You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Mikhail Cherkasov <mc...@gridgain.com> on 2017/06/01 10:32:44 UTC
Re: contention on DataStructure creation/removing
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Won't it be confusing from a user stand point to have multiple data
> structures with the same name?
>
I won't change this, optionally I can allow to have the same name for
different data structures' types,
but it's better to keep single namespace for all data structures as it's
implemented now.
> Also, what is the performance impact of this
> change?
>
I'm working on a benchmark.
--
Thanks,
Mikhail.
Re: contention on DataStructure creation/removing
Posted by Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>.
Alexey,
I think, that from user's perspective data structures look more like a
library that works on top of caches, not something completely separate and
independent. Most properties from CacheConfiguration make sense for Atomics
and Collections (for example, properties related to rebalancing). We can
always validate cache config in methods that create data structure and
throw exception if it is incorrect.
But simply adding groupName to AtomicConfiguration is fine too.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Agree with Alex.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2017-06-01 17:10 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I do not like this change - we intentionally separated a few properties
>> in AtomicConfiguration that make sense for Atomics, there is not need to
>> get back to cache configuration again. In my understanding, we only need to
>> add groupName to Atomics and Collection configuration.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> 2017-06-01 16:32 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
>>
>>> This is how I see API to create data structures in user-defined caches:
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2058
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> There are other problems with current data structures implementation,
>>>> which are related to new persistence mechanics. For example, take a look at
>>>> this ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5324
>>>> I think the best approach is to store data structures not in special
>>>> system cache, but in user defined ones. All API methods to access data
>>>> structures will have cacheName parameter, and unique identifier will be a
>>>> pair (cacheName, dsName). In this case we won't need a single place to
>>>> store all data structure metadata.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mikhail Cherkasov <
>>>> mcherkasov@gridgain.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Won't it be confusing from a user stand point to have multiple data
>>>>> > structures with the same name?
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't change this, optionally I can allow to have the same name for
>>>>> different data structures' types,
>>>>> but it's better to keep single namespace for all data structures as
>>>>> it's
>>>>> implemented now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Also, what is the performance impact of this
>>>>> > change?
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm working on a benchmark.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Mikhail.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Ilya
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ilya
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Best regards,
Ilya
Re: contention on DataStructure creation/removing
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Agree with Alex.
--Yakov
2017-06-01 17:10 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>:
> I do not like this change - we intentionally separated a few properties in
> AtomicConfiguration that make sense for Atomics, there is not need to get
> back to cache configuration again. In my understanding, we only need to add
> groupName to Atomics and Collection configuration.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> 2017-06-01 16:32 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
>
>> This is how I see API to create data structures in user-defined caches:
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2058
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> There are other problems with current data structures implementation,
>>> which are related to new persistence mechanics. For example, take a look at
>>> this ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5324
>>> I think the best approach is to store data structures not in special
>>> system cache, but in user defined ones. All API methods to access data
>>> structures will have cacheName parameter, and unique identifier will be a
>>> pair (cacheName, dsName). In this case we won't need a single place to
>>> store all data structure metadata.
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mikhail Cherkasov <
>>> mcherkasov@gridgain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Won't it be confusing from a user stand point to have multiple data
>>>> > structures with the same name?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I won't change this, optionally I can allow to have the same name for
>>>> different data structures' types,
>>>> but it's better to keep single namespace for all data structures as it's
>>>> implemented now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Also, what is the performance impact of this
>>>> > change?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on a benchmark.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mikhail.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ilya
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Ilya
>>
>
>
Re: contention on DataStructure creation/removing
Posted by Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>.
I do not like this change - we intentionally separated a few properties in
AtomicConfiguration that make sense for Atomics, there is not need to get
back to cache configuration again. In my understanding, we only need to add
groupName to Atomics and Collection configuration.
Thoughts?
2017-06-01 16:32 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>:
> This is how I see API to create data structures in user-defined caches:
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2058
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There are other problems with current data structures implementation,
>> which are related to new persistence mechanics. For example, take a look at
>> this ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5324
>> I think the best approach is to store data structures not in special
>> system cache, but in user defined ones. All API methods to access data
>> structures will have cacheName parameter, and unique identifier will be a
>> pair (cacheName, dsName). In this case we won't need a single place to
>> store all data structure metadata.
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mikhail Cherkasov <
>> mcherkasov@gridgain.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Won't it be confusing from a user stand point to have multiple data
>>> > structures with the same name?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I won't change this, optionally I can allow to have the same name for
>>> different data structures' types,
>>> but it's better to keep single namespace for all data structures as it's
>>> implemented now.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Also, what is the performance impact of this
>>> > change?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'm working on a benchmark.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mikhail.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Ilya
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ilya
>
Re: contention on DataStructure creation/removing
Posted by Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>.
This is how I see API to create data structures in user-defined caches:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2058
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There are other problems with current data structures implementation,
> which are related to new persistence mechanics. For example, take a look at
> this ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5324
> I think the best approach is to store data structures not in special
> system cache, but in user defined ones. All API methods to access data
> structures will have cacheName parameter, and unique identifier will be a
> pair (cacheName, dsName). In this case we won't need a single place to
> store all data structure metadata.
> What do you think?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mikhail Cherkasov <mcherkasov@gridgain.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Won't it be confusing from a user stand point to have multiple data
>> > structures with the same name?
>> >
>>
>> I won't change this, optionally I can allow to have the same name for
>> different data structures' types,
>> but it's better to keep single namespace for all data structures as it's
>> implemented now.
>>
>>
>> > Also, what is the performance impact of this
>> > change?
>> >
>>
>> I'm working on a benchmark.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Mikhail.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ilya
>
--
Best regards,
Ilya
Re: contention on DataStructure creation/removing
Posted by Ilya Lantukh <il...@gridgain.com>.
Hi all,
There are other problems with current data structures implementation, which
are related to new persistence mechanics. For example, take a look at this
ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5324
I think the best approach is to store data structures not in special system
cache, but in user defined ones. All API methods to access data structures
will have cacheName parameter, and unique identifier will be a pair
(cacheName, dsName). In this case we won't need a single place to store all
data structure metadata.
What do you think?
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mikhail Cherkasov <mc...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Won't it be confusing from a user stand point to have multiple data
> > structures with the same name?
> >
>
> I won't change this, optionally I can allow to have the same name for
> different data structures' types,
> but it's better to keep single namespace for all data structures as it's
> implemented now.
>
>
> > Also, what is the performance impact of this
> > change?
> >
>
> I'm working on a benchmark.
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Mikhail.
>
--
Best regards,
Ilya