On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Justin Deoliveira <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Andrea Aime wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting discussion.
>>>
>>> Som ideas:
>>> - We may be able to use updateSchema with
On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Andrea Aime wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
>> Interesting discussion.
>>
>> Som ideas:
>> - We may be able to use updateSchema with this map of hints to mark which
>> attributes need an index created
>> - The "Info" objects may be ab
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Interesting discussion.
>
> Som ideas:
> - We may be able to use updateSchema with this map of hints to mark which
> attributes need an index created
> - The "Info" objects may be able to report back on what is indexed
> (without disrupting ou
Not much to comment on now but I like the idea and the high level design.
It would be nice to keep naming conventions consistent with things like
VirtualTable. So I might.
- drop the "JDBC" prefix
- use methods named add/remove
Just some initial thoughts.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM, J
Interesting discussion.
Som ideas:
- We may be able to use updateSchema with this map of hints to mark which
attributes need an index created
- The "Info" objects may be able to report back on what is indexed (without
disrupting our feature model classes)
--
Jody Garnett
On 10 December 2013 a
Hi,
currently the JDBCDataStore allows to create feature types. Recently, we
added the ability
to drop existing ones.
One bit of functionality that is still missing is the ability to manipulate
indexes, create and
drop them, which would come in handy for all those situation where you know
you'll
b
