Ivan, Val, and others - are there any open objections or questions? Can we accept the proposal?
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:28 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> wrote: > Igniters, > > I've updated the IEP to support "Live Schema" [1] from IEP-54. > Some operations now have schemaless variants, where tuples are serialized > as maps (String -> val). > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach#IEP54:SchemafirstApproach-Dynamicschemaexpansion(Live-schema) > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:31 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
