I think having Int32, and NullableInt32 would support minimum overhead, as well as allowing SQL semantics.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Furthermore, is is more important to support null values than squeeze all > representations into minimum size (4-bytes for int32, &c.)? > On Apr 1, 2013 4:41 PM, "Nick Dimiduk" <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:31 PM, James Taylor <jtay...@salesforce.com > >wrote: > > > >> From the SQL perspective, handling null is important. > > > > > > From your perspective, it is critical to support NULLs, even at the > > expense of fixed-width encodings at all or supporting representation of a > > full range of values. That is, you'd rather be able to represent NULL > than > > -2^31? > > > > On 04/01/2013 01:32 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks for the thoughtful response (and code!). > >>> > >>> I'm thinking I will press forward with a base implementation that does > >>> not > >>> support nulls. The idea is to provide an extensible set of interfaces, > >>> so I > >>> think this will not box us into a corner later. That is, a mirroring > >>> package could be implemented that supports null values and accepts > >>> the relevant trade-offs. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Nick > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Matt Corgan <mcor...@hotpads.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I spent some time this weekend extracting bits of our serialization > >>>> code to > >>>> a public github repo at http://github.com/hotpads/**data-tools< > http://github.com/hotpads/data-tools> > >>>> . > >>>> Contributions are welcome - i'm sure we all have this stuff laying > >>>> around. > >>>> > >>>> You can see I've bumped into the NULL problem in a few places: > >>>> * > >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/hotpads/**data-tools/blob/master/src/** > >>>> main/java/com/hotpads/data/**primitive/lists/LongArrayList.**java< > https://github.com/hotpads/data-tools/blob/master/src/main/java/com/hotpads/data/primitive/lists/LongArrayList.java > > > >>>> * > >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/hotpads/**data-tools/blob/master/src/** > >>>> main/java/com/hotpads/data/**types/floats/DoubleByteTool.**java< > https://github.com/hotpads/data-tools/blob/master/src/main/java/com/hotpads/data/types/floats/DoubleByteTool.java > > > >>>> > >>>> Looking back, I think my latest opinion on the topic is to reject > >>>> nullability as the rule since it can cause unexpected behavior and > >>>> confusion. It's cleaner to provide a wrapper class (so both > >>>> LongArrayList > >>>> plus NullableLongArrayList) that explicitly defines the behavior, and > >>>> costs > >>>> a little more in performance. If the user can't find a pre-made > wrapper > >>>> class, it's not very difficult for each user to provide their own > >>>> interpretation of null and check for it themselves. > >>>> > >>>> If you reject nullability, the question becomes what to do in > situations > >>>> where you're implementing existing interfaces that accept nullable > >>>> params. > >>>> The LongArrayList above implements List<Long> which requires an > >>>> add(Long) > >>>> method. In the above implementation I chose to swap nulls with > >>>> Long.MIN_VALUE, however I'm now thinking it best to force the user to > >>>> make > >>>> that swap and then throw IllegalArgumentException if they pass null. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Doug Meil < > >>>> doug.m...@explorysmedical.com > >>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> HmmmŠ good question. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think that fixed width support is important for a great many rowkey > >>>>> constructs cases, so I'd rather see something like losing MIN_VALUE > and > >>>>> keeping fixed width. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 4/1/13 2:00 PM, "Nick Dimiduk" <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Heya, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thinking about data types and serialization. I think null support is > >>>>>> an > >>>>>> important characteristic for the serialized representations, > >>>>>> especially > >>>>>> when considering the compound type. However, doing so in directly > >>>>>> incompatible with fixed-width representations for numerics. For > >>>>>> > >>>>> instance, > >>>> > >>>>> if we want to have a fixed-width signed long stored on 8-bytes, where > >>>>>> do > >>>>>> you put null? float and double types can cheat a little by folding > >>>>>> negative > >>>>>> and positive NaN's into a single representation (this isn't strictly > >>>>>> correct!), leaving a place to represent null. In the long example > >>>>>> case, > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> obvious choice is to reduce MAX_VALUE or increase MIN_VALUE by one. > >>>>>> This > >>>>>> will allocate an additional encoding which can be used for null. My > >>>>>> experience working with scientific data, however, makes me wince at > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> idea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The variable-width encodings have it a little easier. There's > already > >>>>>> enough going on that it's simpler to make room. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Remember, the final goal is to support order-preserving > serialization. > >>>>>> This > >>>>>> imposes some limitations on our encoding strategies. For instance, > >>>>>> it's > >>>>>> not > >>>>>> enough to simply encode null, it really needs to be encoded as 0x00 > so > >>>>>> > >>>>> as > >>>> > >>>>> to sort lexicographically earlier than any other value. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What do you think? Any ideas, experiences, etc? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Nick > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > >
