Re: IGNITE-13364: Improve index inline defaults

[Maksim Timonin <ti...@gmail.com>]

Hi!

JFYI, it was merged to master today, then this patch will be part of 2.12
only.


On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:00 PM Maksim Timonin <ti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've prepared a patch for this feature. Can anybody have a look at it?
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9167
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13364
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:14 PM Maksim Timonin <ti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I've left a comment in your PR, could you please have a look?
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 6:09 AM 18624049226 <18...@163.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello team,
>>>
>>> I think this is a very valuable optimization. This patch has been
>>> developed for a long time, I don't think there is any reason to continue
>>> to delay the release of this patch to version 2.12.
>>> Is anyone willing to push this forward and merge this patch into the
>>> master?
>>>
>>> 2021/1/27 下午4:52, Maxim Muzafarov 写道:
>>> > Stanislav,
>>> >
>>> >> I think the most compatibility impact will be on the in-memory caches
>>> with SQL and without explicitly specified inline sizes.
>>> > I don't think that this is `true` compatibility issue. But I think we
>>> > should at least mentioned it on our documentation pages and in the
>>> > release notes. So, I'm +1 to proceed with the merge.
>>> >
>>> > Should we include the issue into 2.10 release?
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 16:50, Stanislav Lukyanov <
>>> stanlukyanov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Hi Igniters,
>>> >>
>>> >> I'd like to discuss the change implemented by Evgeniy Rudenko in the
>>> ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13364.
>>> >> I see that the fix is ready for review and merging, and I'm
>>> interested in it so I'd like to pick it up on the last mile.
>>> >> I also wanted to bring community's attention to it before the merge
>>> as it changes the default behavior.
>>> >>
>>> >> The patch changes how SQL index inline size is calculated.
>>> >>
>>> >> Specifically:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. When inline size is calculated for a variable-sized field, a
>>> constant 10 (configurable via IGNITE_VARIABLE_TYPE_DEFAULT_INDEX_SIZE) is
>>> added to the calculated size instead of setting the entire calculation
>>> result to 10.
>>> >> For example, consider the following cases
>>> >>
>>> >> Index (int, int, string)
>>> >> Before the change: inline size = 10
>>> >> After the change: inline size = 5 + 5 + 10 = 20
>>> >>
>>> >> Index (long, long, long, long,  string)
>>> >> Before the change: inline size = 10
>>> >> After the change: inline size = 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 10 = 46
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. If there is a VARCHAR_FIXED, e.g. VARCHAR(5), then instead of the
>>> default IGNITE_VARIABLE_TYPE_DEFAULT_INDEX_SIZE Ignite will use the value
>>> provided in the calculation
>>> >>
>>> >> 3. If the calculated size exceeds
>>> IGNITE_MAX_INDEX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_DEFAULT=64, it will be truncated to 64.
>>> >>
>>> >> All of this only affects calculated inline sizes of new indexes.
>>> >> Existing indexes should not be affected.
>>> >> Indexes with explicitly specified inline size should not be affected.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think the most compatibility impact will be on the in-memory caches
>>> with SQL and without explicitly specified inline sizes.
>>> >> After the upgrade these caches may slightly increase in size (because
>>> the inline is likely to become bigger) while SQL is also likely to become
>>> faster.
>>> >>
>>> >> Please comment.
>>> >> If there are no concerns, I'll proceed with finding a committer to
>>> review and merge the fix at the end of the next week.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Stan
>>>
>>