directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Mavibot] Value storage
Date Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:51:39 GMT
Le 9/16/13 11:41 AM, Kiran Ayyagari a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Le 9/14/13 9:45 AM, Kiran Ayyagari a écrit :
>>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     /**
>>>>      * @return The array of stored values.
>>>>      */
>>>>     V[] getValues();
>>>>
>>>> shouldn't this be returning a BTree<V,V>? cause we don't support an
>> array
>>> as a holder of
>>> multiple values
>> The fact that it's stored as a BTree is implementation dependent, I'm
>> not sure the user of the API should know about it. What the user wants
>> is to get back the stored values, and this is convenient to get back an
>> array.
>>
>> IMO, it is not convenient, we cannot copy all the values into an array
> and return, and returning an iterator is not going to help either, both will
> severely affect the search performance
> If needed, we can wrap it an immutable structure and return the BTree
> to prevent direct updates, but I wish to differ this until we see the impact
> on partition implementation.

Except that from the BTree interface, the one the users see, you have :

    public V get( K key ) throws IOException, KeyNotFoundException
    public DuplicateKeyVal<V> getValues( K key ) throws IOException,
KeyNotFoundException

so the users has no clue about the underlying data structure.

Now, I'm not sure if it makes any sense to expose a getValues() method
returning an array. May be an iterator is enough..

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com 


Mime
View raw message