Hi Hanyu, Thanks for the KIP, overall it's looking good, but I have a couple of comments
- In the “Proposed Changes” section there's a reference to `setReverse()` but the code example has “withDescendingOrder()” so I think the text needs an update to reflect the code example. - I prefer “withDescendingKeys()” to “withDescendingOrder()” - I also agree that we should include a section on ordering, but it should be fairly straightforward. The “StateQueryRequest” of IQv2 allows users to specify a partition or partitions, so if ordering is important they can elect to provide a single partition in the query. Thanks, Bill On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:27 PM Walker Carlson <wcarl...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hello Hanyu, > > Looking over your kip things mostly make sense but I have a couple of > comments. > > > 1. You have "withDescandingOrder()". I think you mean "descending" :) > Also there are still a few places in the do where its called > "setReverse" > 2. Also I like "WithDescendingKeys()" better > 3. I'm not sure of what ordering guarantees we are offering. Perhaps we > can add a section to the motivation clearly spelling out the current > ordering and the new offering? > 4. When you say "use unbounded reverseQuery to achieve reverseAll" do > you mean "use unbounded RangeQuery to achieve reverseAll"? as far as I > can > tell we don't have a reverseQuery as a named object? > > > Looking good so far > > best, > Walker > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:13 PM Colt McNealy <c...@littlehorse.io> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
