ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Non-UTF-8 string encoding support in BinaryMarshaller (IGNITE-5655)
Date Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:04:53 GMT
Just a note from the platforms guy:

Solution with table-level configuration is going to be significantly
harder to implement for platforms and ODBC then field-level one.

Also, what about binary objects, which are not stored in cache,
but being marshalled?


Best Regards,
Igor

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Encoding must be set on per field basis. This will give us as most
> > flexible
> > > solution at the cost of 1-byte overhead.
> >
> > > Vova, I agree that the encoding should be set on per-field basis, but
> at
> > > the table level, not at a cell level.
> >
> > Dmitriy, Vladimir,
> > Let's use both approaches :-)
> > We can add parameter to CacheConfiguration.
> > If parameter specifie to use cache level encoding then marshaller will
> use
> > encoding in a cache,
> > otherwise marshaller will use per-field encoding.
> > Of course only if it doesn't complicate the solution.
> >
> >
> I think that it will complicate the solution and will complicate the
> marshalling protocol. The advantage of specifying the encoding at
> table/cache level is that we don't need to add extra encoding bytes to the
> marshalling protocol.
>
> I think Vova was suggesting encoding at the cell level, not at the field
> level, which seems to be redundant to me.
>
> Vova, do you agree?
>

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