Guys,
Here's documented version of current API changes - it's quite modest
https://goo.gl/Y6Cv1b
- Alex
2016-07-28 20:34 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko
<alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
> Sergi,
>
> OK, I've done it as you said, thanks.
> Now working on binary marshaller support.
>
> - Alex
>
> 2016-07-28 9:08 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>> I had a quick look at the PR.
>>
>> I don't like this @QueryCacheKey and setKeyProp method on public API. They
>> solve nothing but add complexity and make key to be stored twice in cache,
>> which is wrong. Please remove this.
>>
>> If you want to do some public API changes you have to discuss them publicly
>> before implementing them, ok?
>>
>> I did not look deeper yet, lets fix the obvious issue first.
>>
>> Sergi
>>
>> 2016-07-27 21:44 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Sergi,
>>>
>>> I've made changes to the API according to your valuable
>>> recommendations, thank you very much for giving them. Please refer to
>>> PR to see current state of the work.
>>> Will surely look into ODBC, .NET and Visor. Though they will most
>>> likely have to support a new feature rather than considerably change
>>> existing logic.
>>>
>>> - Alex
>>>
>>> 2016-07-27 14:23 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>>> > Please don't forget about ODBC, .NET and Visor. They all have to work in
>>> > the same way.
>>> >
>>> > Sergi
>>> >
>>> > 2016-07-27 14:15 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>>> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> >> OK, I've found that bold cast to QueryCursor<R> in IgniteCacheProxy
>>> >> and had a look at how SqlFieldsQuery is used in JDBC driver. Thanks.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Alex
>>> >>
>>> >> 2016-07-27 13:02 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> > Where did you see R in SqlFieldsQuery?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Sergi
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 2016-07-27 12:59 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>>> >> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Sergi,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> But current signature of query() method returns not just some
>>> >> >> iterator, but rather iterator of R which is type param of Query -
>>> >> >> i.e., we won't be able to return an int inside a QueryCursor<R>. At
>>> >> >> least without API change (signature of query() method will have to be
>>> >> >> changed to drop genericness, or in some other weird way). Is this
>>> what
>>> >> >> we really want? Or am I missing something in your point?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> - Alex
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 2016-07-27 12:51 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
>>> >:
>>> >> >> > Exactly. This will allow our Jdbc driver to work transparently.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Sergi
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > 2016-07-27 12:40 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>>> >> >> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> Sergi,
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> You wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > I'd prefer to return the same information, so it will not be
>>> empty
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Do you mean return iterator with single element that denotes
>>> number
>>> >> of
>>> >> >> >> rows?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Dmitriy,
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> You wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > What is the ticket number for this. Is the new API documented
>>> >> there?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Overall issue number is 2294. There's no particular issue on API
>>> >> >> >> changes, but creating one seems to be a good idea, I will do it.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> - Alex
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> 2016-07-27 9:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrak...@apache.org>:
>>> >> >> >> > What is the ticket number for this. Is the new API documented
>>> >> there?
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> >> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> I don't see anything ugly in empty iterator, sorry if I
>>> insulted
>>> >> your
>>> >> >> >> taste
>>> >> >> >> >> of beauty.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> If you will take a look at Jdbc, you will see that
>>> >> >> >> Statement.executeUpdate
>>> >> >> >> >> method returns number of updated rows, I'd prefer to return the
>>> >> same
>>> >> >> >> >> information, so it will not be empty (beauty is restored!).
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Sergi
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> 2016-07-26 18:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>>> >> >> >> >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > I see your point. But what about my concerns from initial
>>> post?
