Note that this is the AsterixDB format, right? (Hyracks - at its level -
doesn't dictate the contents' details AFAIK except for its built-in
primitive types; the rest are black boxes and accessed by functions like
comparators, etc.)
On 4/10/18 5:36 PM, Taewoo Kim wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <
[email protected]> 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
