asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Till Westmann" <>
Subject Re: Metadata changes
Date Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:09:56 GMT
On 14 Dec 2015, at 18:55, Murtadha Hubail wrote:

> I think the backward compatibility discussion goes beyond metadata 
> indexes and a complete plan that considers everything in storage 
> should be developed to support upgrading and patching. Just as an 
> example when we did the repacking from edu.uci to org.apache, all 
> existing instances on edu.uci wouldn’t work on new binaries due to 
> Java serialization on edu.uci classes.

Good point. Do you know if we fixed that or did we just leave it as-is?

> Having said that, I would go with the right long term solution for 
> metadata indexes which would’ve been a result of the backward 
> compatibility plan if we had one.

I tend to agree here. I think that we’ll need a backwards 
compatibility story, even if we choose to be schema-less for all 
1) Even if the metadata is all flexible, we’ll be able to read the old 
metadata, but we’ll need to keep code around to read all versions of 
the metadata.
2) If we need to change the file format for the data we’ll also need a 
way to realize that (and that would probably affect the metadata as 

I think that it might be a good start to add version identifiers to 
persisted data structures, so that we’d at least be able to 
distinguish different versions (and potentially have the ability to 
provide some migration - of needed).



>> On Dec 14, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Ildar Absalyamov 
>> <> wrote:
>> As for general topic of backwards compatibility I think going 
>> “fully open” might be the best longterm solution.
>> Once in a while the topic of changing metadata keeps reappearing and 
>> there is no guarantee it will not strike back again. Opening up 
>> metadata will release ourselves from burden of producing migration 
>> tools and shipping them with the new version of the binaries with 
>> revised catalog.
>> The performance (mainly storage) impacts of that solution will be 
>> tolerable especially considering how much data is usually stored in 
>> metadata.
>> Moreover, being big proponents of semi-structured data, it does make 
>> perfect sense for us to eat our own dog food here.
>>> On Dec 14, 2015, at 18:04, Ildar Absalyamov 
>>> <> wrote:
>>> I guess the main argument for 2 would be eliminating broken metadata 
>>> records prior to backwards compatibility cutoff.
>>> The last thing what we want to do is to be stuck with wrong 
>>> implementation for compatibility reasons. Once the functionality 
>>> needed for 3 is there we can again introduce those indexes without 
>>> building sophisticated migration subsystem.
>>>> On Dec 14, 2015, at 17:55, Mike Carey <> wrote:
>>>> SO - it seems like 3 is the right long-term answer, but not doable 
>>>> now?
>>>> (If it was doable now, it would obviously be the ideal choice of 
>>>> the three.)
>>>> What would be the argument for doing 2 as opposed to 1 for now?
>>>> As for the question of backwards compatibility, I actually didn't 
>>>> sense a consensus yet.
>>>> I would tentatively lean towards "right" over "backwards 
>>>> compatible" for this change.
>>>> What are others thoughts on that?
>>>> (Soon we won't have that luxury, but right now maybe we do?)
>>>> On 12/14/15 3:43 PM, Steven Jacobs wrote:
>>>>> We just had a UCR discussion on this topic. The issue is really 
>>>>> with the
>>>>> third "index" here. The code now is using one "index" to go in two
>>>>> directions:
>>>>> 1) To find datatypes that use datatype A
>>>>> 2) To find datatypes that are used by datatype A.
>>>>> The way that it works now is hacked together, but designed for 
>>>>> performance.
>>>>> So we have three choices here:
>>>>> 1) Stick to the status quo, and leave the "indexes" as they are
>>>>> 2) Remove the Metadata secondary indexes, which will eliminate the 
>>>>> hack but
>>>>> cost some performance on Metadata
>>>>> 3) Implement the Metadata secondary indexes correctly as Asterix 
>>>>> indexes.
>>>>> For this solution to work with our dataset designs, we will need 
>>>>> to have
>>>>> the ability to index homogeneous lists. In addition, we will have 
>>>>> reverse
>>>>> compatibility issues unless we plan things out for the transition.
>>>>> What are the thoughts?
>>>>> Orthogonally, it seems that the consensus for storing the datatype
>>>>> dataverse in the dataset Metadata is to just add it as an open 
>>>>> field at
>>>>> least for now. Is that correct?
>>>>> Steven
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Mike Carey <>

>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Thoughts inlined:
>>>>>> On 12/14/15 11:12 AM, Steven Jacobs wrote:
>>>>>>> Here are the conclusions that Ildar and I have drawn from 
>>>>>>> looking at the
>>>>>>> secondary indexes:
>>>>>>> First of all it seems that datasets are local to node groups,

>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> dataverses can span node groups, which seems a little odd to
>>>>>> Node groups are an undocumented but to-be-exploited-someday 
>>>>>> feature that
>>>>>> allows datasets to be stored on less than all nodes in a given 
>>>>>> cluster.  As
>>>>>> we face bigger clusters, we'll want to open up that possibility.
>>>>>> We will
>>>>>> hopefully use them inside w/o having to make users manage them 
>>>>>> manually
>>>>>> like parallel DB2 did/does.  Dataverses are really just a 
>>>>>> namespace thing,
>>>>>> not a storage thing at all, so they are orthogonal to (and 
>>>>>> unrelated to)
>>>>>> node groups.
>>>>>>> There are three Metadata secondary indexes:  
>>>>>>> The first is used in only one case:
>>>>>>> When dropping a node group, check if there are any datasets 
>>>>>>> using this
>>>>>>> node
>>>>>>> group. If so, don't allow the drop
>>>>>>> BUT, this index has a field called "dataverse" which is not used

>>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>> This one seems like a waste of space since we do this almost 
>>>>>> never. (Not
>>>>>> much space, but unnecessary.)  If we keep it it should become a 
>>>>>> proper
>>>>>> index.
>>>>>>> The second is used when dropping a datatype. If there is a 
>>>>>>> dataset using
>>>>>>> this datatype, don't allow the drop.
>>>>>>> Similarly, this index has a "dataverse" which is never used.
>>>>>> You're about to use the dataverse part, right?  :-)  This index 
>>>>>> seems like
>>>>>> it will be useful but should be a proper index.
>>>>>>> The third index is used to go in two cases, using two different

>>>>>>> ideas of
>>>>>>> "keys"
>>>>>>> It seems like this should actually be two different indexes.
>>>>>> I don't think I understood this comment....
>>>>>>> This is my understanding so far. It would be good to discuss

>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>> "correct" version should be.
>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Steven Jacobs 
>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> I'm implementing a change so that datasets can use datatypes

>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> alternate data verses (previously the type and set had to
>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> dataverse). Unfortunately this means another change for Dataset

>>>>>>>> Metadata
>>>>>>>> (which will now store the dataverse for its type).
>>>>>>>> As such, I had a couple of questions:
>>>>>>>> 1) Should this change be thrown into the release branch,
as it 
>>>>>>>> is another
>>>>>>>> Metadata change?
>>>>>>>> 2) In implementing this change, I've been looking at the

>>>>>>>> Metadata
>>>>>>>> secondary indexes. I had a discussion with Ildar, and it
>>>>>>>> the thread
>>>>>>>> on Metadata secondary indexes being "hacked" has been lost.
>>>>>>>> this also
>>>>>>>> something that should get into the release? Is there anyone

>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>> looking at it?
>>>>>>>> Steven
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ildar
>> Best regards,
>> Ildar

View raw message