>>> >> >> >> >> > Particularly about signatures of existing methods? I
>>> personally
>>> >> >> don't
>>> >> >> >> >> > like an option of query() method always returning an empty
>>> >> iterator
>>> >> >> >> >> > for any non-select query, it seems ugly design wise.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > - Alex
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > 2016-07-26 18:15 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <
>>> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> >> >> > > BTW, the simplest way to solve this issue is to allow
>>> running
>>> >> SQL
>>> >> >> >> >> > commands
>>> >> >> >> >> > > inside of SqlFieldsQuery.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > > We may add some additional convenience API for updates if
>>> we
>>> >> >> want,
>>> >> >> >> but
>>> >> >> >> >> > JDBC
>>> >> >> >> >> > > client will always call it like this:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > > cache.query(new SqlFieldsQuery("INSERT INTO MY_TABLE
>>> >> >> >> >> > > VALUES(?,?)").setArgs(1,2));
>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > > This will resolve any ambiguity.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > > Sergi
>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > > 2016-07-26 17:56 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <
>>> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
>>> >> >> >> >:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> I don't like any pre-parsing, especially with some
>>> libraries
>>> >> >> other
>>> >> >> >> >> than
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> H2. H2 itself has enough quirks to multiply it on quirks
>>> of
>>> >> >> another
>>> >> >> >> >> > library.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> This is exactly what I was talking about - we need some
>>> >> single
>>> >> >> >> entry
>>> >> >> >> >> > point
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> on API for all the SQL commands and queries. Thats why I
>>> >> >> suggested
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> SqlUpdate to extend Query. To me its is the cleanest
>>> >> approach.
>>> >> >> May
>>> >> >> >> be
>>> >> >> >> >> we
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> need to change in some backward compatible way this Query
>>> >> >> >> hierarchy to
>>> >> >> >> >> > get
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> rid of extra methods but the idea is still the same.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> Sergi
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> 2016-07-26 14:34 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Guys,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> I would like to advance the discussion further. There's
>>> one
>>> >> >> quite
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> important question that arose based on current state of
>>> >> work on
>>> >> >> >> this
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> issue. If we use some kind of interactive console, like
>>> >> Visor,
>>> >> >> >> then
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> how should it know whether SQL query it is requested to
>>> >> execute
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> returns a result set or not? In JDBC world, solution is
>>> >> quite
>>> >> >> >> simple
>>> >> >> >> >> -
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> there's base interface called Statement that all commands
>>> >> >> >> implement,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and it has magic isResultSet method that tells whether
>>> >> >> statement
>>> >> >> >> is a
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> query or an update command. The API proposed now has
>>> >> separate
>>> >> >> >> Query
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and Update operations which I believe to be a right
>>> thing by
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> reasons I outlined in the beginning of this thread.
>>> However,
>>> >> >> their
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> lack of common ancestor prevents possible console clients
>>> >> from
>>> >> >> >> >> running
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> text SQL commands in a fully transparent manner - like
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> IgniteCache.execute(String sql). Therefore I see two
>>> >> possible
>>> >> >> >> ways of
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> solving this:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - we change API so that it includes new class or
>>> interface
>>> >> >> >> parenting
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> both Query and Update, and clients use it to communicate
>>> >> with
>>> >> >> >> cache
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - we let (or make :) ) the client determine command type
>>> >> >> >> >> independently
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and behave accordingly - for it to work it will have some
>>> >> kind
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> command parsing by itself just to determine its type.
>>> Visor
>>> >> >> >> console
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> may use simple library like JSqlParser
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> (https://github.com/JSQLParser/JSqlParser; dual LGPL
>>> >> 2.1/ASF
>>> >> >> 2.0
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> licensed) to determine request type in terms of JDBC, and
>>> >> >> behave
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> accordingly.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Personally, I think that the second approach is better -
>>> and
>>> >> >> >> here's
>>> >> >> >> >> > why.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> First, it does not seem wise to change API simply to make
>>> >> >> console
>>> >> >> >> (or
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> any other) clients simpler. Programmatic APIs should be
>>> >> concise
>>> >> >> >> and
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> short for programmatic use, console clients should be
>>> easy
>>> >> to
>>> >> >> use
>>> >> >> >> >> from
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> console - and that's it: after all, console client
>>> exists to
>>> >> >> free
>>> >> >> >> a
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> user from burden of doing things programmatically, so its
>>> >> aim
>>> >> >> is
>>> >> >> >> to
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> adapt API to console or whatever UI.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Second, possible complications in client implied by such
>>> >> >> approach
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> certainly won't be dramatic - I don't think that
>>> additional
>>> >> >> single
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> query parsing operation in client code will make it much
>>> >> >> harder to
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> develop.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Third, as I see it now, adding a new "synthetic" entity
>>> and
>>> >> new
>>> >> >> >> >> method
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> would take more effort to adapting the client to new API.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Dmitry, Sergi, I would like to hear what you think about
>>> it
>>> >> >> all.
