A follow up on this. So this change has been through a round of review and will be merged soon. Currently, it fails the storage check test. The storage check test works as follow:
It builds some artifacts using the previous asterixdb version and then tries to read them using the build with the change. The test itself is good as it catches those changes that modifies the storage files but not very convenient as one has to have access to jenkins to override them. What I propose is to disable this test and have binary data files with a test that reads them. If a change changes any storage related classes, then it will still fail those tests until the files are updated. At which point, the reviewer should catch that and if it is a legitimate change, then it should be allowed in. Eventually, we should have backward compatibility storage and/or a migration facility and then maybe we can put those back on jenkins. Thoughts? Proposals? > On May 8, 2017, at 10:59 PM, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Devs, > For some time, out storage code has been suffering from incremental design > changes through additional use cases that come along research projects. > We have done some cleanup but the code base still suffered from lots of > duplicate code and unneeded work (for both developers and CPUs). > > One thing we used to do is whenever we need to access an index, we have to > create its "IDataflowHelperFactory". This object will contain most things > that defines the index. Interestingly, it didn't contain all that is needed. > For some obscure reason, typeTraits, comparatorFactories, and > bloomFilterKeyFields were places in TreeIndexCreateOperatorDescriptor. > Different indexes had different dataflow helpers and so sometimes, multiple > class definitions are needed for operators per index type. and this leads to > further bloat of the system's code. > > If one thinks about it, the index related objects that are needed during > index construction are only needed when the index gets created. Further needs > to access the index for any reason should only gets the index key (the path > in this case). > In fact, if one follows the execution of the code, they will see that that is > exactly what is needed and that whenever we try to > search/insert/delete/upsert/bulkload, we recompute many artifacts that end up > being useless. > > So, I proposed a change that fixes this part. Index related objects are only > provided at index creation time and for index access, only the index path is > required. This is done by removing the create method from the > IIndexDataflowHelper interface and moving it to IIndexBuilder. > With this, all implementations of IIndexDataflowHelper are now in a single > class that basically uses the path to fetch the index on a Node Controller. > > This change gets rid of more than 3000 lines of code and makes things much > cleaner. Classes that should go to hyracks are moved to hyracks. Asterix > related information such as dataset id and partition number are kept in > asterix through the introduction of DatasetLocalResource. To show the effect > of this change, you can look at an example in > https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/c/1728/3/asterixdb/asterix-algebra/src/main/java/org/apache/asterix/algebra/operators/physical/InvertedIndexPOperator.java > > <https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/c/1728/3/asterixdb/asterix-algebra/src/main/java/org/apache/asterix/algebra/operators/physical/InvertedIndexPOperator.java> > > Look at the amount of work that was unneeded to access an inverted index. The > only thing that was actually needed is the index FileSplitProvider. Take > another look at > https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/c/1728/3/asterixdb/asterix-metadata/src/main/java/org/apache/asterix/metadata/declared/MetadataProvider.java > > <https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/c/1728/3/asterixdb/asterix-metadata/src/main/java/org/apache/asterix/metadata/declared/MetadataProvider.java> > and see how much unneeded code gets removed. This is not enough on the > asterixdb side but it creates a good foundation that would allow existing and > new code to get cleaner. > > Please, take a look at the change > https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/c/1728/ > <https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/c/1728/> if interested and let me know > if you have any comments. Note that it fails storage check test and that is > expected because it changes the persisted resource info classes. > > Cheers, > Abdullah.
