Re: Showcase your project at ApacheCON at a Podling's Shark Tank

Hi, We have a talk already. Can we sign up this again? (If so, it is better). Besides, we need to prepare our slides now... I can prepare the first version in one week. Then, let's discuss about what should be removed and added. Best, --- Xiangdong Huang School

Re: Re: An easier way to create time series.

Hi, This is really an interesting topic. I just want to list some use cases and the term different users use according to my knowledge. Indeed different users use different terms to describe the same thing: 1. In many industrial cases, users will say a "machine/device" has some "sensors",

Showcase your project at ApacheCON at a Podling's Shark Tank

Hi Podlings! in less than a month we're going to have our first ApacheCON this year -- the one in Las Vegas. In about two month there will be one more in Berlin. These are not your regular ApacheCONs -- these are 20th Anniversary of ASF ApacehCONs! In other words, these are not to be missed!

Re: An easier way to create time series.

Hi, agree. This was more as a first comment I wanted to throw in : ) And with such BIG changes I totally agree that a DISCUSSION Thread has to be openend and in the end if no consensus is found even a VOTE should be done. Julian Am 14.08.19, 12:18 schrieb "Tian Jiang" : Hi Julian,

Re:Re: An easier way to create time series.

Hi Julian, Surely naming is important to users, but different users may have different opinions upon naming. I think it is hard to get everyone satisfied, so maybe we can hold a vote or something to discuss that later. My starting point is to provide a way to create a bunch of time series

Re: An easier way to create time series.

Hi Tian, naming i see as a minor issue to change but as a bigger issue to users (nomen est omen...). Regarding your other comment I don’t get what you mean. Think of situations like monitoring stuff from several machines of multiple types in multiple plants. Then I would like to say something

Re:Re: An easier way to create time series.

The naming is not a big issue, but your schema proposals seem to be turning IoTDB into something else. At 2019-08-14 16:55:33, "Jialin Qiao" wrote: >Hi, > >I think source or datasource is good, and it's better to use, or at least add >the tags and fields, because many TSDBs use these

Re: An easier way to create time series.

Hi, I think source or datasource is good, and it's better to use, or at least add the tags and fields, because many TSDBs use these conceptual module. Some feasible schema organization ways and "select * from the table" results: (1) Each type of datasource is a table, which has a time column,

Re: An easier way to create time series.

Hi, let me stick in hier also. One of the things which was at first a bit "unfamiliar" for me was this device focus. It’s a bit to "one-dimensional" in my perspective. Personally, I quite like how Influx does it that you have a name and can attach tags and fields to it. And even if we do not

[jira] [Created] (IOTDB-164) Convert Path(String) to ID(Long)

Yanzhe An created IOTDB-164: --- Summary: Convert Path(String) to ID(Long) Key: IOTDB-164 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IOTDB-164 Project: Apache IoTDB Issue Type: Improvement