Abdullah, If I remember correctly whenever a secondary open index is created all existing records would be casted to a proper type to ensure that the index creation is valid. As for the overall correctness of casting operation, semantically creating an open index is the same thing as altering the dataset type. The current implementation allows only one open index of particular type created on a single field. If we would have had “alter datatype” functionality the open indexing would not be required at all.
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 23:25, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> wrote: > > More thoughts: > I assume the intention of the cast was just to make sure if the open field > exists, it is of the specified type. Moreover, the un-casted record should > be inserted into the index. > If my assumptions are not correct, please, let me know ASAP. > > I have two thoughts on this: > 1. Actually, insert plans show that the records being inserted into the > primary index is actually the casted record creating the issue described > above. > > 2. I don't believe this is the right way to ensure that the open field if > exists is of the right type. why not extract the field using field access > by name function and then verify the type using the field tag? > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:11 AM, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Dev, @Ildar, >> >> In the insert pipeline for datasets with open indexes, we introduce a cast >> function before the insert and so one would expect the records to look like >> the casted record type which I assume has {{the closed fields + a nullable >> field}}. >> >> The question is, what happens to the previously existing records?, since >> now the index has both, records of the original type and records of the >> casted type. >> >> Thanks, >> Abdullah. >> Best regards, Ildar
