Sergi,
OK, I've done it as you said, thanks.
Now working on binary marshaller support.
- Alex
2016-07-28 9:08 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
> I had a quick look at the PR.
>
> I don't like this @QueryCacheKey and setKeyProp method on public API. They
> solve nothing but add complexity and make key to be stored twice in cache,
> which is wrong. Please remove this.
>
> If you want to do some public API changes you have to discuss them publicly
> before implementing them, ok?
>
> I did not look deeper yet, lets fix the obvious issue first.
>
> Sergi
>
> 2016-07-27 21:44 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Sergi,
>>
>> I've made changes to the API according to your valuable
>> recommendations, thank you very much for giving them. Please refer to
>> PR to see current state of the work.
>> Will surely look into ODBC, .NET and Visor. Though they will most
>> likely have to support a new feature rather than considerably change
>> existing logic.
>>
>> - Alex
>>
>> 2016-07-27 14:23 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>> > Please don't forget about ODBC, .NET and Visor. They all have to work in
>> > the same way.
>> >
>> > Sergi
>> >
>> > 2016-07-27 14:15 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> OK, I've found that bold cast to QueryCursor<R> in IgniteCacheProxy
>> >> and had a look at how SqlFieldsQuery is used in JDBC driver. Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> - Alex
>> >>
>> >> 2016-07-27 13:02 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > Where did you see R in SqlFieldsQuery?
>> >> >
>> >> > Sergi
>> >> >
>> >> > 2016-07-27 12:59 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> >> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Sergi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But current signature of query() method returns not just some
>> >> >> iterator, but rather iterator of R which is type param of Query -
>> >> >> i.e., we won't be able to return an int inside a QueryCursor<R>. At
>> >> >> least without API change (signature of query() method will have to be
>> >> >> changed to drop genericness, or in some other weird way). Is this
>> what
>> >> >> we really want? Or am I missing something in your point?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Alex
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2016-07-27 12:51 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
>> >:
>> >> >> > Exactly. This will allow our Jdbc driver to work transparently.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sergi
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2016-07-27 12:40 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> >> >> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Sergi,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You wrote:
>> >> >> >> > I'd prefer to return the same information, so it will not be
>> empty
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Do you mean return iterator with single element that denotes
>> number
>> >> of
>> >> >> >> rows?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Dmitriy,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You wrote:
>> >> >> >> > What is the ticket number for this. Is the new API documented
>> >> there?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Overall issue number is 2294. There's no particular issue on API
>> >> >> >> changes, but creating one seems to be a good idea, I will do it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> - Alex
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2016-07-27 9:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org>:
>> >> >> >> > What is the ticket number for this. Is the new API documented
>> >> there?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> I don't see anything ugly in empty iterator, sorry if I
>> insulted
>> >> your
>> >> >> >> taste
>> >> >> >> >> of beauty.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If you will take a look at Jdbc, you will see that
>> >> >> >> Statement.executeUpdate
>> >> >> >> >> method returns number of updated rows, I'd prefer to return the
>> >> same
>> >> >> >> >> information, so it will not be empty (beauty is restored!).
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sergi
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> 2016-07-26 18:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> >> >> >> >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > I see your point. But what about my concerns from initial
>> post?
>> >> >> >> >> > Particularly about signatures of existing methods? I
>> personally
>> >> >> don't
>> >> >> >> >> > like an option of query() method always returning an empty
>> >> iterator
>> >> >> >> >> > for any non-select query, it seems ugly design wise.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > - Alex
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > 2016-07-26 18:15 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> >> > > BTW, the simplest way to solve this issue is to allow
>> running
>> >> SQL
>> >> >> >> >> > commands
>> >> >> >> >> > > inside of SqlFieldsQuery.
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > We may add some additional convenience API for updates if
>> we
>> >> >> want,
>> >> >> >> but
>> >> >> >> >> > JDBC
>> >> >> >> >> > > client will always call it like this:
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > cache.query(new SqlFieldsQuery("INSERT INTO MY_TABLE
>> >> >> >> >> > > VALUES(?,?)").setArgs(1,2));
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > This will resolve any ambiguity.
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > Sergi
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > 2016-07-26 17:56 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> >:
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> I don't like any pre-parsing, especially with some
>> libraries
>> >> >> other
>> >> >> >> >> than
>> >> >> >> >> > >> H2. H2 itself has enough quirks to multiply it on quirks
>> of
>> >> >> another
>> >> >> >> >> > library.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> This is exactly what I was talking about - we need some
>> >> single
>> >> >> >> entry
>> >> >> >> >> > point
>> >> >> >> >> > >> on API for all the SQL commands and queries. Thats why I
>> >> >> suggested
>> >> >> >> >> > >> SqlUpdate to extend Query. To me its is the cleanest
>> >> approach.
