Hi Tian,

naming i see as a minor issue to change but as a bigger issue to users (nomen 
est omen...).
Regarding your other comment I don’t get what you mean.

Think of situations like monitoring stuff from several machines of multiple 
types in multiple plants.
Then I would like to say something like

"do that for all series in plan A" or "in all series for machine Type X".

Indeed its quite a "huge" change which has implications but it would rather 
"widen" the api to do "multi-series querying" rather than change it, I guess?

Julian

Am 14.08.19, 11:06 schrieb "Tian Jiang" <jt2594...@163.com>:

    The naming is not a big issue, but your schema proposals seem to be turning 
IoTDB into something else.
    
    
    
    
    
    At 2019-08-14 16:55:33, "Jialin Qiao" <qj...@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn> wrote:
    >Hi,
    >
    >I think source or datasource is good, and it's better to use, or at least 
add the tags and fields, because many TSDBs use these conceptual module.
    >
    >Some feasible schema organization ways and "select * from the table" 
results:
    >
    >(1) Each type of datasource is a table, which has a time column, some tag 
columns and some field columns.
    >
    >Table: sourceType
    >time tag1,  field1, field2
    >1, device1, 1, 1
    >2, device1, 2, 2
    >2, device2, 2, 2
    >
    >(2) Each datasource is a table with some tags. Each table has a time 
column, and some field columns. (Tags of one datasource may be not changed, so 
just see it as metadata.)
    >
    >Table: source1(tag1=device1)
    >time, field1, field2
    >1, 1, 1
    >2, 2, 2
    >
    >Table: source2(tag1=device2)
    >time, field1, field2
    >2, 2, 2
    >
    >
    >Best,
    >--
    >Jialin Qiao
    >School of Software, Tsinghua University
    >
    >乔嘉林
    >清华大学 软件学院
    >
    >> -----原始邮件-----
    >> 发件人: "Julian Feinauer" <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de>
    >> 发送时间: 2019-08-14 16:10:22 (星期三)
    >> 收件人: "dev@iotdb.apache.org" <dev@iotdb.apache.org>
    >> 抄送: 
    >> 主题: Re: An easier way to create time series.
    >> 
    >> Hi,
    >> 
    >> let me stick in hier also.
    >> One of the things which was at first a bit "unfamiliar" for me was this 
device focus.
    >> It’s a bit to "one-dimensional" in my perspective.
    >> 
    >> Personally, I quite like how Influx does it that you have a name and can 
attach tags and fields to it.
    >> And even if we do not do it that way I would prefer to name it a bit 
differently as "series" or "measurement" or "source".
    >> Device is a bit specific and just sounds odd, from a users perspective.
    >> 
    >> I think it was good to keep it that way for 0.8.0.
    >> But for the next release we are open to break things a bit.
    >> 
    >> What do others think?
    >> 
    >> Julian
    >> 
    >> Am 14.08.19, 04:52 schrieb "Tian Jiang" <jt2594...@163.com>:
    >> 
    >>     Maybe starting from a sugar, we can add some improvements gradually. 
Currently, I think making timeseries creation easier should be enough. Please 
share if you have some fancy ideas that can go with the introduction of 
"device".
    >>     
    >>     Tian Jiang
    >>     
    >>     
    >>     At 2019-08-14 10:44:14, "Xiangdong Huang" <saint...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>     >Hi,
    >>     >
    >>     >Looks fine for me.
    >>     >
    >>     >One question, is it just a language syntax sugar, or we can as well 
as
    >>     >improve the schema management? Any idea?
    >>     >
    >>     >Best,
    >>     >-----------------------------------
    >>     >Xiangdong Huang
    >>     >School of Software, Tsinghua University
    >>     >
    >>     > 黄向东
    >>     >清华大学 软件学院
    >>     >
    >>     >
    >>     >Tian Jiang <jt2594...@163.com> 于2019年8月14日周三 上午10:37写道:
    >>     >
    >>     >> Greetings,
    >>     >>
    >>     >>
    >>     >> In the present version, it is a little trouble some to create a 
set
    >>     >> timeseries that has the same measurements. On the other hand, 
although we
    >>     >> use the conception "device" in the code, it is not properly 
abstracted.
    >>     >>
    >>     >> Expected usage:
    >>     >>
    >>     >> Using IoTDB in a more relational way:
    >>     >>
    >>     >> CREATE DEVICE TEMPLATE vehicle (speed DOUBLE PLAIN, direction 
DOUBLE
    >>     >> PLAIN, temperature DOUBLE PLAIN, fuel DOUBLE PLAIN)
    >>     >>
    >>     >> If all datatypes(or encodings) are the same, you can write the 
equal form:
    >>     >>
    >>     >> CREATE DEVICE TEMPLATE vehicle MEASUREMENTS (speed, direction,
    >>     >> temperature, fuel) DATATYPE DOUBLE ENCODING PLAIN
    >>     >>
    >>     >> Then you will be able to create time series in an easier way:
    >>     >>
    >>     >> CREATE DEVICE (vehicle) root.sg1.vehicle1
    >>     >>
    >>     >> Which equals:
    >>     >>
    >>     >> CREATE TIMESERIES root.sg1.vehicle1.speed WITH
    >>     >> DATATYPE=DOUBLE,ENCODING=PLAIN
    >>     >>
    >>     >> CREATE TIMESERIES root.sg1.vehicle1.direction WITH
    >>     >> DATATYPE=DOUBLE,ENCODING=PLAIN
    >>     >>
    >>     >> CREATE TIMESERIES root.sg1.vehicle1.fuel WITH
    >>     >> DATATYPE=DOUBLE,ENCODING=PLAIN
    >>     >>
    >>     >> CREATE TIMESERIES root.sg1.vehicle1.temperature WITH
    >>     >> DATATYPE=DOUBLE,ENCODING=PLAIN
    >>     >>
    >>     >> I hope this will narrow the gap between using IoTDB and 
traditional
    >>     >> relation databases.
    >>     >> Jira link:
    >>     >> 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/IOTDB/issues/IOTDB-163?filter=allopenissues
    >>     >>
    >>     >>
    >>     >> Tian Jiang
    >>     
    >> 
    

Reply via email to