Hello! You can also use Binary Object (POJO) as a key, i.e., you can use an Object with String email and String phone fields.
I don't recommend mangling strings further than concatenation. String key is no worse than numeric key. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev вт, 30 июн. 2020 г. в 15:17, Eugene McGowan <eugenemacgo...@gmail.com>: > > We would like to create an Ignite key by concatenating data. This is a > standard distributed system pattern for key-value, and would allow the > reader and writer consistently access the cache. The data is a combination > of strings and integers. To simplify our use case, lets say its an email > address (f...@bar.com) and phone number (123444) we want to use to build > our key.Our key could therefore be:foo@bar.com_123444 <foo@bar.com_123444>The > advantage of this approach is the key can easily be read/debugged. Is there > a more optimum format for Ignite though? For regular RDBMS, it seems > integers were the default choice. We could convert f...@bar.com to an int, > e.g. f converts to 6, o to 15, etc. > This naïve first attempt of conversion would of-course lead to clashes, as > 111 could map to either aaa or ak. This could be worked around potentially, > so looking for an initial steer on what Ignite would prefer as a key (i.e. > strings or ints). Is hashing something that would be recommended either? In > terms of any partitioning type logic, we are guessing not, but just more > around creating deterministic, unique keys >
