IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
65 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Valentin Kulichenko
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

dmagda
Val,

I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate, Micronaut and
many others.

Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from the
value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM frameworks
(especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this can be
found here:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html

It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work with a
single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split the
entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0 has
all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity based
approach.

What do you think?

-
Denis


On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing the IEP
> for this change:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>
> Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate thoughts,
> suggestions, or objections.
>
> -Val
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Valentin Kulichenko
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Ivan Pavlukhin
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Alexey Goncharuk
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Valentin Kulichenko
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

dmagda
In reply to this post by Valentin Kulichenko
>
> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and ORM?
> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't seen
> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
> Am I missing something?


Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into an
INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields. Luckily, our
Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs and needs
to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That would
solve a ton of usability issues.

I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite 3.0 dev
phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting traction for
sure.

@Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started working on the
Ignite support for Micornaut Data
<https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/> and
came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's what is
coming in Ignite 3.0.


-
Denis


On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Denis,
>
> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects, because
> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens now.
> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or not,
> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we would
> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work with
> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
>
> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and ORM?
> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't seen
> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
> Am I missing something?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Val,
> >
> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate, Micronaut
> and
> > many others.
> >
> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from
> the
> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM frameworks
> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this can
> be
> > found here:
> >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >
> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work with a
> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split the
> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0 has
> > all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity based
> > approach.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing the
> > IEP
> > > for this change:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >
> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate thoughts,
> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Ivan Pavlukhin
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Valentin Kulichenko
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Ivan Pavlukhin
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Alexey Goncharuk
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Valentin Kulichenko
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

dmagda
Val,

I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.

Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column values.
> Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as BLOBs


Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of POJOs is
supposed to work?

Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP. Is it
the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those too?
Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go considering
that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is supported
out-of-the-box.


-
Denis


On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ivan,
>
> I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step into the
> schema-last territory.
>
> Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
> creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first insert. In
> other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.
>
> Alexey, what do you think?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
> > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to whatever fits
> > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will make
> > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> >
> > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hi Val,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your answer!
> > >
> > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
> > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
> > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first. Schema
> > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it enables
> > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes by
> > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
> > > schema.
> > >
> > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the stored
> > data
> > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > >
> > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
> > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to the
> > > proposing approach?
> > >
> > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly about
> > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
> > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or may be
> > > evolving schema".
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >
> > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > >
> > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema exists
> > in
> > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's exactly
> > > what
> > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the
> > schema.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Alexey,
> > > >>
> > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding
> conforms
> > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really
> treat
> > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >>
> > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> Ignite
> > > and
> > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
> > haven't
> > > >> >> seen
> > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> > > >> support
> > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> already
> > > >> have.
> > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
> > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into
> an
> > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields.
> Luckily,
> > > >> > our
> > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs
> and
> > > >> > needs
> > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That
> > would
> > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite
> > 3.0
> > > >> dev
> > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting
> > > traction
> > > >> for
> > > >> > sure.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started
> working
> > > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > >> > <
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > and
> > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's
> what
> > > is
> > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > Denis
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach
> > natively
> > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects,
> > > >> because
> > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it
> > happens
> > > >> now.
> > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key
> or
> > > >> >> not,
> > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that
> we
> > > >> would
> > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to
> work
> > > >> >> with
> > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> Ignite
> > > and
> > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
> > haven't
> > > >> >> seen
> > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> > > >> support
> > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> already
> > > >> have.
> > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> -Val
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Val,
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list
> > which
> > > >> >> > is
> > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate,
> > > >> Micronaut
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > many others.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key
> objects
> > > >> >> > from
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
> > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on
> > this
> > > >> can
> > > >> >> be
> > > >> >> > found here:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to
> > work
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to
> > > >> >> > split
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the
> Ignite
> > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > >> >> > has
> > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> > single-entity
> > > >> >> > based
> > > >> >> > approach.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > -
> > > >> >> > Denis
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
> so-called
> > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started
> > > writing
> > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> >> > IEP
> > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
> > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Valentin Kulichenko
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

dmagda
Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.

Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the "table" and
"cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the thread
sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the suggested
change.

