Hello Ahmed, This doc might help. https://code.google.com/archive/p/asterixdb/wikis/Serialization.wiki
Best, Taewoo On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Ahmed Eldawy <eld...@ucr.edu> wrote: > Mike, > > What you're suggesting makes more sense. We just don't know how to do it :) > BTW, is there any document that describes the binary format of the > frame/tuple/fields? I was able to find out some information myself by > digging into the code but if there is a document or page that describes > this it can be of a great help. > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Naive (me as a stupid observer :-)) question: Is there a reason to > > wrap/unwrap instead of extend/unextend? (I.e., couldn't you add an > > additional Hyracks tuple field and then project it away - i.e., expand > and > > contract the tuple horizontally rather than nesting and unnesting it?) > > > > > > > > On 4/10/18 11:10 AM, Chen Luo wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> You can try IFrameFieldAppender (and its implementation > >> FrameFixedFieldAppender) to directly append wrapped tuple (field by > field) > >> to the output buffer, without going through the array tuple builder. But > >> in > >> general, because of the tuple format, I'm not sure there is a more > >> efficient way to wrap/unwrap tuples directly. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Chen Luo > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Muhammad Abu Bakar Siddique < > >> msidd...@ucr.edu> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Dev, > >>> I'm working on a Hyracks application for parallel random sampling which > >>> consists of two operators. The first operator generates and appends a > new > >>> field to each tuple while the second operator processes that additional > >>> field and removes it before writing the final output. So, the output of > >>> the > >>> second operator should have the same format of the input of the first > >>> operator. In other words, I want the first operator to wrap the tuple > >>> as-is > >>> and add an additional field while the second operator should remove and > >>> unwrap the tuple. Currently, I use the FrameTupleAppender and > >>> ArrayTupleAppender where I have to add each field in the input record > >>> separately but it seems to be an overhead in the code. Is there an > easier > >>> way to wrap/unwrap the entire tuple as a ByteBuffer without having to > >>> worry > >>> about the individual fields inside it? > >>> > >>> > > > > > -- > > Ahmed Eldawy > Assistant Professor > http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eldawy > Tel: +1 (951) 827-5654 >
