ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Applicability of term 'cache' to Apache Ignite
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:55:50 GMT
I am beginning to like IgniteTable as well. How would something like this
be introduced to Ignite? Would we have IgniteTable extend IgniteCache? What
would happen to cache groups?

D.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:58 AM Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com> wrote:

> HI all,
>
> +1 for "table" from me. For me "table" has several benefits:
> 1. It's common and consequently easy to explain and understand.
> 2. It's quite universal. One can worry that "table" does not describes
> key-value storage well.
>     I don't see any problem here, because Hash Table data structure
> contains "table" word it it's name.
>     Also DHT comes to mind. Internally we have GridDhtCache class. So it's
> already a "table".
>
> Regarding multiple QueryEntities in single cache. Correct me if I am wrong,
> but currently we do not recommend to use them.
>
> чт, 18 окт. 2018 г. в 15:18, David Harvey <syssoftsol@gmail.com>:
>
> > We had a terminology agreement early on where we agreed to call them
> > caches, but we still call them tables anyway.
> >
> > When I finally understood how you could have multiple tables in a single
> > cache,  I tried to find example use cases, but couldn't.  Is there even a
> > test with multiple queryEntities?
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:10 AM Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw.sin@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From my perspective (ML module), it will be very easy to talk about
> > Ignite
> > > in SQL terms like table (with additional information about ability to
> > make
> > > key-value CRUD operations, not only SELECT * FROM Table)
> > > Also we could look on PostgreSQL with different plugins for SQL
> extension
> > > like PostGIS or support of JSON-B and ability to store not only planar
> > data
> > > with strict schema (I agrre here with Vladimir).
> > >
> > > чт, 18 окт. 2018 г. в 14:33, Ilya Lantukh <ilantukh@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > I thought that current "caches" and "tables" have 1-to-N relation. If
> > > > that's not a problem, than I also think that "table" is the best
> term.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:29 AM Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, I never thought about term “table” as a replacement for
> > “cache”,
> > > > but
> > > > > it appears to be good candidate.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is used by many some major vendors whose underlying storage
is
> > > > indeed
> > > > > a kind of key-value data structure. Most well-known example is
> MySQL
> > > with
> > > > > its MyISAM engine. Table can be used for both fixed and flexible
> > (e.g.
> > > > > JSON) schemas, as well as key-value access (hash map -> hash table,
> > > both
> > > > > are good).
> > > > >
> > > > > Another important thing - we already use term “table”, and it
is
> > always
> > > > > hard to explain our users how it relates to “cache”. If “cache”
is
> > > > dropped,
> > > > > then a single term “table” will be used everywhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last, but not least - “table” works well for both in-memory and
> > > > persistent
> > > > > modes.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if we are really aim to rename “cache”, then “table” is
the best
> > > > > candidate I’ve heard so far.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 18 окт. 2018 г. в 8:40, Alexey Zinoviev <
> zaleslaw.sin@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Or we could extend our SQL commands by "GET BY KEY = X" and
"PUT
> > (x1,
> > > > x2,
> > > > > > x3) BY KEY = X" and the IgniteTable could be correct.
> > > > > > Agree with Denis that each table in the 3rd normal form is like
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > store. Key-value operations are only subset of rich SQL commands.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem with IgniteData that it's too common. Also, it's
> > > difficult
> > > > to
> > > > > > understand is it a plural or single object? For instance, the
> bunch
> > > of
> > > > > > IgniteTables could be IgniteData. But the set of IgniteData?
> > > > IgniteDatum?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 18 окт. 2018 г. в 4:18, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Key-value calls are just primary key based calls. From
a user
> > > > > > perspective,
> > > > > > > it's the same as "SELECT * FROM table WHERE primary_idx
= X",
> > just
> > > > > > > different API.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:04 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:58 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been calling everything "tables" instead
of "caches"
> > for a
> > > > > > while.
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > main reason is the maturity of our SQL engine
- seeing more
> > SQL
> > > > > users
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > deployments which talk "tables" language.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think "IgniteTable" only implies SQL, not key-value.
We
> need
> > > > both.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ilya
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

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