12:10 p.m.
Hello all,
currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of the
cache it was registered in.
If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches, there
will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in background,
and they are all unaware of each other.
After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
calling attention on something that bothered me since some time, I'd
evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across indexed
caches.
Current design limitations:
A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll share
the index without being aware of each other. This is going to break
unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
performance won't be great: instances will lock each other out, or at
best write in alternate turns.
B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy", still it would be
nice to share some components and internal services.
C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating each
instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar but
not totally equal)
D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed not
only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This prevents
Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same index. Is
it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but wonder if
it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be set on
the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking forward to
use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better configuration
experience than the current <properties />.
3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need to be
able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index view but
extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of "which index"..
I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different caches in
different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the user
defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the user
defined string.
Any comment?
Cheers,
Sanne
5:25 a.m.
On 10 Apr 2012, at 18:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Hello all,
currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of the
cache it was registered in.
If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches, there
will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in background,
and they are all unaware of each other.
After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
calling attention on something that bothered me since some time, I'd
evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across indexed
caches.
Current design limitations:
A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll share
the index without being aware of each other. This is going to break
unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
performance won't be great: instances will lock each other out, or at
best write in alternate turns.
B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy", still it would be
nice to share some components and internal services.
C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating each
instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar but
not totally equal)
D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed not
only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This prevents
Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same index. Is
it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but wonder if
it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
Alternatively you could namespace the index based on cache name?
2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be
set on
the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking forward to
use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better configuration
experience than the current <properties />.
+1
3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need to
be
able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index view but
extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of "which index"..
I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different caches in
different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the user
defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the user
defined string.
This could be generated, as I suggested above?
Sounds good though, you're right that the Hibernate Search engine could and should be
shared across caches.
Cheers
Manik
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org
5:47 a.m.
On 10 avr. 2012, at 19:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Hello all,
currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of the
cache it was registered in.
If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches, there
will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in background,
and they are all unaware of each other.
After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
calling attention on something that bothered me since some time, I'd
evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across indexed
caches.
Current design limitations:
A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll share
the index without being aware of each other. This is going to break
unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
performance won't be great: instances will lock each other out, or at
best write in alternate turns.
B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy", still it would be
nice to share some components and internal services.
C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating each
instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar but
not totally equal)
D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed not
only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This prevents
Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same index. Is
it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but wonder if
it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
I would not expect that. Unicity in Hibernate Search is not defined per identity but per
class + provided id.
I can see people reusing the same class as partial DTO and willing to index that. I can
even see people
using the Hibernate Search programmatic API to index the "DTO" stored in cache 2
differently than the
domain class stored in cache 1.
I can concede that I am pushing a bit the use case towards bad-ish design approaches.
2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be
set on
the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking forward to
use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better configuration
experience than the current <properties />.
3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need to be
able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index view but
extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of "which index"..
I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different caches in
different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the user
defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the user
defined string.
Any comment?
Cheers,
Sanne
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
5:59 a.m.
Up this: it was proposed again today ad a face to face meeting.
Apparently multiple parties have been asking to be able to run
cross-cache queries.
Sanne
On 11 April 2012 12:47, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
On 10 avr. 2012, at 19:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Hello all,
> currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
> specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
> interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of the
> cache it was registered in.
>
> If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches, there
> will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in background,
> and they are all unaware of each other.
>
> After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
> calling attention on something that bothered me since some time, I'd
> evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
> registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across indexed
> caches.
>
> Current design limitations:
>
> A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
> store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll share
> the index without being aware of each other. This is going to break
> unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
> performance won't be great: instances will lock each other out, or at
> best write in alternate turns.
> B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy", still it would be
> nice to share some components and internal services.
> C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
> JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating each
> instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar but
> not totally equal)
> D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed not
> only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This prevents
> Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
>
> Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
>
> 1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
> stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same index. Is
> it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but wonder if
> it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
I would not expect that. Unicity in Hibernate Search is not defined per identity but per
class + provided id.
I can see people reusing the same class as partial DTO and willing to index that. I can
even see people
using the Hibernate Search programmatic API to index the "DTO" stored in cache
2 differently than the
domain class stored in cache 1.
I can concede that I am pushing a bit the use case towards bad-ish design approaches.
> 2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be set on
> the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking forward to
> use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better configuration
> experience than the current <properties />.
> 3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need to be
> able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
> 3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
> of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
> 3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
> index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index view but
> extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of "which index"..
> I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
>
> It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different caches in
> different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the user
> defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the user
> defined string.
>
> Any comment?
>
> Cheers,
> Sanne
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
7:42 a.m.
By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified Cache API
accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why they ask
for a unified query.
Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better understand what is
really requested?
Emmanuel
On 14 Jan 2014, at 12:59, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org> wrote:
Up this: it was proposed again today ad a face to face meeting.
Apparently multiple parties have been asking to be able to run
cross-cache queries.
Sanne
On 11 April 2012 12:47, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> On 10 avr. 2012, at 19:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
>> specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
>> interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of the
>> cache it was registered in.
>>
>> If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches, there
>> will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in background,
>> and they are all unaware of each other.
>>
>> After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
>> calling attention on something that bothered me since some time, I'd
>> evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
>> registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across indexed
>> caches.
>>
>> Current design limitations:
>>
>> A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
>> store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll share
>> the index without being aware of each other. This is going to break
>> unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
>> performance won't be great: instances will lock each other out, or at
>> best write in alternate turns.
>> B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy", still it would be
>> nice to share some components and internal services.