>>> >> >> >> >> > Thanks.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - Alex
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> 2016-07-21 21:17 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> >> >> >> dsetrak...@apache.org
>>> >> >> >> >> >:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > OK, then using your analogy, the current behavior in
>>> >> Ignite
>>> >> >> is
>>> >> >> >> >> MERGE
>>> >> >> >> >> > for
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > the most part.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > My preference is that Ignite SQL should work no
>>> different
>>> >> >> from
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> traditional
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > databases, which means:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - INSERT is translated into *putIfAbsent()* call in
>>> Ignite
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - UPDATE is translated into *replace()* call in Ignite
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - MERGE is translated into *put()* call in Ignite
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - For SQL BATCH calls we should delegate to Ignite
>>> batch
>>> >> >> >> >> operations,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> e.g.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > *putAll()*
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > The above should hold true for atomic and transactional
>>> >> >> >> put/putAll
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> calls,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > as well as for the data streamer.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > Does this make sense?
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > D.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> No, this does not make sense.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> There is no upsert mode in databases. There are
>>> >> operations:
>>> >> >> >> >> INSERT,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> UPDATE,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> DELETE, MERGE.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> I want to have clear understanding of how they have to
>>> >> >> behave
>>> >> >> >> in
>>> >> >> >> >> SQL
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> databases and how they will actually behave in Ignite
>>> in
>>> >> >> >> different
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> scenarios. Also I want to have clear understanding of
>>> >> >> >> performance
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> implications of each decision here.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Anything wrong with that?
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Sergi
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> dsetrak...@apache.org>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Serj, are you asking what will happen as of today?
>>> Then
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> >> >> answer
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> to all
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > your questions is that duplicate keys are not an
>>> issue,
>>> >> >> and
>>> >> >> >> >> Ignite
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> always
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > operates in **upsert** mode (which is essentially a
>>> >> >> *“put(…)”
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> *method).
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > However, the *“insert”* that is suggested by Alex
>>> would
>>> >> >> >> delegate
>>> >> >> >> >> > to
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > *“putIfAbsent(…)”*, which in database world makes
>>> more
>>> >> >> sense.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> However, in
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > this case, the *“update”* syntax should delegate to
>>> >> >> >> >> > *“replace(…)”*,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> as
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > update should fail in case if a key is absent.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Considering the above, a notion of “*upsert”* or
>>> >> “*merge”
>>> >> >> >> >> > *operation
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> is
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > very much needed, as it will give a user an option
>>> to
>>> >> >> perform
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > “insert-or-update” in 1 call.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Does this make sense?
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > D.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > I'd prefer to do MERGE operation last because in
>>> H2
>>> >> it
>>> >> >> is
>>> >> >> >> not
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> standard
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > ANSI
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > SQL MERGE. Or may be not implement it at all, or
>>> may
>>> >> be
>>> >> >> >> >> > contribute
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> ANSI
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > correct version to H2, then implement it on
>>> Ignite.
>>> >> >> Need to
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> investigate
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > the
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > semantics deeper before making any decisions here.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > Lets start with simple scenarios for INSERT and go
>>> >> >> through
>>> >> >> >> all
>>> >> >> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > possible
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > cases and answer the questions:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen on key conflict in TX cache?
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen on key conflict in Atomic
>>> cache?
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen with the previous two if we use
>>> >> >> >> DataLoader?
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - How to make these operations efficient (it will
>>> be
>>> >> >> simple
>>> >> >> >> >> > enough
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> to
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > implement them with separate put/putIfAbsent
>>> >> operations
>>> >> >> but
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> probably we
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > will need some batching like putAllIfAbsent for
>>> >> >> >> efficiency)?
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > As for API, we still will need to have a single
>>> entry
>>> >> >> point
>>> >> >> >> >> for
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> all SQL
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > queries/commands to allow any console work with it
>>> >> >> >> >> > transparently.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> It
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > would
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > be great if we will be able to come up with
>>> something
>>> >> >> >> >> consistent
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> with
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > this
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > idea on public API.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > Sergi
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Dmitriy
>>> Setrakyan <
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > dsetrak...@gridgain.com>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Like the idea of merge and insert. I need more
>>> >> time to
>>> >> >> >> think
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> about
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> the
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > API
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > changes.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Sergi, what do you think?
