Re: Problem with writeBehind Apache Ignite 2.8.1

Hi, This shouldn't be happening. Please attach a reproducer and I'll take a look. Describe the steps you take to reproduce scenario. Include version #'s for all affected components. Thanks, Alex -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Tech Talk: Explaining Ignite Through Coding

Yes, it will be recorded and uploaded to YouTube. If you register for the event, you'll get a follow-up email once the recording is published. Or ping me later here. - Denis On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:14 PM aveiros wrote: > Denis, > > Will this session be recorded and posted on a video content

Re: primary keys

Hello Ilya, Here is the info. In this query only one table is involved. There are about 4M records in the table and about 40,000 distinct accounts. thank you. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:50 AM Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > Hello! > > Please show DML for your tables as well as query plans. > >

Re: Tech Talk: Explaining Ignite Through Coding

Denis, Will this session be recorded and posted on a video content platform (i.e. Youtube)? -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Tech Talk: Explaining Ignite Through Coding

Igniters, I'm doing an online tech talk on June 24th in the format of a coding session. We're going to learn key Ignite capabilities by building an application that uses SQL, compute, continuous queries, and

RE: 2.7.6 to 2.8.1 migration issue

I make some investigation. So I found you update logic in GridCacheProcessor and ClusterCachesInfo. It was some logic of configs priority in old version (see 2.7.6 GridCacheProcessor.java line 901)     if (CU.isPersistenceEnabled(ctx.config()) && ctx.cache().context().pageStore() != null) {

Re: 2.7.6 to 2.8.1 migration issue

Hello! I think we restricted configuration of caches that share the same cache group. Previously, you could have e.g. caches with different atomicity mode in the same group, now you can't. If this is the case, you won't be able to upgrade without migration. You need to copy data to a new cache

Re: Ignite persistence and activation

thanks a lot -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

2.7.6 to 2.8.1 migration issue

 Hello, We test migration from 2.7.6 to 2.8.1 in our DEV environment and got problem: new code doesn’t start over old data.  Some history:Initially we had following base cache configuration on 2.7.6: id="cache-template" abstract="true"

Re: Multi-threaded JDBC driver issue/concern

Make sure you do EXPLAIN PLAN to see if it’s using an index. I don’t think it is. If you put the composite index order the other way around it I suspect it would use the index. > On 18 Jun 2020, at 16:01, R S S Aditya Harish > wrote: > > Okay. What I meant is we don't want to give

Re: Multi-threaded JDBC driver issue/concern

Okay. What I meant is we don't want to give QueryEntities in XML way. We want to give it via Client side Java application way. I understood your point. I want to give further explanation Following is the value class. We wanted a composite index on score and appname_id so we created in this

Re: primary keys

Hello! Please show DML for your tables as well as query plans. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev чт, 18 июн. 2020 г. в 16:11, narges saleh : > Thanks Ilya. > Now I can see the complete plan, and it shows scanning the large tables > (but not the others). Increasing index size didn't help. > I only

Re: Multi-threaded JDBC driver issue/concern

To be clear: query entities is how the SQL engine work (missing out some details but that’s broadly correct as I understand it!). Using CREATE TABLE and IgniteCache#setIndexTypes() with the annotations are both shortcuts that generate the query entities for you. You can verify this for yourself

Re: Multi-threaded JDBC driver issue/concern

Thanks for the reply. I understand. I have one more doubt. I don't want to go with QueryEntities way. I want to go via Annotation based way using java classes. In that case, I want to create index on score and appnameid columns as a composite index. But what I found is, without creating

Re: primary keys

Thanks Ilya. Now I can see the complete plan, and it shows scanning the large tables (but not the others). Increasing index size didn't help. I only have primary keys on the caches and the fields in the primary keys are the ones used in my where clause, so I am not sure what's going on.

Re: sqlline

Yes, that’s right. On Thursday, June 18, 2020, narges saleh wrote: > Hi Denis > But if all the involved tables/caches have the same affinity key, > shouldn't they be collocated on the same node, if the data fits on that > node? > thanks. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:53 PM Denis Magda wrote:

Re: Achieve uniform data distribution easily

Hello! Data distribution will only be uniform if affinity key distribution is uniform, and may still go +/- 10% between nodes. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev чт, 18 июн. 2020 г. в 09:41, VincentCE : > Thank you for your answer. We are aware of that our approach is not the > clean > one as the

Re:

Hello! I do not recommend relying on this order. It may change if you have more than one node. It can also change without warning. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 21:44, Prasad Bhalerao : > I am executing following SQL in ignite. As you can see there is no order > by clause

Re: ignite web agent issue

Hello! I have 3.6.3 installed. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 09:40, itsmeravikiran.c : > Could you please let me know, what is the supported mongodb version. > Please let me know the mongodb version, which your using. > > > > -- > Sent from:

Re: primary keys

Hello! Please use !set outputFormat vertical to see complete execution plan. Index is created on primary key. There is no programmatic way to change its inline size other than specifying IGNITE_MAX_INDEX_PAYLOAD_SIZE system property or environment variable. If it is of complex type, some

Re: Multi-threaded JDBC driver issue/concern

You don’t need the CREATE statement as well. If you want to do it instead of the Query Entities you can do: CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS URLS (ID LONG PRIMARY KEY, URL VARCHAR, SCORE DOUBLE, APPNAME_ID LONG) WITH ‘key_type=AppDetailsKey,value_type=AppDetails’ You still need the Java classes but

Re: Multi-threaded JDBC driver issue/concern

Hi Stephen, Thank you so much for giving the snippet. I followed and it worked. But I have one more doubt. In the below section the query is insertion query and it works fine. We are using the JDBC for Create statement also. We are having trouble understanding how to execute create a

Re: HashMap warning when using PutAll()

Hello! If your Map is a singleton (only one pair) the warning should not be printed :) Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev ср, 17 июн. 2020 г. в 23:22, Raymond Wilson : > Hi Ilya, > > Thank you for the SortedDictionary pointer. > > I am not sure what you mean by 'size-1 collections'. Is there an

primary keys

Hi All, Shouldn't primary keys result in indexes and if so, shouldn't I be able to see them when I list indexes? Does inline index size applicable to primary keys too? Additionally, when I do explain plan on a query which involves tables with primary keys, shouldn't I see the primary key/index

RE: history item not found exception

Hi Team, Please reply to the below mail Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: BEELA GAYATRI Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 1:06 PM To: user@ignite.apache.org Subject: RE: history item not

Re: sqlline

Hi Denis But if all the involved tables/caches have the same affinity key, shouldn't they be collocated on the same node, if the data fits on that node? thanks. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:53 PM Denis Magda wrote: > You can always send a compute task via one of IgniteCompute.affinityX() >

Re: Achieve uniform data distribution easily

Thank you for your answer. We are aware of that our approach is not the clean one as the one with explicitly defined affinity keys would be. But still for the sake of data distribution defining affinityKeys, in this example this would be cacheName/key for a given key, should be equivalent to