asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ildar Absalyamov <ildar.absalya...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Issue status for indexing open data? (@Ildar?)
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:12:45 GMT
Submitted version has a regression in optimizer tests. I know what is the
issue and will fix that tonight.

2015-08-10 10:44 GMT-07:00 Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com>:

> Thx!
> On Aug 9, 2015 11:15 PM, "Ildar Absalyamov" <ildar.absalyamov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It is used to deserialize the proper type, however this is needed only in
> > open index case.
> > I get around by avoiding storing any type-related information in the
> index
> > metadata, unless it is opened.  In closed case the type would be picked
> > from the record metadata, thus getting nullability information and not
> > replicating it anywhere.
> > I created an uploaded a new patch set, feel free to check and prove it if
> > everything else is OK.
> >
> > > On Aug 9, 2015, at 00:54, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Q:  Is the nullability info drawn from the index entry really used?
> Can
> > you give an example of where/how? (Wondering if it's perhaps removable.)
> > >
> > > On 8/7/15 2:39 PM, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:
> > >> So it turned out I was wrong about about open indexes & nullable
> types.
> > Is
> > >> is indeed not allowed that, is you look closely on parser's production
> > rules
> > >> The problem appears when we're trying to create an ordinary index on
> > >> nullable field. The information about the field type is persisted in
> the
> > >> index metadata entry. In the open case the type is provided by the
> user,
> > >> whereas in the closed the type is extracted from the record's metadata
> > >> entry (where we do have a nullability attribute). We can replicate the
> > >> nullablility attribute in the index metadata entry as well, but I
> think
> > >> that is against the Till's original comment since this information is
> > >> becoming spread around several places. Other solution would be to
> carry
> > "if
> > >> (open) {} else if (closed) {}" logic throughout the code, where we do
> > need
> > >> nullability information, but that will be ugly.
> > >>
> > >> 2015-08-07 11:18 GMT-07:00 Michael Carey <mjcarey@ics.uci.edu>:
> > >>
> > >>> Q: (@Ildar) - What's the status of removing "?" from the open index
> DDL
> > >>> and reverting that (unnecessary) part of the metadata patch?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ildar
> >
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,
Ildar

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message