-
Denis


On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Denis,
>
> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it means is
> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields into a
> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words, nested
> POJOs are not supported.
>
> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
>
> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not sure
> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL, but
> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate discussion
> about this?
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Val,
>>
>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
>>
>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column values.
>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as BLOBs
>>
>>
>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of POJOs is
>> supposed to work?
>>
>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP. Is
>> it
>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those too?
>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go considering
>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is supported
>> out-of-the-box.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Ivan,
>> >
>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step into
>> the
>> > schema-last territory.
>> >
>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first insert.
>> In
>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.
>> >
>> > Alexey, what do you think?
>> >
>> > -Val
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > [hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ivan,
>> > >
>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to whatever
>> fits
>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will
>> make
>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
>> > >
>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]>:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Val,
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
>> > > >
>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first.
>> Schema
>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
>> enables
>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes by
>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
>> > > > schema.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the
>> stored
>> > > data
>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
>> > > >
>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to the
>> > > > proposing approach?
>> > > >
>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly about
>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or may
>> be
>> > > > evolving schema".
>> > > >
>> > > > [1]
>> > > >
>> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > >
>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema
>> exists
>> > > in
>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's
>> exactly
>> > > > what
>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the
>> > > schema.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Val
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Alexey,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding
>> > conforms
>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really
>> > treat
>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> [1]
>> > > > >>
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
>> > Ignite
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
>> > > haven't
>> > > > >> >> seen
>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
>> side to
>> > > > >> support
>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
>> > already
>> > > > >> have.
>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL
>> APIs
>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object
>> into
>> > an
>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields.
>> > Luckily,
>> > > > >> > our
>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs
>> > and
>> > > > >> > needs
>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported.
>> That
>> > > would
>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the
>> Ignite
>> > > 3.0
>> > > > >> dev
>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting
>> > > > traction
>> > > > >> for
>> > > > >> > sure.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started
>> > working
>> > > > on
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
>> > > > >> > <
>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's
>> > what
>> > > > is
>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > -
>> > > > >> > Denis
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach
>> > > natively
>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value
>> objects,
>> > > > >> because
>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it
>> > > happens
>> > > > >> now.
>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary
>> key
>> > or
>> > > > >> >> not,
>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API
>> that
>> > we
>> > > > >> would
>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to
>> > work
>> > > > >> >> with
>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
>> > Ignite
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
>> > > haven't
>> > > > >> >> seen
>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
>> side to
>> > > > >> support
>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
>> > already
>> > > > >> have.
>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> -Val
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> > Val,
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list
>> > > which
>> > > > >> >> > is
>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
>> Hibernate,
>> > > > >> Micronaut
>> > > > >> >> and
>> > > > >> >> > many others.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key
>> > objects
>> > > > >> >> > from
>> > > > >> >> the
>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those
>> ORM
>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More
>> on
>> > > this
>> > > > >> can
>> > > > >> >> be
>> > > > >> >> > found here:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us
>> to
>> > > work
>> > > > >> with
>> > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no
>> need to
>> > > > >> >> > split
>> > > > >> >> > the
>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the
>> > Ignite
>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
>> > > > >> >> > has
>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
>> > > single-entity
>> > > > >> >> > based
>> > > > >> >> > approach.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > -
>> > > > >> >> > Denis
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
>> > so-called
>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started
>> > > > writing
>> > > > >> >> > > the
>> > > > >> >> > IEP
>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
>> immediate
>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> --
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > >
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Ivan Pavlukhin
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Andrew Mashenkov
Hi Igniters,

I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).

Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
proposal [1].
Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.

I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout described
in the proposal.
In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first one
uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in Ignite
and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and uses
Janino library for compilation.
Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
I think we can go with it as default serializer and have reflection-based
implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first one.
WDYT?

There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for the
assignee.

BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
implementation, but would like to clarify some details.

I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
  1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
classes pair.
  2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should validate a
schema for a given key-value pair.
If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should be
updated/actualized.
If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should be
created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.

On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate with
tuples.
As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version, then
it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version without
desialization.
Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions (if
they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema changes
made by a node with newer classes.

Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?


