asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Taewoo Kim <wangs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is there an easier way to wrap/unwrap the entire tuple as a ByteBuffer?
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:36:15 GMT
Hello Ahmed,

This doc might help.
https://code.google.com/archive/p/asterixdb/wikis/Serialization.wiki

Best,
Taewoo

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Ahmed Eldawy <eldawy@ucr.edu> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> What you're suggesting makes more sense. We just don't know how to do it :)
> BTW, is there any document that describes the binary format of the
> frame/tuple/fields? I was able to find out some information myself by
> digging into the code but if there is a document or page that describes
> this it can be of a great help.
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Naive (me as a stupid observer :-)) question:  Is there a reason to
> > wrap/unwrap instead of extend/unextend? (I.e., couldn't you add an
> > additional Hyracks tuple field and then project it away - i.e., expand
> and
> > contract the tuple horizontally rather than nesting and unnesting it?)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/10/18 11:10 AM, Chen Luo wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> You can try IFrameFieldAppender (and its implementation
> >> FrameFixedFieldAppender) to directly append wrapped tuple (field by
> field)
> >> to the output buffer, without going through the array tuple builder. But
> >> in
> >> general, because of the tuple format, I'm not sure there is a more
> >> efficient way to wrap/unwrap tuples directly.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Chen Luo
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Muhammad Abu Bakar Siddique <
> >> msidd005@ucr.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Dev,
> >>> I'm working on a Hyracks application for parallel random sampling which
> >>> consists of two operators. The first operator generates and appends a
> new
> >>> field to each tuple while the second operator processes that additional
> >>> field and removes it before writing the final output. So, the output of
> >>> the
> >>> second operator should have the same format of the input of the first
> >>> operator. In other words, I want the first operator to wrap the tuple
> >>> as-is
> >>> and add an additional field while the second operator should remove and
> >>> unwrap the tuple. Currently, I use the FrameTupleAppender and
> >>> ArrayTupleAppender where I have to add each field in the input record
> >>> separately but it seems to be an overhead in the code. Is there an
> easier
> >>> way to wrap/unwrap the entire tuple as a ByteBuffer without having to
> >>> worry
> >>> about the individual fields inside it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Ahmed Eldawy
> Assistant Professor
> http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eldawy
> Tel: +1 (951) 827-5654
>

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