You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com> on 2018/12/04 12:27:02 UTC
Re: Case sensitive indexes question.
I think that this is not an exceptional case, as nothing is broken.
Throwing exception may make migration from other systems harder. Warning
should be enough.
Also remember that all SQL caches already have 1-2 automatic indexes out of
the box, and we haven't seen much performance complaints about that.
Additional duplicate index will not lead to severe performance degradation
or system stall.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:52 PM Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Zhenya,
>
> Vladimir suggested not to restrict anything. However, my opinion is to
> throw exception on duplicating indexes. We should better add ability to
> rename index if it can be useful for anyone. Having same field set indexed
> with same index type is pretty strange and adds a lot of risk for
> performance of the system. If this is hard to support in 2.x then let's do
> it in 3.0. Vladimir, what do you think?
>
> -- Yakov
>
Re: Case sensitive indexes question.
Posted by Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>.
Hi Zhenya,
Yes, will do in the nearest time.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky
<ar...@mail.ru.invalid> wrote:
> i fill the ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10654 ,
> Vladimir can u check it?
>
> thanks.
>
>
> >Суббота, 15 декабря 2018, 20:11 +03:00 от stanilovsky evgeny <
> estanilovskiy@gridgain.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> >------- Forwarded message -------
> >From: "Vladimir Ozerov" < vozerov@gridgain.com >
> >To: dev < dev@ignite.apache.org >
> >Cc: arzamas123@mail.ru
> >Subject: Re: Case sensitive indexes question.
> >Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:27:02 +0300
> >
> >I think that this is not an exceptional case, as nothing is broken.
> >Throwing exception may make migration from other systems harder. Warning
> >should be enough.
> >Also remember that all SQL caches already have 1-2 automatic indexes out
> of
> >the box, and we haven't seen much performance complaints about that.
> >Additional duplicate index will not lead to severe performance degradation
> >or system stall.
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:52 PM Yakov Zhdanov < yzhdanov@apache.org >
> wrote:
> >
> >> Zhenya,
> >>
> >> Vladimir suggested not to restrict anything. However, my opinion is to
> >> throw exception on duplicating indexes. We should better add ability to
> >> rename index if it can be useful for anyone. Having same field set
> >> indexed
> >> with same index type is pretty strange and adds a lot of risk for
> >> performance of the system. If this is hard to support in 2.x then let's
> >> do
> >> it in 3.0. Vladimir, what do you think?
> >>
> >> -- Yakov
>
>
> --
> Zhenya Stanilovsky
>
Re: Case sensitive indexes question.
Posted by Zhenya Stanilovsky <ar...@mail.ru.INVALID>.
i fill the ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10654 , Vladimir can u check it?
thanks.
>Суббота, 15 декабря 2018, 20:11 +03:00 от stanilovsky evgeny <es...@gridgain.com>:
>
>
>
>------- Forwarded message -------
>From: "Vladimir Ozerov" < vozerov@gridgain.com >
>To: dev < dev@ignite.apache.org >
>Cc: arzamas123@mail.ru
>Subject: Re: Case sensitive indexes question.
>Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:27:02 +0300
>
>I think that this is not an exceptional case, as nothing is broken.
>Throwing exception may make migration from other systems harder. Warning
>should be enough.
>Also remember that all SQL caches already have 1-2 automatic indexes out of
>the box, and we haven't seen much performance complaints about that.
>Additional duplicate index will not lead to severe performance degradation
>or system stall.
>
>On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:52 PM Yakov Zhdanov < yzhdanov@apache.org > wrote:
>
>> Zhenya,
>>
>> Vladimir suggested not to restrict anything. However, my opinion is to
>> throw exception on duplicating indexes. We should better add ability to
>> rename index if it can be useful for anyone. Having same field set
>> indexed
>> with same index type is pretty strange and adds a lot of risk for
>> performance of the system. If this is hard to support in 2.x then let's
>> do
>> it in 3.0. Vladimir, what do you think?
>>
>> -- Yakov
--
Zhenya Stanilovsky