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Dmitriy
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Alexander
>>> Paschenko <
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Thus, I suggest that we implement MERGE as a
>>> >> >> separate
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> operation
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > backed
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > by putIfAbsent operation, while INSERT will be
>>> >> >> >> implemented
>>> >> >> >> >> via
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> put.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > Sorry, of course I meant that MERGE has to be
>>> >> >> >> put-based,
>>> >> >> >> >> > while
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> INSERT
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > has to be putIfAbsent-based.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > 2016-07-20 12:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > <alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Hell Igniters,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> In this thread I would like to share and
>>> discuss
>>> >> >> some
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> thoughts on
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > DML
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> operations' implementation, so let's start
>>> and
>>> >> >> keep it
>>> >> >> >> >> > here.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Everyone
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> is of course welcome to share their
>>> suggestions.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> For starters, I was thinking about semantics
>>> of
>>> >> >> >> INSERT.
>>> >> >> >> >> In
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > traditional
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> RDBMSs, INSERT works only for records whose
>>> >> primary
>>> >> >> >> keys
>>> >> >> >> >> > don't
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> conflict with those of records that are
>>> already
>>> >> >> >> >> persistent
>>> >> >> >> >> > -
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> you
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > can't
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> try to insert the same key more than once
>>> >> because
>>> >> >> >> you'll
>>> >> >> >> >> > get
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> an
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > error.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> However, semantics of cache put is obviously
>>> >> >> >> different -
>>> >> >> >> >> it
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> does
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> not
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> have anything about duplicate keys, it just
>>> >> quietly
>>> >> >> >> >> updates
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> values
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > in
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> case of keys' duplication. Still, cache has
>>> >> >> >> putIfAbsent
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> operation
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > that
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> is closer to traditional notion of INSERT,
>>> and
>>> >> H2's
>>> >> >> >> SQL
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> dialect
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> has
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> MERGE operation which corresponds to
>>> semantics
>>> >> of
>>> >> >> >> cache
>>> >> >> >> >> > put.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Thus, I
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> suggest that we implement MERGE as a separate
>>> >> >> >> operation
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> backed by
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> putIfAbsent operation, while INSERT will be
>>> >> >> >> implemented
>>> >> >> >> >> via
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> put.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> And one more, probably more important thing:
>>> I
>>> >> >> suggest
>>> >> >> >> >> > that we
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > create
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> separate class Update and corresponding
>>> >> operation
>>> >> >> >> >> update()
>>> >> >> >> >> > in
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> IgniteCache. The reasons are as follows:
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - Query bears some flags that are clearly
>>> >> redundant
>>> >> >> >> for
>>> >> >> >> >> > Update
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> (page
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> size, locality)
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - query() method in IgniteCache (one that
>>> >> accepts
>>> >> >> >> Query)
>>> >> >> >> >> > and
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> query()
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> methods in GridQueryIndexing return
>>> iterators.
>>> >> So,
>>> >> >> if
>>> >> >> >> we
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> strive to
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> leave interfaces unchanged, we still will
>>> >> introduce
>>> >> >> >> some
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> design
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> ugliness like query methods returning empty
>>> >> >> iterators
>>> >> >> >> for
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> certain
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> queries, and/or query flags that indicate
>>> >> whether
>>> >> >> >> it's an
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> update
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > query
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> or not, etc.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - If some Queries are update queries, then
>>> >> >> continuous
>>> >> >> >> >> > queries
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> can't
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > be
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> based on them - more design-wise ugly checks
>>> and
>>> >> >> stuff
>>> >> >> >> >> like
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> that.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - I'm pretty sure there's more I don't know
>>> >> about.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Comments and suggestions are welcome. Sergi
>>> >> >> Vladykin,
>>> >> >> >> >> > Dmitry
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Setrakyan, your opinions are of particular
>>> >> >> interest,
>>> >> >> >> >> please
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> advise.
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Regards,
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Alex
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>>
