Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Thanks to all for voting. So I consider KIP-968 as accepted. Cheers, Alieh On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 5:22 PM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On 11/21/23 4:52 AM, Lucas Brutschy wrote: > > Hi Alieh, > > > > thanks for the KIP! > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Lucas > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alieh Saeedi > > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not > >> misleading. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Alieh > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM Matthias J. Sax > wrote: > >> > >>> Adding an enum is a good idea! > >>> > >>> Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, > >>> just asking. > >>> > >>> We could also use `UNDEFINED` / `UNSPECIFIED` / `NONE` / `ANY` ? > >>> > >>> In the end, the result _might_ be ordered, we just don't guarantee any > >>> order. > >>> > >>> > >>> -Matthias > >>> > >>> On 11/20/23 9:17 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > Hi all, > I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with > keeping > three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query > >>> results. > Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` > which > returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`. > Cheers, > Alieh > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Alieh Saeedi > >>> wrote: > > > Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the > >>> whole > > discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) > > The KIP is now corrected and updated. > > > > Cheers, > > Alieh > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna > >>> wrote: > > > >> Thanks Alieh, > >> > >> I am +1 (binding). > >> > >> However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the > results > >>> by > >> default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: > >> > >> "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by > >>> timestamp. > >> The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, > >> withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability > >> purpose. " > >> > >> Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? > >> > >> Best, > >> Bruno > >> > >> On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > >>> Thanks Alieh, > >>> > >>> I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM > except a > >>> minor thing in javadoc: > >>> > >>> "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of > keys. > >>> The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion > >>> timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering > are > >>> modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." > >>> > >>> Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering > but > >>> only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated > >>> accordingly. > >>> > >>> Otherwise, LGTM. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi > >>> wrote: > > Hi all, > Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening > >>> the > voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. > > Cheers, > Alieh > >> > > > > >>> >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
+1 (binding) On 11/21/23 4:52 AM, Lucas Brutschy wrote: Hi Alieh, thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) Lucas On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alieh Saeedi wrote: Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not misleading. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM Matthias J. Sax wrote: Adding an enum is a good idea! Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, just asking. We could also use `UNDEFINED` / `UNSPECIFIED` / `NONE` / `ANY` ? In the end, the result _might_ be ordered, we just don't guarantee any order. -Matthias On 11/20/23 9:17 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: Hi all, I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with keeping three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query results. Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` which returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Alieh Saeedi wrote: Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the whole discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) The KIP is now corrected and updated. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: Thanks Alieh, I am +1 (binding). However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results by default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by timestamp. The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability purpose. " Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? Best, Bruno On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: Thanks Alieh, I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a minor thing in javadoc: "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated accordingly. Otherwise, LGTM. On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi wrote: Hi all, Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. Cheers, Alieh
Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Hi Alieh, thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) Lucas On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not > misleading. > > Cheers, > Alieh > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > Adding an enum is a good idea! > > > > Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, > > just asking. > > > > We could also use `UNDEFINED` / `UNSPECIFIED` / `NONE` / `ANY` ? > > > > In the end, the result _might_ be ordered, we just don't guarantee any > > order. > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > On 11/20/23 9:17 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with keeping > > > three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query > > results. > > > Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` which > > > returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`. > > > Cheers, > > > Alieh > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Alieh Saeedi > > wrote: > > > > > >> Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the > > whole > > >> discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) > > >> The KIP is now corrected and updated. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Alieh > > >> > > >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thanks Alieh, > > >>> > > >>> I am +1 (binding). > > >>> > > >>> However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results > > by > > >>> default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: > > >>> > > >>> "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by > > timestamp. > > >>> The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, > > >>> withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability > > >>> purpose. " > > >>> > > >>> Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Bruno > > >>> > > >>> On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Thanks Alieh, > > > > I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a > > minor thing in javadoc: > > > > "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. > > The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion > > timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are > > modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." > > > > Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but > > only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated > > accordingly. > > > > Otherwise, LGTM. > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening > > the > > > voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Alieh > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not misleading. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Adding an enum is a good idea! > > Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, > just asking. > > We could also use `UNDEFINED` / `UNSPECIFIED` / `NONE` / `ANY` ? > > In the end, the result _might_ be ordered, we just don't guarantee any > order. > > > -Matthias > > On 11/20/23 9:17 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > Hi all, > > I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with keeping > > three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query > results. > > Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` which > > returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`. > > Cheers, > > Alieh > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Alieh Saeedi > wrote: > > > >> Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the > whole > >> discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) > >> The KIP is now corrected and updated. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Alieh > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna > wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks Alieh, > >>> > >>> I am +1 (binding). > >>> > >>> However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results > by > >>> default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: > >>> > >>> "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by > timestamp. > >>> The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, > >>> withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability > >>> purpose. " > >>> > >>> Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Bruno > >>> > >>> On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks Alieh, > > I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a > minor thing in javadoc: > > "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. > The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion > timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are > modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." > > Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but > only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated > accordingly. > > Otherwise, LGTM. > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening > the > > voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. > > > > Cheers, > > Alieh > >>> > >> > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Adding an enum is a good idea! Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, just asking. We could also use `UNDEFINED` / `UNSPECIFIED` / `NONE` / `ANY` ? In the end, the result _might_ be ordered, we just don't guarantee any order. -Matthias On 11/20/23 9:17 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: Hi all, I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with keeping three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query results. Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` which returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Alieh Saeedi wrote: Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the whole discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) The KIP is now corrected and updated. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: Thanks Alieh, I am +1 (binding). However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results by default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by timestamp. The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability purpose. " Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? Best, Bruno On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: Thanks Alieh, I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a minor thing in javadoc: "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated accordingly. Otherwise, LGTM. On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi wrote: Hi all, Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. Cheers, Alieh
Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Hi all, I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with keeping three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query results. Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` which returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Alieh Saeedi wrote: > Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the whole > discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) > The KIP is now corrected and updated. > > Cheers, > Alieh > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > >> Thanks Alieh, >> >> I am +1 (binding). >> >> However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results by >> default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: >> >> "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by timestamp. >> The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, >> withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability >> purpose. " >> >> Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? >> >> Best, >> Bruno >> >> On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: >> > Thanks Alieh, >> > >> > I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a >> > minor thing in javadoc: >> > >> > "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. >> > The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion >> > timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are >> > modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." >> > >> > Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but >> > only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated >> > accordingly. >> > >> > Otherwise, LGTM. >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the >> >> voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alieh >> >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the whole discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) The KIP is now corrected and updated. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > Thanks Alieh, > > I am +1 (binding). > > However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results by > default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: > > "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by timestamp. > The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, > withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability purpose. > " > > Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? > > Best, > Bruno > > On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Thanks Alieh, > > > > I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a > > minor thing in javadoc: > > > > "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. > > The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion > > timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are > > modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." > > > > Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but > > only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated > > accordingly. > > > > Otherwise, LGTM. > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the > >> voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Alieh >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Thanks Alieh, I am +1 (binding). However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results by default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by timestamp. The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability purpose. " Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? Best, Bruno On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: Thanks Alieh, I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a minor thing in javadoc: "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated accordingly. Otherwise, LGTM. On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi wrote: Hi all, Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. Cheers, Alieh
Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Thanks Alieh, I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a minor thing in javadoc: "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated accordingly. Otherwise, LGTM. On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > Hi all, > Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the > voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. > > Cheers, > Alieh
[VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Hi all, Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. Cheers, Alieh