[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> ideas. We can resume it.
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
>
> 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> >
> > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the "table"
> and
> > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the thread
> > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the suggested
> > change.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Denis,
> >>
> >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it means
> is
> >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields into a
> >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> nested
> >> POJOs are not supported.
> >>
> >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
> >>
> >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not sure
> >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL, but
> >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate discussion
> >> about this?
> >>
> >> -Val
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Val,
> >>>
> >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> >>>
> >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column
> >>> values.
> >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as BLOBs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of POJOs
> >>> is
> >>> supposed to work?
> >>>
> >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP.
> Is
> >>> it
> >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those
> >>> too?
> >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> >>> considering
> >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is supported
> >>> out-of-the-box.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Ivan,
> >>> >
> >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step
> into
> >>> the
> >>> > schema-last territory.
> >>> >
> >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
> >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> >>> > insert.
> >>> In
> >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.
> >>> >
> >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> >>> >
> >>> > -Val
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> > [hidden email]>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Ivan,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
> >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> whatever
> >>> fits
> >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will
> >>> make
> >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]>:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Hi Val,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
> >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in
> "how
> >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first.
> >>> Schema
> >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
> >>> enables
> >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes
> >>> > > > by
> >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
> >>> > > > schema.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the
> >>> stored
> >>> > > data
> >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
> >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to
> >>> > > > the
> >>> > > > proposing approach?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly
> >>> > > > about
> >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
> >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or
> >>> > > > may
> >>> be
> >>> > > > evolving schema".
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > [1]
> >>> > > >
> >>> >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> > > > [hidden email]>:
> >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema
> >>> exists
> >>> > > in
> >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's
> >>> exactly
> >>> > > > what
> >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to
> >>> > > > > the
> >>> > > schema.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > -Val
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding
> >>> > conforms
> >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we
> >>> > > > >> really
> >>> > treat
> >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> [1]
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > >
> >>>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> >>> > Ignite
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite
> >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >>> > > haven't
> >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
> >>> side to
> >>> > > > >> support
> >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> >>> > already
> >>> > > > >> have.
> >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL
> >>> APIs
> >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object
> >>> into
> >>> > an
> >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields.
> >>> > Luckily,
> >>> > > > >> > our
> >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL
> >>> > > > >> > APIs
> >>> > and
> >>> > > > >> > needs
> >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported.
> >>> That
> >>> > > would
> >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the
> >>> Ignite
> >>> > > 3.0
> >>> > > > >> dev
> >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> >>> > > > >> > getting
> >>> > > > traction
> >>> > > > >> for
> >>> > > > >> > sure.
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started
> >>> > working
> >>> > > > on
> >>> > > > >> the
> >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> >>> > > > >> > <
> >>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion.
> >>> > > > >> > That's
> >>> > what
> >>> > > > is
> >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > -
> >>> > > > >> > Denis
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> > > > >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> approach
> >>> > > natively
> >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value
> >>> objects,
> >>> > > > >> because
> >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as
> it
> >>> > > happens
> >>> > > > >> now.
> >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> primary
> >>> key
> >>> > or
> >>> > > > >> >> not,
> >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API
> >>> that
> >>> > we
> >>> > > > >> would
> >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy
> >>> > > > >> >> to
> >>> > work
> >>> > > > >> >> with
> >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> >>> > Ignite
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite
> >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >>> > > haven't
> >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
> >>> side to
> >>> > > > >> support
> >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> >>> > already
> >>> > > > >> have.
> >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations
> >>> > > > >> >> > list
> >>> > > which
> >>> > > > >> >> > is
> >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> >>> Hibernate,
> >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> >>> > > > >> >> and
> >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key
> >>> > objects
> >>> > > > >> >> > from
> >>> > > > >> >> the
> >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those
> >>> ORM
> >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields).
> >>> > > > >> >> > More
> >>> on
> >>> > > this
> >>> > > > >> can
> >>> > > > >> >> be
> >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows
> us
> >>> to
> >>> > > work
> >>> > > > >> with
> >>> > > > >> >> > a
> >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no
> >>> need to
> >>> > > > >> >> > split
> >>> > > > >> >> > the
> >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that
> the
> >>> > Ignite
> >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> >>> > > > >> >> > has
> >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> >>> > > single-entity
> >>> > > > >> >> > based
> >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > -
> >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
> >>> > so-called
> >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've
> >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> >>> > > > writing
> >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
> >>> immediate
> >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> --
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > --
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Best regards,
> >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>


--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

dmagda
Andrey, thanks for the update,

Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/

With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native image
for the code using our thin client APIs.

