ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Paschenko <alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: All BinaryObjects created by BinaryObjectBuilder stored at the same partition by default
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:21:09 GMT
How about we supply hash code evaluation routine via, say, JavaScript?
Yakov has already suggested that in the beginning of this thread.

- Alex

2016-08-02 10:46 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
> I still fail to understand the use case then. Do we want to support insert
> via SQL and get via regular cache API? If yes, then specifying hashCode in
> INSERT statement is not optional, because otherwise the next cache.get()
> for the inserted key will not work. So, we either enforce user to always
> specify a hashCode in insert statement, or force him to use our "automatic"
> algorithm of hashCode calculation in his key objects. Both ways look fishy
> to me.
>
> 2016-08-02 2:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>
>> 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.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message