Val, my understanding about it was exactly the same as yours, but, again, I heard a different opinion.
But nevertheless, binary protocol should not be about objects, records aka tuples are the best varii, simple and powerful. As for me, I want to take part in implementing python and golang thin clients for ignite 3, so consider my remarks using this info. I am not just a rude critic, I am just interested in consice and universal binary prorocol чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 20:23 Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com >: > Ivan, > > KV view does work over the tuples. Nested objects and arbitrary structures > can be stored as blobs. So if you need a basic KV cache, you can always > create a table with two blob fields - one for key and one for value - and > store anything there. > > -Val > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:55 AM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Val, am I right, that kv view over the tuples is just simple mapping from > > POJO to tuple? No collections, no nested objects? I have discussed this > in > > private with Igor and Pavel and they told me different info. > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 19:43 Valentin Kulichenko < > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > Ivan, > > > > > > I was answering your question about the KV API. The API I provided has > > been > > > discussed and agreed upon. One of the goals of the protocol is to > > implement > > > this API, so it should give you a clear idea of what we're looking for. > > > > > > Of course, I agree with you that the protocol should be simple and > > flexible > > > enough to allow other implementations for different languages and > > > platforms. > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:38 AM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Andrey, yep, you are right. This was just a quick idea. As for me, I > > just > > > > don't want to repeat the same problem with compactFooter in thin > client > > > api > > > > of ignite 2.x. > > > > > > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 19:22 Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan, > > > > > I think GET and PUT operation parameters should be consistent. > > > > > With PUT operation this way may be tricky. > > > > > > > > > > SQL INSERT operation (which is similar PUT operation) semantic > allows > > > > > skipping columns that have a default value. > > > > > Assume we have smth like this: > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE t1 ( > > > > > 'id' INT; > > > > > 'colname' VARCHAR DEFAULT "abc"; > > > > > ) > > > > > INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1) > > > > > > > > > > Actually, this will add a row (1, "abc") > > > > > > > > > > Your suggestion related to missed fields will not work this way as > it > > > is > > > > > impossible to distinct > > > > > case with 'null' value from the case with a default value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 5:51 PM Ivan Daschinsky < > ivanda...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
