Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Hi Alieh, I just realized that your KIP uses allKeys() and KIP-997 uses withAllKeys() and the current RangeQuery uses withNoBounds(). We should agree on one of those. I am in favor of withAllKeys() but I am also fine with withNoKeyBounds(). I just prefer the former because it is more

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Hi Alieh, I think using TimestampedRangeQuery to query the latest versions is totally fine. If it is not, users will report it and we can add it then. Best, Bruno On 12/11/23 6:22 PM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: Thank you all. I decided to remove the ordering from the KIP and maybe move it to the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Thank you all. I decided to remove the ordering from the KIP and maybe move it to the subsequent KIPs (based on user demand). I skimmed over the discussion thread, but we still had an open question about how a user can retrieve the `latest()` values. I think what Matthias suggested (using

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Hi Alieh, I think we do not have to restrict ourselves too much for the future and complicate the implementation. The user can always store away and sort, so we should only provide the ordering guarantee we can provide efficiently, and we shouldn't restrict our future evolution too much by this.

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Hi all, I updated the KIP based on the changes made in the former KIP (KIP-968). So with the `ResultOrder` enum, the class `MultiVersionedRangeQuery` had some changes both in the defined fields and defined methods. Based on the PoC PR, what we currently promise in the KIP about ordering seems

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Thank you, Bruno and Matthias. I updated the KIP as follows: 1. The one remaining `asOf` word in the KIP is removed. 2. Example 2 is updated. Thanks, Bruno for the correction. Discussions and open questions 1. Yes, Bruno. We need `orderByKey()` and `orderByTimestamp()` as well. Because the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Great discussion. Seems we are making good progress. I see advantages and disadvantages in splitting out a "single-ts key-range" query type. I guess, the main question might be, what use-cases do we anticipate and how common we believe they are? We should also take KIP-992 (adding

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Hi Alieh, I like the examples! 1. Some terms like `asOf` in the descriptions still need to be replaced in the KIP. 2. In your last e-mail you state: "How can a user retrieve the latest value? We have the same issue with kip-968 as well." Why do we have the same issue in KIP-968? If

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Thanks, Matthias and Bruno. Here is a list of updates: 1. I changed the variable and method names as I did for KIP-968, as follows: - "fromTimestamp" -> fromTime - "asOfTimestamp"-> toTime - "from(instant)" -> fromTime(instant)" - asOf(instant)"->toTime(instant)

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Thanks for the update. To retrieve the latest value(s), the user must call just the asOf method with the MAX value (asOf(MAX)). The same applies to KIP-968. Do you think it is clumsy, Matthias? Well, in KIP-968 calling `asOf` and passing in a timestamp is optional, and default

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Thanks, Matthias and Bruno, for the feedback on KIP-969. Here is a summary of the updates I made to the KIP: 1. I liked the idea of renaming methods as Matthias suggested. 2. I removed the allversions() method as I did in KIP-968. To retrieve the latest value(s), the user must call just

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Thanks for updating the KIP. Not sure if I agree or not with Bruno's idea to split the query types further? In the end, we split them only because there is three different return types: single value, value-iterator, key-value-iterator. What do we gain by splitting out single-ts-range-key? In

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Hi Alieh, Thanks for the KIP! One high level comment/question: I assume you separated single key queries into two classes because versioned key queries return a single value and multi version key queries return iterators. Although, range queries always return iterators, it would make sense

[DISCUSS] KIP-969: Support range interactive queries for versioned state stores

Hi all, I splitted KIP-960 into three separate KIPs. Therefore, please continue discussions about range interactive queries here. You can