Hi,

agree.
This was more as a first comment I wanted to throw in : )
And with such BIG changes I totally agree that a DISCUSSION Thread has to be 
openend and in the end if no consensus is found even a VOTE should be done.

Julian

Am 14.08.19, 12:18 schrieb "Tian Jiang" <jt2594...@163.com>:

    Hi Julian,
    
    
    Surely naming is important to users, but different users may have different 
opinions upon naming. I think it is hard to get everyone satisfied, so maybe we 
can hold a vote or something to discuss that later.
    
    
    My starting point is to provide a way to create a bunch of time series with 
fewer statements(as the title suggests) and this will not interfere with 
existing functionality. It is light-weight, and I can add this feature within a 
day or two.
    
    
    Adding tags is cool, which can definitely enhance the expressive power of 
IoTDB, But, the implementation may cause a lot of changes(and potential 
troubles) in the whole system, which is beyond the discussion. Since you seem 
interested, we may open another thread to discuss about the tags(or whatever 
you want to call it) in detail.
    
    
    Tian Jiang
    
    
    
    At 2019-08-14 17:12:41, "Julian Feinauer" <j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de> 
wrote:
    >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