@Yingyi: thanks.
@Mike: Yeah. My problem is how to associate the field type information.
Ideally, the leaf level has the field to type hash map and the parent of it
has that hashmap in its record type. And its parent needs to have the
necessary information to reach to this record type. If we don't need any
pre-defined type at each level to create a multi-level enforced index, then
things will become more complex to me. :-) Anyway, we can discuss further
to finalize the field type propagation implementation.
Best,
Taewoo
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Taewoo,
>
> To clarify further what should work:
> - We should support nested indexes that go down multiple levels.
> - We should (ideally) support their use in index-NL joins.
>
> Reflecting on our earlier conversation(s), I think I can see why you're
> asking this. :-) The augmented type information that'll be needed to do
> this completely/properly will actually have to associate types with field
> paths (not just with fields by name) - which is a slightly more complicated
> association.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>
> On 7/13/17 10:54 PM, Yingyi Bu wrote:
>
>> Hi Taewoo,
>>
>> The first query shouldn't fail because indexnl is just a hint.
>> The second query should succeed because it's a valid indexing statement.
>> High nesting levels in open record like JSON is not uncommon.
>>
>> Best,
>> Yingyi
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Taewoo Kim <wangs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> @Mike: In order to properly deal with the enforced index on a nested-type
>>> field, I need to make sure that whether my understanding (each nested
>>> type
>>> (except the leaf level0 has a record type for the next level) is correct
>>> or
>>> not. Which one is a bug? The first one (without index) should fail? Or
>>> the
>>> second one (with an index) should succeed?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Taewoo
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Yingyi Bu <buyin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed, it's a bug!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Yingyi
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a bug to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/13/17 7:59 PM, Taewoo Kim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, I am working on a field type propagation without using
>>>>>> initializing the OptimizableSubTree in the current index access
>>>>>>
>>>>> method.
>>>
>>>> I
>>>>
>>>>> am encountering an issue with an open-type enforced index. So, I just
>>>>>>
>>>>> want
>>>>
>>>>> to make sure that my understanding is correct. It looks like we can't
>>>>>>
>>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>> an enforced-index on a completely schemaless nested field. For
>>>>>>
>>>>> example,
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>> following doesn't generate any issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> //
>>>>>> create type DBLPType as open {id: int32}
>>>>>> create type CSXType as closed {id: int32}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> create dataset DBLP(DBLPType) primary key id;
>>>>>> create dataset CSX(CSXType) primary key id;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for $a in dataset('DBLP')
>>>>>> for $b in dataset('CSX')
>>>>>> where $a.nested.one.title /*+ indexnl */ = $b.nested.one.title
>>>>>> return {"arec": $a, "brec": $b}
>>>>>> //
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, the following generates an exception. So, can we assume that
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>> create an enforced-index, except the leaf level, there should be a
>>>>>>
>>>>> defined
>>>>
>>>>> record type. For example, for this example, there should be "nested"
>>>>>>
>>>>> type
>>>>
>>>>> and "one" type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> //
>>>>>> create type DBLPType as open {id: int32}
>>>>>> create type CSXType as closed {id: int32}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> create dataset DBLP(DBLPType) primary key id;
>>>>>> create dataset CSX(CSXType) primary key id;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> create index title_index_DBLP on DBLP(nested.one.title: string?)
>>>>>>
>>>>> enforced;
>>>>
>>>>> create index title_index_CSX on CSX(nested.one.title: string?)
>>>>>>
>>>>> enforced;
>>>
>>>> for $a in dataset('DBLP')
>>>>>> for $b in dataset('CSX')
>>>>>> where $a.nested.one.title /*+ indexnl */ = $b.nested.one.title
>>>>>> return {"arec": $a, "brec": $b}
>>>>>> //
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Taewoo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
