Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-11617-apmail-ignite-dev-archive=ignite.apache.org@ignite.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-ignite-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-ignite-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B622191C1
	for <apmail-ignite-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Tue,  1 Mar 2016 06:07:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 57527 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2016 06:06:57 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ignite-dev-archive@ignite.apache.org
Received: (qmail 57481 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2016 06:06:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@ignite.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@ignite.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@ignite.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.ignite.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ignite.apache.org
Received: (qmail 57470 invoked by uid 99); 1 Mar 2016 06:06:57 -0000
Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org)
 (140.211.11.15)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 06:06:57 +0000
Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com (mail-oi0-f48.google.com
 [209.85.218.48])
	by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with
 ESMTPSA id 0E4C11A00C5
	for <dev@ignite.apache.org>; Tue,  1 Mar 2016 06:06:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id c203so29693118oia.2
        for <dev@ignite.apache.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:06:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: 
 AD7BkJKjFwNjVzVAh3k2jYFpL7kSYedIBSZkTyskcuh43ducrxX94s0OKc69cx3PronFYLf/gPGGDq6BH+NzfA0Z
X-Received: by 10.202.178.135 with SMTP id
 b129mr14362142oif.139.1456812416568;
 Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:06:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.102.141 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:06:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABuYRcqSLZsG7z07PpbwBnrY5-zh6QQcVopvWLmQKb7-YPrcxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABuYRcqSLZsG7z07PpbwBnrY5-zh6QQcVopvWLmQKb7-YPrcxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:06:16 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: 
 <CA+0=VoUJ6tKNVPjZmioEND-1jm6F34Li9CJn3w6NRCNx9wChFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CA+0=VoUJ6tKNVPjZmioEND-1jm6F34Li9CJn3w6NRCNx9wChFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Binary comparator
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ceae6983c13052cf692cb

--001a113ceae6983c13052cf692cb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Why can=E2=80=99t we simply compare the binary arrays?

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> We currently have a pretty serious limitation for binary objects: they ca=
n
> be used as SQL fields and can't be indexed, because we don't know how to
> compare them. And it seems to me that it can be easily fixed by adding an
> optional comparator to BinaryConfiguration and BinaryTypeConfiguration:
>
> public void setComparator(Comparator<BinaryObject> comparator)
>
> Are there any pitfalls that I'm missing?
>
> -Val
>

--001a113ceae6983c13052cf692cb--