>> >> >> May
>> >> >> >> be
>> >> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> >> > >> need to change in some backward compatible way this Query
>> >> >> >> hierarchy to
>> >> >> >> >> > get
>> >> >> >> >> > >> rid of extra methods but the idea is still the same.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> Sergi
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> 2016-07-26 14:34 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> >> >> >> >> > >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Guys,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> I would like to advance the discussion further. There's
>> one
>> >> >> quite
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> important question that arose based on current state of
>> >> work on
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> issue. If we use some kind of interactive console, like
>> >> Visor,
>> >> >> >> then
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> how should it know whether SQL query it is requested to
>> >> execute
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> returns a result set or not? In JDBC world, solution is
>> >> quite
>> >> >> >> simple
>> >> >> >> >> -
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> there's base interface called Statement that all commands
>> >> >> >> implement,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and it has magic isResultSet method that tells whether
>> >> >> statement
>> >> >> >> is a
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> query or an update command. The API proposed now has
>> >> separate
>> >> >> >> Query
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and Update operations which I believe to be a right
>> thing by
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> reasons I outlined in the beginning of this thread.
>> However,
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> lack of common ancestor prevents possible console clients
>> >> from
>> >> >> >> >> running
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> text SQL commands in a fully transparent manner - like
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> IgniteCache.execute(String sql). Therefore I see two
>> >> possible
>> >> >> >> ways of
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> solving this:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - we change API so that it includes new class or
>> interface
>> >> >> >> parenting
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> both Query and Update, and clients use it to communicate
>> >> with
>> >> >> >> cache
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - we let (or make :) ) the client determine command type
>> >> >> >> >> independently
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and behave accordingly - for it to work it will have some
>> >> kind
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> command parsing by itself just to determine its type.
>> Visor
>> >> >> >> console
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> may use simple library like JSqlParser
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> (https://github.com/JSQLParser/JSqlParser; dual LGPL
>> >> 2.1/ASF
>> >> >> 2.0
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> licensed) to determine request type in terms of JDBC, and
>> >> >> behave
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> accordingly.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Personally, I think that the second approach is better -
>> and
>> >> >> >> here's
>> >> >> >> >> > why.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> First, it does not seem wise to change API simply to make
>> >> >> console
>> >> >> >> (or
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> any other) clients simpler. Programmatic APIs should be
>> >> concise
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> short for programmatic use, console clients should be
>> easy
>> >> to
>> >> >> use
>> >> >> >> >> from
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> console - and that's it: after all, console client
>> exists to
>> >> >> free
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> user from burden of doing things programmatically, so its
>> >> aim
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> adapt API to console or whatever UI.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Second, possible complications in client implied by such
>> >> >> approach
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> certainly won't be dramatic - I don't think that
>> additional
>> >> >> single
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> query parsing operation in client code will make it much
>> >> >> harder to
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> develop.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Third, as I see it now, adding a new "synthetic" entity
>> and
>> >> new
>> >> >> >> >> method
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> would take more effort to adapting the client to new API.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Dmitry, Sergi, I would like to hear what you think about
>> it
>> >> >> all.
>> >> >> >> >> > Thanks.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - Alex
>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> 2016-07-21 21:17 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >> >> >> dsetrak...@apache.org
>> >> >> >> >> >:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > OK, then using your analogy, the current behavior in
>> >> Ignite
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> MERGE
>> >> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > the most part.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > My preference is that Ignite SQL should work no
>> different
>> >> >> from
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> traditional
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > databases, which means:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - INSERT is translated into *putIfAbsent()* call in
>> Ignite
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - UPDATE is translated into *replace()* call in Ignite
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - MERGE is translated into *put()* call in Ignite
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - For SQL BATCH calls we should delegate to Ignite
>> batch
>> >> >> >> >> operations,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> e.g.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > *putAll()*
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > The above should hold true for atomic and transactional
>> >> >> >> put/putAll
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> calls,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > as well as for the data streamer.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > Does this make sense?
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > D.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> No, this does not make sense.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> There is no upsert mode in databases. There are
>> >> operations:
>> >> >> >> >> INSERT,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> UPDATE,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> DELETE, MERGE.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> I want to have clear understanding of how they have to
>> >> >> behave
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> SQL
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> databases and how they will actually behave in Ignite
>> in
>> >> >> >> different
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> scenarios. Also I want to have clear understanding of
>> >> >> >> performance
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> implications of each decision here.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Anything wrong with that?
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Sergi
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> dsetrak...@apache.org>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Serj, are you asking what will happen as of today?
>> Then
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> answer
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> to all
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > your questions is that duplicate keys are not an
>> issue,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> Ignite
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> always
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > operates in **upsert** mode (which is essentially a
>> >> >> *“put(…)”
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> *method).
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > However, the *“insert”* that is suggested by Alex
>> would
>> >> >> >> delegate
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > *“putIfAbsent(…)”*, which in database world makes
>> more
>> >> >> sense.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> However, in
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > this case, the *“update”* syntax should delegate to
>> >> >> >> >> > *“replace(…)”*,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> as
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > update should fail in case if a key is absent.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Considering the above, a notion of “*upsert”* or
>> >> “*merge”
>> >> >> >> >> > *operation
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> is
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > very much needed, as it will give a user an option
>> to
>> >> >> perform
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > “insert-or-update” in 1 call.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Does this make sense?
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > D.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > I'd prefer to do MERGE operation last because in
>> H2
>> >> it
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> standard
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > ANSI
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > SQL MERGE. Or may be not implement it at all, or
>> may
>> >> be
>> >> >> >> >> > contribute
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> ANSI
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > correct version to H2, then implement it on
>> Ignite.
>> >> >> Need to
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> investigate
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > semantics deeper before making any decisions here.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > Lets start with simple scenarios for INSERT and go
>> >> >> through
>> >> >> >> all
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > possible
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > cases and answer the questions:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen on key conflict in TX cache?
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen on key conflict in Atomic
>> cache?
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen with the previous two if we use
>> >> >> >> DataLoader?
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - How to make these operations efficient (it will
>> be
>> >> >> simple
>> >> >> >> >> > enough
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> to
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > implement them with separate put/putIfAbsent
>> >> operations
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> probably we
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > will need some batching like putAllIfAbsent for
>> >> >> >> efficiency)?
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > As for API, we still will need to have a single
>> entry
>> >> >> point
>> >> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> all SQL
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > queries/commands to allow any console work with it
>> >> >> >> >> > transparently.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> It
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > would
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > be great if we will be able to come up with
>> something
>> >> >> >> >> consistent
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> with
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > this
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > idea on public API.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > Sergi
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Dmitriy
>> Setrakyan <
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > dsetrak...@gridgain.com>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Like the idea of merge and insert. I need more
>> >> time to
>> >> >> >> think
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> about
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > API
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > changes.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Sergi, what do you think?
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Dmitriy
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Alexander
>> Paschenko <
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Thus, I suggest that we implement MERGE as a
>> >> >> separate
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> operation
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > backed
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > by putIfAbsent operation, while INSERT will be
>> >> >> >> implemented
>> >> >> >> >> via
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> put.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > Sorry, of course I meant that MERGE has to be
>> >> >> >> put-based,
>> >> >> >> >> > while
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> INSERT
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > has to be putIfAbsent-based.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > 2016-07-20 12:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > <alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Hell Igniters,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> In this thread I would like to share and
>> discuss
>> >> >> some
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> thoughts on
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > DML
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> operations' implementation, so let's start
>> and
>> >> >> keep it
>> >> >> >> >> > here.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Everyone
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> is of course welcome to share their
>> suggestions.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> For starters, I was thinking about semantics
>> of
>> >> >> >> INSERT.
>> >> >> >> >> In
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > traditional
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> RDBMSs, INSERT works only for records whose
>> >> primary
>> >> >> >> keys
>> >> >> >> >> > don't
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> conflict with those of records that are
>> already
>> >> >> >> >> persistent
>> >> >> >> >> > -
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> you
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > can't
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> try to insert the same key more than once
>> >> because
>> >> >> >> you'll
>> >> >> >> >> > get
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> an
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > error.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> However, semantics of cache put is obviously
>> >> >> >> different -
>> >> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> does
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> not
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> have anything about duplicate keys, it just
>> >> quietly
>> >> >> >> >> updates
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> values
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> case of keys' duplication. Still, cache has
>> >> >> >> putIfAbsent
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> operation
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > that
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> is closer to traditional notion of INSERT,
>> and
>> >> H2's
>> >> >> >> SQL
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> dialect
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> has
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> MERGE operation which corresponds to
>> semantics
>> >> of
>> >> >> >> cache
>> >> >> >> >> > put.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Thus, I
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> suggest that we implement MERGE as a separate
>> >> >> >> operation
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> backed by
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> putIfAbsent operation, while INSERT will be
>> >> >> >> implemented
>> >> >> >> >> via
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> put.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> And one more, probably more important thing:
>> I
>> >> >> suggest
>> >> >> >> >> > that we
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > create
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> separate class Update and corresponding
>> >> operation
>> >> >> >> >> update()
>> >> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> IgniteCache. The reasons are as follows:
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - Query bears some flags that are clearly
>> >> redundant
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> >> > Update
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> (page
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> size, locality)
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - query() method in IgniteCache (one that
>> >> accepts
>> >> >> >> Query)
>> >> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> query()
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> methods in GridQueryIndexing return
>> iterators.
>> >> So,
>> >> >> if
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> strive to
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> leave interfaces unchanged, we still will
>> >> introduce
>> >> >> >> some
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> design
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> ugliness like query methods returning empty
>> >> >> iterators
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> certain
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> queries, and/or query flags that indicate
>> >> whether
>> >> >> >> it's an
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> update
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > query
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> or not, etc.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - If some Queries are update queries, then
>> >> >> continuous
>> >> >> >> >> > queries
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> can't
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > be
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> based on them - more design-wise ugly checks
>> and
>> >> >> stuff
>> >> >> >> >> like
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> that.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - I'm pretty sure there's more I don't know
>> >> about.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Comments and suggestions are welcome. Sergi
>> >> >> Vladykin,
>> >> >> >> >> > Dmitry
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Setrakyan, your opinions are of particular
>> >> >> interest,
>> >> >> >> >> please
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> advise.
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Regards,
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Alex
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
