asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Issue status for indexing open data? (@Ildar?)
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:44:21 GMT
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
>
>

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