-
Denis


On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Igniters,
>
> I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
>
> Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> proposal [1].
> Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
>
> I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout described
> in the proposal.
> In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first one
> uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in Ignite
> and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and uses
> Janino library for compilation.
> Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> I think we can go with it as default serializer and have reflection-based
> implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first
> one.
> WDYT?
>
> There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for the
> assignee.
>
> BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
>
> I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
>   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> classes pair.
>   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should validate a
> schema for a given key-value pair.
> If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
> cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should be
> updated/actualized.
> If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
> mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should be
> created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
>
> On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate with
> tuples.
> As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version, then
> it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version without
> desialization.
> Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions (if
> they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema changes
> made by a node with newer classes.
>
> Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > ideas. We can resume it.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> >
> > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > >
> > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the "table"
> > and
> > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the thread
> > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> suggested
> > > change.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Denis,
> > >>
> > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it means
> > is
> > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields
> into a
> > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> > nested
> > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > >>
> > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
> > >>
> > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not sure
> > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL,
> but
> > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> discussion
> > >> about this?
> > >>
> > >> -Val
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Val,
> > >>>
> > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > >>>
> > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column
> > >>> values.
> > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as
> BLOBs
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of
> POJOs
> > >>> is
> > >>> supposed to work?
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP.
> > Is
> > >>> it
> > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those
> > >>> too?
> > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > >>> considering
> > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> supported
> > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -
> > >>> Denis
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Ivan,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step
> > into
> > >>> the
> > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
> > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> > >>> > insert.
> > >>> In
> > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last"
> modes.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > -Val
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> > [hidden email]>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > Ivan,
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
> > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> > whatever
> > >>> fits
> > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I
> will
> > >>> make
> > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> evolution
> > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in
> > "how
> > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first.
> > >>> Schema
> > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
> > >>> enables
> > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema
> changes
> > >>> > > > by
> > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to
> change
> > >>> > > > schema.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the
> > >>> stored
> > >>> > > data
> > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that
> schema
> > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to
> > >>> > > > the
> > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly
> > >>> > > > about
> > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might
> be
> > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or
> > >>> > > > may
> > >>> be
> > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > [1]
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that
> schema
> > >>> exists
> > >>> > > in
> > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's
> > >>> exactly
> > >>> > > > what
> > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to
> > >>> > > > > the
> > >>> > > schema.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > -Val
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > >>> [hidden email]>
> > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> understanding
> > >>> > conforms
> > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we
> > >>> > > > >> really
> > >>> > treat
> > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > >
> > >>>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> between
> > >>> > Ignite
> > >>> > > > and
> > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> Ignite
> > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > >>> > > haven't
> > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
> > >>> side to
> > >>> > > > >> support
> > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which
> we
> > >>> > already
> > >>> > > > >> have.
> > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite
> SQL
> > >>> APIs
> > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity
> object
> > >>> into
> > >>> > an
> > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's
> fields.
> > >>> > Luckily,
> > >>> > > > >> > our
> > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL
> > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > >>> > and
> > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> supported.
> > >>> That
> > >>> > > would
> > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during
> the
> > >>> Ignite
> > >>> > > 3.0
> > >>> > > > >> dev
> > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > >>> > > > traction
> > >>> > > > >> for
> > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've
> started
> > >>> > working
> > >>> > > > on
> > >>> > > > >> the
> > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > >>> > > > >> > <
> > >>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > >>> > > > and
> > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion.
> > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > >>> > what
> > >>> > > > is
> > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > -
> > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> > > > >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> > approach
> > >>> > > natively
> > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value
> > >>> objects,
> > >>> > > > >> because
> > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as
> > it
> > >>> > > happens
> > >>> > > > >> now.
> > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> > primary
> > >>> key
> > >>> > or
> > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any
> API
> > >>> that
> > >>> > we
> > >>> > > > >> would
> > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly
> easy
> > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > >>> > work
> > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value
> pairs.
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> between
> > >>> > Ignite
> > >>> > > > and
> > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> Ignite
> > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > >>> > > haven't
> > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
> > >>> side to
> > >>> > > > >> support
> > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which
> we
> > >>> > already
> > >>> > > > >> have.
> > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > >>> [hidden email]>
> > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations
> > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > >>> > > which
> > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> > >>> Hibernate,
> > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish
> key
> > >>> > objects
> > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with
> those
> > >>> ORM
> > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields).
> > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > >>> on
> > >>> > > this
> > >>> > > > >> can
> > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows
> > us
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > work
> > >>> > > > >> with
> > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no
> > >>> need to
> > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that
> > the
> > >>> > Ignite
> > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> > >>> > > single-entity
> > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
> > >>> > so-called
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > >>> > > > writing
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
> > >>> immediate
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> --
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > --
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Andrew Mashenkov
Denis,

Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with 'strict'
schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes against
the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to do it.
One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection in
GraalVM.

