Mailing-List: contact dev-help@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <55C70730.7010709@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 00:54:24 -0700
From: Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Issue status for indexing open data? (@Ildar?)
References: <55C4F658.70004@ics.uci.edu>
 <CA+apCofwkBSWQJxoekyP--pihfPCu8ZnVyVM_dwSb7FpdPJZCg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+apCofwkBSWQJxoekyP--pihfPCu8ZnVyVM_dwSb7FpdPJZCg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------080500080508020003030909"

--------------080500080508020003030909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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?
>>
>
>


--------------080500080508020003030909--