Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Agreed. Best, Taewoo On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Yingyi Bu wrote: > >> When we are encounter a field (“nested”) for which the is no > compile-time information > >> we should assume that the type of this field is completely open, i.e., > {}, and pass it down the chain.

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

>> When we are encounter a field (“nested”) for which the is no compile-time information >> we should assume that the type of this field is completely open, i.e., {}, and pass it down the chain. Correct, since it's enforced. The augmented enforced type maps should be recursively added into those

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

@Ildar: Yes. The current implementation requires that. So, I asked whether which one makes sense. Best, Taewoo On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Ildar Absalyamov < ildar.absalya...@gmail.com> wrote: > Taewoo, > > You’ve correctly identified the issue here: to make use of an enforced > index we

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

@Ildar: you can change "create type CSXType as closed {id: int32}" to "create type CSXType as *open* {id: int32}". My intention was that. Best, Taewoo On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Ildar Absalyamov < ildar.absalya...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe I missed something, but how nested access on a

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

However, there should be a way to deal with this issue when the top-level type is open. create type DBLPType as open {id: int32} create index title_index_DBLP on DBLP(nested.one.title: string?) enforced; When we are encounter a field (“nested”) for which the is no compile-time information we

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Taewoo, You’ve correctly identified the issue here: to make use of an enforced index we must cast the record to a particular type, which is imposed by the index. So, using your example, if we have an index on path “nested.one.title” the indexed record must be castable to {…, “nested”:

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Maybe I missed something, but how nested access on a closed type without a proper nested field is ever valid? create type CSXType as closed {id: int32} create index title_index_CSX on CSX(nested.one.title: string?) enforced; Will this index every be anything but empty? for $a in

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Note that indexes can ONLY be associated with datasets - so it would seem (w/o looking at the code :-)) that maybe the required info could be hung at the top level in (path, type) form as an extension of the dataset's top-level record type. E.g., given something like CREATE DATASET

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

@Yingyi: thanks. @Mike: Yeah. My problem is how to associate the field type information. Ideally, the leaf level has the field to type hash map and the parent of it has that hashmap in its record type. And its parent needs to have the necessary information to reach to this record type. If we

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Taewoo, To clarify further what should work: - We should support nested indexes that go down multiple levels. - We should (ideally) support their use in index-NL joins. Reflecting on our earlier conversation(s), I think I can see why you're asking this. :-) The augmented type information

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Hi Taewoo, The first query shouldn't fail because indexnl is just a hint. The second query should succeed because it's a valid indexing statement. High nesting levels in open record like JSON is not uncommon. Best, Yingyi On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Taewoo Kim wrote:

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

@Mike: In order to properly deal with the enforced index on a nested-type field, I need to make sure that whether my understanding (each nested type (except the leaf level0 has a record type for the next level) is correct or not. Which one is a bug? The first one (without index) should fail? Or

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Indeed, it's a bug! Best, Yingyi On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Mike Carey wrote: > Sounds like a bug to me. > > > > On 7/13/17 7:59 PM, Taewoo Kim wrote: > >> Currently, I am working on a field type propagation without using >> initializing the OptimizableSubTree in the

Re: Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Sounds like a bug to me. On 7/13/17 7:59 PM, Taewoo Kim wrote: Currently, I am working on a field type propagation without using initializing the OptimizableSubTree in the current index access method. I am encountering an issue with an open-type enforced index. So, I just want to make sure

Nested type + open-enforced-index question.

Currently, I am working on a field type propagation without using initializing the OptimizableSubTree in the current index access method. I am encountering an issue with an open-type enforced index. So, I just want to make sure that my understanding is correct. It looks like we can't have an