I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround. Or
I'll do it a bit later.
If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal
classes to the public.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrey, thanks for the update,
>
> Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
>
> With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native image
> for the code using our thin client APIs.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Igniters,
> >
> > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
> >
> > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> > proposal [1].
> > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> >
> > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout described
> > in the proposal.
> > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first
> one
> > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in
> Ignite
> > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and
> uses
> > Janino library for compilation.
> > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have reflection-based
> > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first
> > one.
> > WDYT?
> >
> > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for the
> > assignee.
> >
> > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> >
> > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> > classes pair.
> >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> validate a
> > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
> > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should
> be
> > updated/actualized.
> > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
> > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should
> be
> > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
> >
> > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate
> with
> > tuples.
> > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version,
> then
> > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version without
> > desialization.
> > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions
> (if
> > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema changes
> > made by a node with newer classes.
> >
> > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > >
> > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > >
> > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the
> "table"
> > > and
> > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the
> thread
> > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> > suggested
> > > > change.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > >>
> > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it
> means
> > > is
> > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields
> > into a
> > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> > > nested
> > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > >>
> > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
> > > >>
> > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not
> sure
> > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL,
> > but
> > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> > discussion
> > > >> about this?
> > > >>
> > > >> -Val
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Val,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column
> > > >>> values.
> > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as
> > BLOBs
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of
> > POJOs
> > > >>> is
> > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the
> IEP.
> > > Is
> > > >>> it
> > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace
> those
> > > >>> too?
> > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > > >>> considering
> > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> > supported
> > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -
> > > >>> Denis
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step
> > > into
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well
> support
> > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> > > >>> > insert.
> > > >>> In
> > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last"
> > modes.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > -Val
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>> > [hidden email]>
> > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding
> the
> > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> > > whatever
> > > >>> fits
> > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I
> > will
> > > >>> make
> > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> > evolution
> > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in
> > > "how
> > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> schema-first.
> > > >>> Schema
> > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
> > > >>> enables
> > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema
> > changes
> > > >>> > > > by
> > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to
> > change
> > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all
> the
> > > >>> stored
> > > >>> > > data
> > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that
> > schema
> > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar
> to
> > > >>> > > > the
> > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is
> mostly
> > > >>> > > > about
> > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others
> might
> > be
> > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid
> or
> > > >>> > > > may
> > > >>> be
> > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that
> > schema
> > > >>> exists
> > > >>> > > in
> > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it -
> that's
> > > >>> exactly
> > > >>> > > > what
> > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes
> to
> > > >>> > > > > the
> > > >>> > > schema.
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > understanding
> > > >>> > conforms
> > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we
> > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > >>> > treat
> > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > between
> > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > and
> > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > >>> > > haven't
> > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> Ignite
> > > >>> side to
> > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> which
> > we
> > > >>> > already
> > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite
> > SQL
> > > >>> APIs
> > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity
> > object
> > > >>> into
> > > >>> > an
> > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's
> > fields.
> > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite
> SQL
> > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > >>> > and
> > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> > supported.
> > > >>> That
> > > >>> > > would
> > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during
> > the
> > > >>> Ignite
> > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > >>> > > > traction
> > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've
> > started
> > > >>> > working
> > > >>> > > > on
> > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > >>> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > >>> > > > and
> > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion.
> > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > >>> > what
> > > >>> > > > is
> > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> > > > >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> > > approach
> > > >>> > > natively
> > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and
> value
> > > >>> objects,
> > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object,
> as
> > > it
> > > >>> > > happens
> > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> > > primary
> > > >>> key
> > > >>> > or
> > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any
> > API
> > > >>> that
> > > >>> > we
> > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly
> > easy
> > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > >>> > work
> > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value
> > pairs.
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > between
> > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > and
> > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > >>> > > haven't
> > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> Ignite
> > > >>> side to
> > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> which
> > we
> > > >>> > already
> > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> motivations
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > >>> > > which
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish
> > key
> > > >>> > objects
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with
> > those
> > > >>> ORM
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several
> fields).
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > >>> on
> > > >>> > > this
> > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach
> allows
> > > us
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> > > work
> > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With
> no
> > > >>> need to
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure
> that
> > > the
> > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is
> the
> > > >>> > so-called
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > >>> > > > writing
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
> > > >>> immediate
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > --
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

Pavel Tupitsyn
Igniters,

I think we should support unsigned data types:
uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong

Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.

