Hello Hanyu, Thank you for the KIP. I agree with Matthias' proposal to keep the naming convention consistent with KIP-969. I favor the `.withDescendingKeys()` name.
I am curious about one thing. RocksDB guarantees that records returned during a range scan are lexicographically ordered by the bytes of the keys (either ascending or descending order, as specified in the query). This means that results within a single partition are indeed ordered.** My reading of KIP-805 suggests to me that you don't need to specify the partition number you are querying in IQv2, which means that you can have a valid reversed RangeQuery over a store with "multiple partitions" in it. Currently, IQv1 does not guarantee order of keys in this scenario. Does IQv2 support ordering across partitions? Such an implementation would require opening a rocksdb range scan** on multiple rocksdb instances (one per partition), and polling the first key of each. Whether or not this is ordered, could we please add that to the documentation? **(How is this implemented/guaranteed in an `inMemoryKeyValueStore`? I don't know about that implementation). Colt McNealy *Founder, LittleHorse.dev* On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 1:35 PM Hanyu (Peter) Zheng <pzh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > ok, I will update it. Thank you Matthias > > Sincerely, > Hanyu > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 11:23 AM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP Hanyu! > > > > > > I took a quick look and it think the proposal makes sense overall. > > > > A few comments about how to structure the KIP. > > > > As you propose to not add `ReverseRangQuery` class, the code example > > should go into "Rejected Alternatives" section, not in the "Proposed > > Changes" section. > > > > For the `RangeQuery` code example, please omit all existing methods etc, > > and only include what will be added/changed. This make it simpler to > > read the KIP. > > > > > > nit: typo > > > > > the fault value is false > > > > Should be "the default value is false". > > > > > > Not sure if `setReverse()` is the best name. Maybe `withDescandingOrder` > > (or similar, I guess `withReverseOrder` would also work) might be > > better? Would be good to align to KIP-969 proposal that suggest do use > > `withDescendingKeys` methods for "reverse key-range"; if we go with > > `withReverseOrder` we should change KIP-969 accordingly. > > > > Curious to hear what others think about naming this consistently across > > both KIPs. > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 10/3/23 9:17 AM, Hanyu (Peter) Zheng wrote: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-985%3A+Add+reverseRange+and+reverseAll+query+over+kv-store+in+IQv2 > > > > > > > > -- > > [image: Confluent] <https://www.confluent.io> > Hanyu (Peter) Zheng he/him/his > Software Engineer Intern > +1 (213) 431-7193 <+1+(213)+431-7193> > Follow us: [image: Blog] > < > https://www.confluent.io/blog?utm_source=footer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ch.email-signature_type.community_content.blog > >[image: > Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc>[image: LinkedIn] > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/hanyu-peter-zheng/>[image: Slack] > <https://slackpass.io/confluentcommunity>[image: YouTube] > <https://youtube.com/confluent> > > [image: Try Confluent Cloud for Free] > < > https://www.confluent.io/get-started?utm_campaign=tm.fm-apac_cd.inbound&utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=organic > > >
