Re: [infinispan-dev] data interoperability and remote querying

On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:45, Manik Surtani wrote: > Yes. We haven't quite designed how remote querying will work, but we have a few ideas. Thanks for sharing :-) > First, let me explain how in-VM indexing works. An object's fields are appropriately annotated so that when it is stored in Infinispan with a put(), Hibernate Search can extract the fields and values, flatten it into a Lucene-friendly "document", and associate it with the entry's key for searching later. > > Now one approach to doing this when storing objects remotely is the serialisation format. A format that can be parsed on the server side for easy indexing. An example of this could be JSON (an appropriate transformation will need to exist on the server side to strip out irrelevant fields before indexing). This would be completely platform-independent, and also support the interop you described below. The drawback? Slow JSON serialisation and deserialization, and a very verbose data stream. What about using our own object definition, based on a fixed number of supported types: e.g. int, long, , bigdecimal, String, Date and some more. Each client object would need to implement the logic to serialize and deserialize itself into this format, using some StremWriters, a bit like our serilizers today. The StreamWritters would be provided be provided by us, for every supported programming language, and would have methods like writeInt,writeLong etc. Another nice thing we can add to this object scheme is versioning, which is useful for rolling upgrades. The server side would then index the known types using lucene. The client should be able to define queries based on these objects and supported types (the query semantic to be defined). Disclaimer: not an original idea, there is already a similar approach used in other datagrids providers.

> > Another approach may be to perform the field extraction on the client side, so that the data sent to the server would be key=XXX (binary), value=YYY (binary), indexing_metadata=ZZZ (JSON). This way the server does not need to be able to parse the value for indexing, since the field data it needs is already provided in a platform-independent manner (JSON). The benefit here is that keys and values can still be binary, and can use an efficient marshaller. The drawback, is that field extraction needs to happen on the client. Not hard for the Java client (bits of Hibernate Search could be reused), but for non-Java clients this may increase complexity of those clients quite a bit (much easier for dynamic language clients - python/ruby). The client would need to build an lucene index itself and send it to the server, I guess Sanne/Emmanuel can comment more on the complexity involved here. Here are some limitations I see to this approach: - cannot define an index at runtime. If we want to do that, the client would need to storm all the data in the system and re-index it. - cannot run a query for data that is not indexed. I think this is a pretty common requirement as well. > This approach does *not* solve your problem below, because for interop you will still need a platform-independent serialisation mechanism like Avro or ProtoBufs for the object <--> blob <--> object conversion. Indeed. I think we should decide what approach we take and if we go for the former, not even suggest Apache Avro but implement our own scheme.

> Personally, I prefer the second approach since it separates concerns (portable indexes vs. portable values) plus would lead to (IMO) a better-performing implementation. I'd love to hear others' thoughts though. I don't like the first approach because of the marshalling overhead. The former

seems complex, doesn't scale(requires the implementation of indexing for every programming language) and limiting (indexes need to be defined a priori, cannot query for non-indexed data).

> > Cheers > Manik > > On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:11, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> That is write the Person object in Java and read a Person object in C#, assume a hotrod client for simplicity. >> Now at some point we'll have to run a query over the same hotrod, something like "give me all the Persons named Mircea". >> At this stage, the server side needs to be aware of the Person object in order to be able to run the query and select the relevant Persons. It needs a schema. Instead of suggesting Avro as an data interoperability protocol, we might want to define and use this schema instead: we'd need it anyway for remote querying and we won't have two ways of doing the same thing. >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Mircea Markus >> Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > -- > Manik Surtani > manik(a)jboss.org > twitter.com/maniksurtani > > Platform Architect, JBoss Data Grid > http://red.ht/data-grid > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev