Igniters, It is very likely that Apache Ignite 3.0 will be released next year. So we need to start thinking about major product improvements. I'd like to start with binary objects.
Currently they are one of the main limiting factors for the product. They are fat - 30+ bytes overhead on average, high TCO of Apache Ignite comparing to other vendors. They are slow - not suitable for SQL at all. I would like to ask all of you who worked with binary objects to share your feedback and ideas, so that we understand how they should look like in AI 3.0. This is a brain storm - let's accumulate ideas first and minimize critics. Then we will work on ideas in separate topics. 1) Historical background BO were implemented around 2014 (Apache Ignite 1.5) when we started working on .NET and CPP clients. During design we had several ideas in mind: - ability to read object fields in O(1) without deserialization - interoperabillty between Java, .NET and CPP. Since then a number of other concepts were mixed to the cocktail: - Affinity key fields - Strict typing for existing fields (aka metadata) - Binary Object as storage format 2) My proposals 2.1) Introduce "Data Row Format" interface Binary Objects are terrible candidates for storage. Too fat, too slow. Efficient storage typically has <10 bytes overhead per row (no metadata, no length, no hash code, etc), allow supper-fast field access, support different string formats (ASCII, UTF-8, etc), support different temporal types (date, time, timestamp, timestamp with timezone, etc), and store these types as efficiently as possible. What we need is to introduce an interface which will convert a pair of key-value objects into a row. This row will be used to store data and to get fields from it. Care about memory consumption, need SQL and strict schema - use one format. Need flexibility and prefer key-value access - use another format which will store binary objects unchanged (current behavior). interface DataRowFormat { DataRow create(Object key, Object value); // primitives or binary objects DataRowMetadata metadata(); } 2.2) Remove affinity field from metadata Affinity rules are governed by cache, not type. We should remove "affintiyFieldName" from metadata. 2.3) Remove restrictions on changing field type I do not know why we did that in the first place. This restriction prevents type evolution and confuses users. 2.4) Use bitmaps for "null" and default values and for fixed-length fields, put fixed-length fields before variable-length. Motivation: to save space. What else? Please share your ideas. Vladimir.