For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned values
as signed internally,
but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects, etc.
(it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but not with
BinaryObject.GetField)

Any objections?

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with 'strict'
> schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes against
> the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to do it.
> One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection in
> GraalVM.
>
> I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
> familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround. Or
> I'll do it a bit later.
> If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal
> classes to the public.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> >
> > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >
> > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native image
> > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters,
> > >
> > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
> > >
> > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> > > proposal [1].
> > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> > >
> > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout
> described
> > > in the proposal.
> > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first
> > one
> > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in
> > Ignite
> > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and
> > uses
> > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> reflection-based
> > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first
> > > one.
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for
> the
> > > assignee.
> > >
> > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > >
> > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> > > classes pair.
> > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> > validate a
> > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
> > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> > > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should
> > be
> > > updated/actualized.
> > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
> > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should
> > be
> > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
> > >
> > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate
> > with
> > > tuples.
> > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version,
> > then
> > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version
> without
> > > desialization.
> > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions
> > (if
> > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema
> changes
> > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > >
> > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > >
> > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the
> > "table"
> > > > and
> > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the
> > thread
> > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> > > suggested
> > > > > change.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it
> > means
> > > > is
> > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields
> > > into a
> > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> > > > nested
> > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> something.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not
> > sure
> > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with
> SQL,
> > > but
> > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> > > discussion
> > > > >> about this?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Val
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Val,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as
> column
> > > > >>> values.
> > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as
> > > BLOBs
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of
> > > POJOs
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the
> > IEP.
> > > > Is
> > > > >>> it
> > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace
> > those
> > > > >>> too?
> > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > > > >>> considering
> > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> > > supported
> > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -
> > > > >>> Denis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we
> step
> > > > into
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well
> > support
> > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > >>> In
> > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last"
> > > modes.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>> > [hidden email]>
> > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding
> > the
> > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> > > > whatever
> > > > >>> fits
> > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I
> > > will
> > > > >>> make
> > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> > > evolution
> > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference
> in
> > > > "how
> > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> > schema-first.
> > > > >>> Schema
> > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and
> it
> > > > >>> enables
> > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema
> > > changes
> > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to
> > > change
> > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all
> > the
> > > > >>> stored
> > > > >>> > > data
> > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that
> > > schema
> > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more
> similar
> > to
> > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is
> > mostly
> > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others
> > might
> > > be
> > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or
> liquid
> > or
> > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that
> > > schema
> > > > >>> exists
> > > > >>> > > in
> > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > >>> exactly
> > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting
> changes
> > to
> > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > > understanding
> > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can
> we
> > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > >>> > treat
> > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > > between
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> > Ignite
> > > > >>> side to
> > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> > which
> > > we
> > > > >>> > already
> > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use
> Ignite
> > > SQL
> > > > >>> APIs
> > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity
> > > object
> > > > >>> into
> > > > >>> > an
> > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's
> > > fields.
> > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite
> > SQL
> > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > >>> > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> > > supported.
> > > > >>> That
> > > > >>> > > would
> > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well
> during
> > > the
> > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've
> > > started
> > > > >>> > working
> > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > >>> >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this
> discussion.
> > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > >>> > what
> > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> > > > approach
> > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and
> > value
> > > > >>> objects,
> > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an
> object,
> > as
> > > > it
> > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> > > > primary
> > > > >>> key
> > > > >>> > or
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one.
> Any
> > > API
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>> > we
> > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes
> fairly
> > > easy
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >>> > work
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value
> > > pairs.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > > between
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> > Ignite
> > > > >>> side to
> > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> > which
> > > we
> > > > >>> > already
> > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> > motivations
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > >>> > > which
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to
> distinguish
> > > key
> > > > >>> > objects
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with
> > > those
> > > > >>> ORM
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several
> > fields).
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>> > > this
> > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach
> > allows
> > > > us
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>> > > work
> > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs.
> With
> > no
> > > > >>> need to
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support
> the
> > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is
> > the
> > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity,
> I've
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are
> any
> > > > >>> immediate
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>
1234