way to go if you want key and value
columns together.
I would not worry about the overhead of the class being larger,
unless it is something crazy with hundreds of columns
3) Fixed that already, createTable returns the table now
4) 3.2 eta this spring
On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 12:54 AM Gilles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all, I'm migrating to Ignite 3.1 (coming from 2.x) but I'm having some
> questions in regard to the Java API.
>
> 1) KeyValue behaviour
>
> @Table(value = InfoEntry.TABLE_NAME,
> zone = @Zone(value = IgniteDB.ZONE_PERSIST_DEFAULT, storageProfiles =
> IgniteDB.STORAGE_PROFILE_DEFAULT)
> )
> public class InfoEntry implements Serializable {
> public static final String TABLE_NAME = "user_info";
>
> @Id
> @Column("local_id")
> public Long localId;
> @Column("email")
> public String email;
> .... more fields
> }
>
> ignite.catalog().createTable(InfoEntry.class);
> table = ignite.tables().table(InfoEntry.TABLE_NAME);
>
> KeyValueView<Long, InfoEntry> kvView= table.keyValueView(
> Mapper.of(Long.class, "local_id"),
> Mapper.of(InfoEntry.class)
> );
>
> Now clearly any operation on the KeyValueView will fail reasonably since you
> cannot 'duplicate' the key column on a value column;
>
> org.apache.ignite.lang.MarshallerException: IGN-MARSHALLING-1 Fields
> [localId] of type User.InfoEntry are not mapped to columns TraceId:
>
> However, is there any way I can map it intuitively like that? I'd like to
> have both primary ID/keys together in my value class.
> I know I could just duplicate another column holding the key value, or use
> RecordView which is the correct way to do so but for get operations you have
> to;
>
> 1. Create a new object where only the key(s) are populated
> InfoEntry key = new InfoEntry();
> key.localId = 10L;
> 2. Pass it to the getter
> 3. receive another new object of the same type
> InfoEntry result = recordView.get(null, key);
>
> I'm probably thinking too much about the overhead but it seems costly,
> especially if you are using large classes.
>
> 2) @Table annotation and inheritance
>
> I create zones like this;
>
> String ZONE_PERSIST_DEFAULT = "default_zone_persistent";
> String STORAGE_PROFILE_DEFAULT = "default_aipersist";
>
> ZoneDefinition zoneDefinition = ZoneDefinition.builder(ZONE_PERSIST_DEFAULT)
> .partitions(64)
> .replicas(3)
> .storageProfiles(STORAGE_PROFILE_DEFAULT)
> .dataNodesAutoAdjustScaleUp(120)
> .dataNodesAutoAdjustScaleDown(360)
> .ifNotExists()
> .build();
> ignite.catalog().createZone(zoneDefinition);
>
> But the @Zone annotation always requires 'storageProfile', can this not be
> inherited?
>
> @Table(value = InfoEntry.TABLE_NAME,
> zone = @Zone(value = ZONE_PERSIST_DEFAULT, storageProfiles =
> STORAGE_PROFILE_DEFAULT)
> )
>
> 3) Table creation;
>
> Table table = ignite.tables().table(InfoEntry.TABLE_NAME);
> if (table == null) {
> ignite.catalog().createTable(InfoEntry.class);
> table = ignite.tables().table(InfoEntry.TABLE_NAME);
> }
>
> Can't createTable(...) not return the Table upon success? I've also noticed
> using DBeaver that tables created this way have their names in uppercase.
>
> 4) Is there an eta on 3.2?
>
> I saw a lot of closed tickets on the 3.2 tracker with many QOL improvements,
> will there be any breaking changes and should I wait for my migration from
> 2.x?
>
>
> Thanks in advance and for all your hard work within the Ignite projects,
> Gilles
>
