Jiffy preserves duplicate keys if its not decoding into a map (in
which case last value for duplicate keys wins). Its significantly
corner case and not at all supported by nearly any other JSON library
so changing that shouldn't be considered a breaking change in my
opinion.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:21 AM Mike Rhodes <couc...@dx13.co.uk> wrote:
>
> From what I recall Jiffy is able to cope with the valid-but-kinda-silly[1]
> thing where you have multiple JSON keys with the same name, i.e., { "foo": 1,
> "foo": 2 }.
>
> Are the proposals on the table able to continue this support (or am I wrong
> about Jiffy)?
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259#section-4, "The names within an
> object SHOULD be unique.", though
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493#section-2.3 does sensibly close that down.
>
> --
> Mike.
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, at 13:33, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 30. Jan 2019, at 14:22, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Ilya for getting this started!
> > >
> > > Two quick notes on this one:
> > >
> > > 1. note that JSON does not guarantee object key order and that CouchDB
> > > has never guaranteed it either, and with say emit(doc.foo, doc.bar), if
> > > either emit() parameter was an object, the undefined-sort-order of
> > > SpiderMonkey would mix things up. While worth bringing up, this is not a
> > > BC break.
> > >
> > > 2. This would have the fun property of being able to rename a key inside
> > > all docs that have that key.
> >
> > …in one short operation.
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > —
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Jan
> > > —
> > >
> > >> On 30. Jan 2019, at 14:05, Ilya Khlopotov <iil...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> # First proposal
> > >>
> > >> In order to overcome FoudationDB limitations on key size (10 kB) and
> > >> value size (100 kB) we could use the following approach.
> > >>
> > >> Bellow the paths are using slash for illustration purposes only. We can
> > >> use nested subspaces, tuples, directories or something else.
> > >>
> > >> - Store documents in a subspace or directory (to keep prefix for a key
> > >> short)
> > >> - When we store the document we would enumerate all field names (0 and 1
> > >> are reserved) and store the mapping table in the key which look like:
> > >> ```
> > >> {DB_DOCS_NS} / {DOC_KEY} / 0
> > >> ```
> > >> - Flatten the JSON document (convert it into key value pairs where the
> > >> key is `JSON_PATH` and value is `SCALAR_VALUE`)
> > >> - Replace elements of JSON_PATH with integers from mapping table we
> > >> constructed earlier
> > >> - When we have array use `1 / {array_idx}`
> > >> - Store scalar values in the keys which look like the following (we use
> > >> `JSON_PATH` with integers).
> > >> ```
> > >> {DB_DOCS_NS} / {DOC_KEY} / {JSON_PATH}
> > >> ```
> > >> - If the scalar value exceeds 100kB we would split it and store every
> > >> part under key constructed as:
> > >> ```
> > >> {DB_DOCS_NS} / {DOC_KEY} / {JSON_PATH} / {PART_IDX}
> > >> ```
> > >>
> > >> Since all parts of the documents are stored under a common `{DB_DOCS_NS}
> > >> / {DOC_KEY}` they will be stored on the same server most of the time.
> > >> The document can be retrieved by using range query
> > >> (`txn.get_range("{DB_DOCS_NS} / {DOC_KEY} / 0", "{DB_DOCS_NS} /
> > >> {DOC_KEY} / 0xFF")`). We can reconstruct the document since the mapping
> > >> is returned as well.
> > >>
> > >> The downside of this approach is we wouldn't be able to ensure the same
> > >> order of keys in the JSON object. Currently the `jiffy` JSON encoder
> > >> respects order of keys.
> > >> ```
> > >> 4> jiffy:encode({[{bbb, 1}, {aaa, 12}]}).
> > >> <<"{\"bbb\":1,\"aaa\":12}">>
> > >> 5> jiffy:encode({[{aaa, 12}, {bbb, 1}]}).
> > >> <<"{\"aaa\":12,\"bbb\":1}">>
> > >> ```
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> iilyak
> > >>
> > >> On 2019/01/30 13:02:57, Ilya Khlopotov <iil...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>> As you might already know the FoundationDB has a number of limitations
> > >>> which influences the way we might store JSON documents. The limitations
> > >>> are:
> > >>>
> > >>> | limitation |recommended value|recommended
> > >>> max|absolute max|
> > >>> |-------------------------|----------------------:|--------------------:|--------------:|
> > >>> | transaction duration | |
> > >>> | 5 sec |
> > >>> | transaction data size | |
> > >>> | 10 Mb |
> > >>> | key size | 32 bytes |
> > >>> 1 kB | 10 kB |
> > >>> | value size | |
> > >>> 10 kB | 100 kB |
> > >>>
> > >>> In order to fit the JSON document into 100kB we would have to partition
> > >>> it in some way. There are three ways of partitioning the document
> > >>> 1. store multiple binary blobs (parts) in different keys
> > >>> 2. flatten JSON structure and store every path leading to a scalar
> > >>> value under own key
> > >>> 3. measure the size of different branches of a tree representing the
> > >>> JSON document (while we parse) and use another key for the branch when
> > >>> we about to exceed the limit
> > >>>
> > >>> - The first approach is the simplest but it wouldn't allow us to access
> > >>> parts of the document.
> > >>> - The downsides of a second approach are:
> > >>> - flattened JSON structure would have long paths which means longer keys
> > >>> - the scalar value cannot be more than 100kb (unless we split it as
> > >>> well)
> > >>> - Third approach falls short in cases when the structure of the
> > >>> document doesn't allow a clean cut off branches:
> > >>> - complex rules to handle all corner cases
> > >>>
> > >>> The goals of this thread are:
> > >>> - to collect ideas on how to encode and store the JSON document
> > >>> - to comment on the collected ideas
> > >>>
> > >>> Non goals:
> > >>> - the storage of metadata for the document would be discussed elsewhere
> > >>> - thumb stones
> > >>> - edit conflicts
> > >>> - revisions
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> iilyak
> > >>>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > > https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >
> >
