Sounds good. My main intent was to find out if I had missed it :)
Cheers,
Till
On 28 Sep 2015, at 13:14, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:
Not yet. Was planning to have one in few days though.
On Sep 28, 2015, at 13:00, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok, makes sense. We also don’t have a fix for it, right?
Cheers,
Till
On 28 Sep 2015, at 12:15, Ian Maxon wrote:
I think the general thought that is unfortunately the fix for this
can't go into 0.8.7 as it is right now, because it needs changes to
Hyracks first. We should probably do a bugfix release right after.
-Ian
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Till Westmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
I’ve added the “0.8.7-blocker” to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ASTERIXDB-1109 (which I
believe covers
this issue).
Is this what we agree on right now?
Also, do we already have a review for this?
Thanks,
Till
On 26 Sep 2015, at 1:37, abdullah alamoudi wrote:
I agree with Chen especially with the system not yet production
ready.
It seems that going through with the release is more important.
Cheers,
Amoudi, Abdullah.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Chen Li <[email protected]> wrote:
I vote for including this fix in the next Asterxi/Hyracks
release, not
this
one.
Chen
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Ildar Absalyamov <
[email protected]> wrote:
It did not really occur to me during today during the meeting,
but
Preston
pointed out that the secondary index delete fix, that I
proposed, spans
both Hyracks & Asterix codebase. Thus we will either have to
release
Hyracks once again, or bite the bullet, sign the RC without this
fixing
this issue and create bug-fix releases for both Hyracks&Asterix
right
after.
On Sep 22, 2015, at 22:27, Mike Carey <[email protected]>
wrote:
Ah - that makes sense now. Thx. (And welcome back. :-))
On 9/22/15 10:02 PM, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:
Sorry for confusion, my initial answer was not correct enough,
probably
should have waited sometime after I drove 1500 miles form
Seattle :)
The casting in the insert pipeline, which Abdullah mentioned,
is
needed
only for secondary index insert. The reasoning behind this
casting is to
ensure that the record is equivalent, thus it is safe to create
an open
index. It is true that we can get <Pk, Sk> pairs out of original
record
using get-field-by-name\index, but the cast operator is
introduced
merely
to kill the pipeline if the dataset input is not correct.
Thus the records in primary are never touched of modified, not
matter
what indexes were created.
I am not sure however what is the second cast in Abdullah’s
plan, and
where is comes from.
@Taewoo, so scan-delete-btree-secondary-index-open test does
not
actually delete data from the secondary index? I have checked
the plan
and
it has the delete operator. Maybe it is initialized with wrong
parameters,
I’ll have a close look.
On Sep 22, 2015, at 18:33, Mike Carey <[email protected]>
wrote:
Sounds kinda bad! Also, I wonder what happens when the
compiler
encounters records in the dataset - whose type in the catalog
doesn't
claim
to have a given (but now indexed) open field - e.g., during a
data scan
or
an access via some other path? Can Bad Things Happen due to the
compiler
not properly anticipating the casted form of the records?
(Maybe I am
misunderstanding something, but we should probably take a
careful look
at
the test cases - and make sure we do things like add a bunch of
records,
then add such an index, then add some more records, then
stress-test
type-related things that come at the dataset (i) thru the index,
(ii)
thru
a primary dataset scan, and (iii) thru some other index.)
On 9/22/15 4:06 PM, Taewoo Kim wrote:
I think this issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ASTERIXDB-1109 is
related. Currently, index entries (SK, PK) are not deleted
on an
open-type
secondary index during a deletion. This issue was not
surfaced due
to
the
fact that every search after a secondary index search had to
go
through the
primary index lookup.
Best,
Taewoo
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Ildar Absalyamov <
[email protected]> wrote:
Abdullah,
If I remember correctly whenever a secondary open index is
created
all
existing records would be casted to a proper type to ensure
that
the
index
creation is valid.
As for the overall correctness of casting operation,
semantically
creating
an open index is the same thing as altering the dataset
type. The
current
implementation allows only one open index of particular
type
created
on a
single field. If we would have had “alter datatype”
functionality
the open
indexing would not be required at all.
On Sep 21, 2015, at 23:25, abdullah alamoudi
<[email protected]>
wrote:
More thoughts:
I assume the intention of the cast was just to make sure
if the
open
field
exists, it is of the specified type. Moreover, the
un-casted
record
should
be inserted into the index.
If my assumptions are not correct, please, let me know
ASAP.
I have two thoughts on this:
1. Actually, insert plans show that the records being
inserted
into
the
primary index is actually the casted record creating the
issue
described
above.
2. I don't believe this is the right way to ensure that
the open
field if
exists is of the right type. why not extract the field
using field
access
by name function and then verify the type using the field
tag?
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:11 AM, abdullah alamoudi <
[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Dev, @Ildar,
In the insert pipeline for datasets with open indexes, we
introduce a
cast
function before the insert and so one would expect the
records to
look
like
the casted record type which I assume has {{the closed
fields + a
nullable
field}}.
The question is, what happens to the previously existing
records?,
since
now the index has both, records of the original type and
records
of the
casted type.
Thanks,
Abdullah.
Best regards,
Ildar
Best regards,
Ildar
Best regards,
Ildar
Best regards,
Ildar
