Igor, as you can see from the code, we read data from msgpack and build the tuple from scratch. Then we serialize this tuple again when send it to backups. I presume this is absolutely unnecessary
чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 18:42 Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>: > Ivan, what are extra serde steps you are talking about? > > Best Regards, > Igor > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 5:52 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I agree. But this was decided before in IEP-54, and is out of scope for > > current IEP. > > Would you like to start a separate thread to discuss this? Or I can do > this > > a bit later. > > > > Great idea, let's discuss it. I suppose this will simplify many aspects > of > > realization and improve performance a lot > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 17:50 Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Here is the description of TUPLE_GET_ALL: > > > - UUID: table ID > > > - int: schema ID > > > - arr of arr: array of rows with values for all columns in given schema > > > > > > I suppose that we should describe this more verbose and explicit. I > > > nevertheless suggest to also consider writing values this way: > > > - arr of fields names (if name is missed, corresponding field is nil) > > > - arr of rows (row as array, length equal to fields array) > > > > > > It is quite simple and if we use str8 (it is more than enough for any > > > utf-8 reasonable field name), overhead will be negligible, but > > realization > > > of a client will be way simpler > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 16:57 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > >> > No it isn't, I have carefully read code and IEP, in your code you > > write > > >> > schema id in each tuple. > > >> > > >> There is no code for batch operations yet. > > >> > > >> Here is the description of TUPLE_GET_ALL: > > >> - UUID: table ID > > >> - int: schema ID > > >> - arr of arr: array of rows with values for all columns in given > schema > > >> (nil when value is missing for a column) > > >> > > >> As you can see, schema ID is written once for all rows. > > >> A row is just a set of values according to the schema. > > >> > > >> > > >> > 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. > > >> > > >> I agree. But this was decided before in IEP-54, and is out of scope > for > > >> current IEP. > > >> Would you like to start a separate thread to discuss this? Or I can do > > >> this > > >> a bit later. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 4:41 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > 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 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
