I don't see any improvement here. Usability will only suffer with this
change.
I'd suggest to just add mapping for system columns like _key, _val , _ver.
Sergi
2017-02-15 13:18 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> I think the whole QueryEntity class require rework to allow for this
> change. I would start with creating QueryField class which will encapsulate
> all field properties which are currently set through different setters:
>
> class QueryField {
> String name;
> String type;
> String alias;
> boolean keyField;
> }
>
> class QueryEntity {
> String tableName;
> String keyType;
> String valType;
> Collection<QueryField> fields;
> Collection<QueryIndex> indexes;
> }
>
> Then we can add optional key and value field names to top-level config. If
> set, key and/or value will have names and will be included into SELECT *
> query in the same way as we do this for _KEY and _VAL at the moment:
>
> class QueryEntity {
> String tableName;
> String keyType;
> String valType;
> * String keyFieldName;*
> * String valFieldName;*
> Collection<QueryField> fields;
> Collection<QueryIndex> indexes;
> }
>
> Any other ideas?
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Vova,
> >
> > Agree about the primitive types. However, it is not clear to me how the
> > mapping from a primitive type to a column name will be supported. Do you
> > have a design in mind?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:16 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dima,
> > >
> > > This will not work for primitive keys and values as currently the only
> > way
> > > to address them is to use "_KEY" and "_VAL" aliases respectively. For
> > this
> > > reason I would rather postpone UPDATE/DELETE implementation until
> "_KEY"
> > > and "_VAL" are hidden from public API and some kind of mapping is
> > > introduced. AFAIK this should be handled as a part of IGNITE-3487 ]1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3487
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I propose to ship streaming with INSERT support only for now. This
> is
> > > > > enough for multitude cases and will add value to Ignite 1.9
> > > immediately.
> > > > We
> > > > > can think about correct streaming UPDATE/DELETE architecture
> > separately
> > > > .It
> > > > > is much more difficult thing, we cannot support it in a clean way
> > right
> > > > now
> > > > > due to multiple "_key" and "_val" usages over the code base.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vova, I disagree. If all parts of the key are present, then we can
> > always
> > > > construct a key in all cases. For these operations we can always
> > support
> > > > streaming. For all other operations, we can delegate to standard MR,
> > but
> > > > still perform most operations on the same node, as I suggested in
> > another
> > > > email.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
