Hi,

This is good news, now lets hope Luca can find resources for this soon.

Regards,
 -Stefán

On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 11:10:55 UTC, Steve Coughlan wrote:
>
>  Hi Stefan,
>
> Progress has been slow although as I ran into the usual issue, got bogged 
> down in issues, became obsessed, ended up spending far more time than I 
> expected, got it the shit from my employer for neglecting my work, panicked 
> to catch up, never got back to it ;)
>
> However I did push an update a couple of days ago.  Although many of the 
> extra's have not been addressed I'm now able to persist a binary record 
> inside orientdb in and retrieve it after a restart (proving that it's 
> deserialized from disk not from cache).  Which implies also being able to 
> persist the drstically altered schema structure.
>
> Since I had made the field-level serializer pluggable I've been a 
> jackson-json as the serialization mechanism for easy debugging.  Now I need 
> to adjust the existing ODB binary serializers.  They all embed data-length 
> in the serialized data, which we don't need to do since we store it in 
> headers.  And I've adjusted the interface slightly.  So I just need to 
> massage the existing binary serializers a little to fit the new interface 
> and we will be back to full binary serialization.
>
> So... some progress, no where near as much as I'd hoped but now that it 
> actually works inside ODB (before we could only serialize/deserialize to 
> byte arrays using dummy schema objects) I believe it's at a point where we 
> can get other ODB developers involved to review/test/contribute.
>
> I've just noticed a post Luca made a while back that I missed that he'd 
> employed someone who'll be focussed on this so I hope we can work together 
> on the rest of the integration.  Honestly integration has been the hardest 
> part.  I've learned an awful lot about the internals of ODB the hard way 
> (apologies for blunt comment but the documentation is awful and it's very 
> hard to distinguish what is internal/public API) and also learned I've 
> probably only touched a tiny fraction of it.
>
>
> On 14/05/14 19:40, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote:
>  
> Hi, 
>
>  Has something newsworthy happened on this?  :)
>
>  Best regards,
>   -Stefán
>
>
> On Friday, 18 April 2014 13:57:07 UTC, Lvc@ wrote: 
>>
>>    
>>>  Slightly different issue I think.  I wasn't clear I was actually 
>>> talking versioning of individual class schemas rather than global schema 
>>> version.  This is the part that allows to modify schema and (in some cases) 
>>> avoid having to scan/rewrite all records in the class.  Although this is a 
>>> nice feature to have it's really quite a seperate problem from binary 
>>> serialization so I decided to treat them as seperate issues since trying to 
>>> deal with both at once was really bogging me down.   Looking at your issue 
>>> though I'd note that my subsclasses of OClassImpl and OPropertyImpl are 
>>> actually immutable once constructed so this might help the schema-wide 
>>> immutability.
>>>
>>
>>  Good, this would simplify that issue.
>>  
>>
>>>     Also realised that per record compression will be rather easy to 
>>>> do... But that's in the extras bucket so will leave that as a bonus prize 
>>>> once the core functions are sorted and stable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  We already have per record compression, what do you mean? 
>>>   
>>>
>>>  I wasn't aware of this.  Perhaps this occurs in the Raw database layer 
>>> of the code?  I haven't come across any compression code.  If you already 
>>> have per record compression does this negate any potential value to per 
>>> field compression?  i.e. if (string.length > 1000) compressString()
>>>
>>
>>  We compress at storage level, but always, not with a threshold. This 
>> brings to no compression benefits in case of small records, so compression 
>> at marshalling time would be preferable: drivers could send compressed 
>> records to improve network I/O.
>>
>>  Lvc@
>>
>>   
>>   
>  -- 
>
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "OrientDB" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> 

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"OrientDB" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to