ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:45:01 GMT
Folks,

As far as I see, branch ignite-2.1 contains all necessary commits. Looks
like we are ready to start a vote tomorrow as agreed.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:

> Cos,
>
> IMO, If we really want to get a valuable feedback from a wider audience
> then in addition to the new version the audience has to be given both a
> high-level and deep documentation, proper messaging, etc. It will take time
> to soak in the information and a week might not be enough in general.
>
> This is why I would not make the voting process longer but rather give the
> release and all the materials to our users and look forward to the
> feedback. Basing on the feedback we can always release a next version
> whenever is needed.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Jul 10, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > That's an interesting statement to make, considering the a PMC is
> > legally responsible for the release they are making and voting for.
> > What I believe it would achieve is to give a wider group of our users
> > a chance to get and install the new version and try some of the most
> > prominent features, while giving the feedback. Even if expressed in
> > the form of non-binding votes.
> > --
> >  Take care,
> > Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> > 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> >
> > Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> > and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> > might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Cos,
> >>
> >> I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache
> >> [VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build
> procedure,
> >> release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more
> >> time than usual to verify this release.
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team.
> >>>
> >>> And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of
> the
> >>> changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd
> >>> suggest
> >>> we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the
> bits.
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Cos
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> >>>> Cos,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra.
> AFAIK
> >>>> there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end
> >>> 2.0
> >>>> release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more
> information
> >>> on
> >>>> the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Vyacheslav, Denis,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and
what
> is
> >>>>> more important - persistent store has been merged only several days
> >>> ago. We
> >>>>> need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
> >>>>> 16 July - code freeze
> >>>>> 17-21 July - QA
> >>>>> 21-24 July - vote and release
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into
the
> code
> >>>>>> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly
> quite
> >>>>>> helpful (thanks Denis!).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release,
> so
> >>>>>> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
> >>>>>> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
> >>>>>> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
> >>>>>> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it
be
> caused
> >>>>>> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
> >>>>>> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are
we
> >>>>>> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>  Cos
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>  Take care,
> >>>>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> >>>>>> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
> author,
> >>>>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the
author
> >>>>>> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com
> >>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak"
> >>> branch
> >>>>>> was
> >>>>>>> created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release
date
> >>> for
> >>>>>> 2.1
> >>>>>>> is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will
stabilize
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned
for 2.1
> >>>>>> release to
> >>>>>>> this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Vladimir.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Denis,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures
if
> >>> nobody
> >>>>>>>> minds.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and
finally rollout
> >>> out all
> >>>>>>>>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got
the green
> light
> >>>>>> [1] to
> >>>>>>>>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked
for extra time
> to
> >>>>>> dive
> >>>>>>>>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely
fine to make
> it
> >>>>>>>>> available in the nearest release.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July
(closer to July
> >>>>>> 15th). Is
> >>>>>>>>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release
manager
> >>> creating
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> page like this [2] and handling all release related
activities?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >>>>>>>>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> >>>>>> Ignite+2.0
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> —
> >>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko
<
> >>>>>>>>> alexander.a.paschenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates
for CREATE TABLE
> >>>>>> command
> >>>>>>>>>> - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in
discovery thread -
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> progress, the meat of code is written, but need
to add lots of
> >>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>>>>>> ETA is Friday.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for
CREATE TABLE
> >>> command -
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> progress, made few first small steps, ETA is
Friday.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994
has been moved to
> >>> 2.2.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Alex
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
> >>>>>> sergey.chugunov@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>  1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced
on starting up
> >>> grid
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>  persistence is enabled
> >>>>>>>>>>>  It is important improvement to fix critical
bug IGNITE-5363.
> >>>>>>>>>>>  Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>  2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics,
MemoryMetrics
> >>>>>> interface
> >>>>>>>>>>>  improvements
> >>>>>>>>>>>  A lot of discussions were on this topic,
ticket created only
> >>>>>> today
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>  requires several days to implement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov
<
> >>> tledkov@gridgain.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin
client based solution:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new
thin client JDBC driver
> >>> will
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC
and Ignite JDBCv2.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include
DML) are
> >>> implemented
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> ready
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for review;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata
are implemented and
> >>> ready
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> review;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming,
blobs, scrollable /
> >>> writable
> >>>>>>>>> cursors
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will not be supported in 2.1.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete
date (June
> >>> 2),
> >>>>>> Could
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> please share current status of your
major features?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM,
Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope
we can make it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29
PM, Denis Magda <
> >>> dmagda@apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, let me propose the following
milestones for 2.1
> >>> release
> >>>>>> then.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking:
June 5 - June 8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be
released once again to support
> >>>>>> Ignite’s
> >>>>>>>>> CREATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table command. Think that
we should talk to H2 folks to
> >>> make it
> >>>>>>>>> happen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time
frame.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26
AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >>>>>> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for .NET, I would
propose to concentrate on peer
> >>> deployment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and related stuff, like
IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate
> >>> support in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> API
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension methods.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL Dependency does
not look important to me, we can
> >>>>>> reschedule
> >>>>>>>>> it for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later versions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017
at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think
it is worth the research, but you
> >>> should
> >>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data querying and indexing
in mind. For example, I don't
> >>> see
> >>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by-page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression will solve it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11,
2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daradurvs@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm researching
a best way for this future.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment
I found only one way (querying and
> >>> indexing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field
compression.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is
a good proffit only for long strings or
> >>> fields
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes
sense just to introduce compression for
> >>>>>> string
> >>>>>>>>> fileds.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm researching
the new page-memory architecture as
> >>> applied
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by-page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30
GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017
at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daradurvs@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
described roadmap looks great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additional,
I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB)
> >>> to
> >>>>>> store
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
in a compressed form.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
will allow to store more data at the cost of
> >>>>>> incriasing
> >>>>>>>>> of CPU
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One
of the problems with compression is indexing and
> >>>>>>>>> querying. How
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index the data
if it is compressed?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11
4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> >>> dmagda@apache.org
> >>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
> >>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In my vision the main direction of our ongoing
> >>> efforts
> >>>>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
> >>>>>> transactional
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
> >>>>>>>>> (database
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be
> >>> supported as
> >>>>>>>>> usual,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
on that frontier.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
> >>>>>> essential
> >>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features
as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC
> >>> support,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
and so on so forth. This is for Ignite
> >>> as a
> >>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next,
Machine Learning will be a great addition to
> >>> Ignite
> >>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform offering.
This is why we should keep investing
> >>> our
> >>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources in
that recently released component.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release
> >>> this
> >>>>>> way:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
> >>>>>>>>> accepted by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision
is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the
> >>>>>> store
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. SQL Grid:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  - CREATE & DROP table commands:
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     https://issues.apache.org/jir
> >>> a/browse/IGNITE-4509
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3. .NET:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  - Linear regression algorithms:
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please join the thread and share your thoughts,
> >>> ideas and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Denis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
Regards, Vyacheslav
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
Vyacheslav
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Taras Ledkov
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mail-To: tledkov@gridgain.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
>
>

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