ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: All BinaryObjects created by BinaryObjectBuilder stored at the same partition by default
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2016 06:47:19 GMT
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Andrey,
>
> The question is when to print this warning. I doubt we can print a warning
> when calling *BinaryObjectBuilder.build() *method, because an object
> without a hash code is normal situation.
>
>
I would not only print warning, but throw exception, if an object without a
hashCode ends up on a put or read operation in cache.


> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Andrey Gura <agura@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we also should print some warning in case when hashCode() wasn't
> > called on BinaryObject explicitly.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > The question is how do you calculate the value of the hashCode? Do
> you
> > > want
> > > > it to be specified explicitly in INSERT statement?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think optionally we should allow to specify hashCode as part of the
> > > INSERT statement. However, if it is not specified, we should calculate
> it
> > > automatically based in the key fields defined in the schema/type.
> Agree?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2016-08-01 19:47 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > In your case, why not just explicitly set hashcode every time you
> > > create
> > > > an
> > > > > object? There is BinaryObjectBuilder.hashCode(...) method.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:42 AM, al.psc <
> > > alexander.a.paschenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems like this problem has become an important one once
> again.
> > > > > > In the course of working on
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2294 (DML support)
> > > > there's
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > to support binary marshaller. And, although we can build just
> > > > > BinaryObject
> > > > > > and put it to cache, without adequate hash code it won't be
> stored
> > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > Currently SQL MERGE works simply by deserializing newly built
> > object,
> > > > but
> > > > > > it's obviously wrong and is just a workaround rather a solution.
> > > > > > Has anyone come with possible design proposals for this problem's
> > > > > solution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > View this message in context:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/All-BinaryObjects-created-by-BinaryObjectBuilder-stored-at-the-same-partition-by-default-tp8042p10304.html
> > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive
at
> > > > > Nabble.com.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrey Gura
> > GridGain Systems, Inc.
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
>

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