> This is described in all operations that include multiple tuples.
No it isn't, I have carefully read code and IEP, in your code you write
schema id in each tuple.

Also, my biggest concern -- extra serde step. I suppose we should pass
bytearray to internal api, and use msgpack throughout all wire protocols,
as tarantool does.

чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 16:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:

> Ivan,
>
> >  that there is not neccesary to write schema versions in each row
> > in collectionof tuples
>
> This is described in all operations that include multiple tuples.
>
>
> > it is not clear from your code (probably
> > mistake?) how differ key tuples and value tuples from each other
>
> Key tuples include only key columns. Key columns come first in the schema.
> Value tuples include all columns, key and value. Added "Key tuples"
> section.
>
>
> > As for me, these excercises with schema's doesn't worth a lot
>
> I'll add a benchmark and we'll see.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 3:17 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I suppose, that there is not neccesary to write schema versions in each
> row
> > in collectionof tuples. Also it is not clear from your code (probably
> > mistake?) how differ key tuples and value tuples from each other. In
> > readTuple you always read full schema and check for full length. As for
> me,
> > these excercises with schema's doesn't worth a lot. I.e. postgres just
> > writes field names and then simpy rows with data. Saving few bytes
> doesn't
> > make much deal. Btw, msgpack has special types for short strings (i.e.
> > str8). It is much easier use it and write field name as is.
> >
> > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 14:56 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Ivan, tuple serialization section added to the IEP, let me know if it
> is
> > > clear enough.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:06 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can't find any description of tuple serialization in IEP, only in
> > code
> > > >
> > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 13:59 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Ivan,
> > > > >
> > > > > 0. The IEP is not in progress, it is ready for review and
> discussion.
> > > > > 1. Tuple serialization is described in the IEP and demonstrated in
> > the
> > > > PoC
> > > > > (see ClientMessageHandler#readTuple), let me know if more details
> are
> > > > > required
> > > > > 2. Tuple schema serialization is described in SCHEMAS_GET section.
> > > Table
> > > > > schema (configuration) needs more details, you are right - I'll add
> > > them.
> > > > > 3. This IEP is about tables (tuple-based) API only, since it is the
> > > only
> > > > > API that we have right now, as noted in Risks and Assumptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 1:53 PM Ivan Daschinsky <
> ivanda...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Also, is there any clear information about KV api? Is there any
> > plan
> > > to
> > > > > > implement it? Or is there any proposal about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 13:51 Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel, but IEP is in progress, isn't it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. There is not any information about tuple serialization. And
> > > there
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > a clear consensus about it.
> > > > > > > 2. There is not any information about schrma serialization
> > format.
> > > > And
> > > > > > > AFAIK, there isn't a clear consensus also.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 13:26 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please review the IEP for thin client protocol in 3.0 [1].
> > > > > > >> PoC is in progress [2]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-76+Thin+Client+Protocol+for+Ignite+3.0
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/191
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to