>> C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
>> JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating each
>> instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar but
>> not totally equal)
>> D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed not
>> only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This prevents
>> Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
>>
>> Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
>>
>> 1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
>> stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same index. Is
>> it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but wonder if
>> it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
>
> I would not expect that. Unicity in Hibernate Search is not defined per identity but
per class + provided id.
> I can see people reusing the same class as partial DTO and willing to index that. I
can even see people
> using the Hibernate Search programmatic API to index the "DTO" stored in
cache 2 differently than the
> domain class stored in cache 1.
> I can concede that I am pushing a bit the use case towards bad-ish design
approaches.
>
>> 2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be set on
>> the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking forward to
>> use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better configuration
>> experience than the current <properties />.
>> 3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need to be
>> able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
>> 3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
>> of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
>> 3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
>> index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index view but
>> extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of "which index"..
>> I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
>>
>> It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different caches in
>> different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the user
>> defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the user
>> defined string.
>>
>> Any comment?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sanne
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
12:22 p.m.
On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a
unified Cache API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully
understanding why they ask for a unified query.
Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better understand what is
really requested?
IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several caches makes the
programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to a single entity
type, with potentially different configuration. Besides the query API that would need to
be extended to support accessing multiple caches, not sure what other APIs would need to
be extended to take advantage of this?
Emmanuel
On 14 Jan 2014, at 12:59, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org> wrote:
> Up this: it was proposed again today ad a face to face meeting.
> Apparently multiple parties have been asking to be able to run
> cross-cache queries.
>
> Sanne
>
> On 11 April 2012 12:47, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 10 avr. 2012, at 19:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>> currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
>>> specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
>>> interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of the
>>> cache it was registered in.
>>>
>>> If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches, there
>>> will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in background,
>>> and they are all unaware of each other.
>>>
>>> After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
>>> calling attention on something that bothered me since some time, I'd
>>> evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
>>> registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across indexed
>>> caches.
>>>
>>> Current design limitations:
>>>
>>> A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
>>> store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll share
>>> the index without being aware of each other. This is going to break
>>> unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
>>> performance won't be great: instances will lock each other out, or at
>>> best write in alternate turns.
>>> B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy", still it would
be
>>> nice to share some components and internal services.
>>> C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
>>> JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating each
>>> instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar but
>>> not totally equal)
>>> D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed not
>>> only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This prevents
>>> Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
>>>
>>> Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
>>>
>>> 1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
>>> stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same index. Is
>>> it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but wonder if
>>> it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
>>
>> I would not expect that. Unicity in Hibernate Search is not defined per identity
but per class + provided id.
>> I can see people reusing the same class as partial DTO and willing to index that.
I can even see people
>> using the Hibernate Search programmatic API to index the "DTO" stored
in cache 2 differently than the
>> domain class stored in cache 1.
>> I can concede that I am pushing a bit the use case towards bad-ish design
approaches.
>>
>>> 2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be set on
>>> the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking forward to
>>> use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better configuration
>>> experience than the current <properties />.
>>> 3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need to be
>>> able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
>>> 3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
>>> of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
>>> 3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
>>> index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index view but
>>> extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of "which
index"..
>>> I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
>>>
>>> It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different caches in
>>> different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the user
>>> defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the user
>>> defined string.
>>>
>>> Any comment?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Sanne
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
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)
3:42 a.m.
On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified Cache API
accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why they ask
for a unified query.
> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better understand what is
really requested?
IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several caches makes the
programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to a single entity
type, with potentially different configuration.
Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO, it just adds
clutter.
Just yesterday I discovered this gem in Scala's Shapeless extensions [1]. This is
experimental stuff but essentially it allows to define what the key/value type pairs a map
will contain, and it does type checking at compile time. I almost wet my pants when I saw
that ;) :p. In the example, it defines a map as containing Int -> String, and String
-> Int key/value pairs. If you try to add an Int -> Int, it fails compilation.
Java's type checking is not powerful enough to do this, and it's compilation logic
is not extendable in the same way Scala macros does, but I think the fact that other
languages are looking into this validates Paul's suggestion in [2], on top of all the
benefits listed there.
Cheers,
[1]
https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/wiki/Feature-overview:-shapeless-...
[2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3640
Besides the query API that would need to be extended to support
accessing multiple caches, not sure what other APIs would need to be extended to take
advantage of this?
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 12:59, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org> wrote:
>
>> Up this: it was proposed again today ad a face to face meeting.
>> Apparently multiple parties have been asking to be able to run
>> cross-cache queries.
>>
>> Sanne
>>
>> On 11 April 2012 12:47, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10 avr. 2012, at 19:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
>>>> specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
>>>> interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of the
>>>> cache it was registered in.
>>>>
>>>> If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches, there
>>>> will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in background,
>>>> and they are all unaware of each other.
>>>>
>>>> After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
>>>> calling attention on something that bothered me since some time, I'd
>>>> evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
>>>> registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across indexed
>>>> caches.
>>>>
>>>> Current design limitations:
>>>>
>>>> A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
>>>> store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll share
>>>> the index without being aware of each other. This is going to break
>>>> unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
>>>> performance won't be great: instances will lock each other out, or
at
>>>> best write in alternate turns.
>>>> B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy", still it
would be
>>>> nice to share some components and internal services.
>>>> C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
>>>> JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating each
>>>> instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar but
>>>> not totally equal)
>>>> D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed not
>>>> only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This prevents
>>>> Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
>>>>
>>>> Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
>>>>
>>>> 1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
>>>> stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same index.
Is
>>>> it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but wonder
if
>>>> it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
>>>
>>> I would not expect that. Unicity in Hibernate Search is not defined per
identity but per class + provided id.
>>> I can see people reusing the same class as partial DTO and willing to index
that. I can even see people
>>> using the Hibernate Search programmatic API to index the "DTO"
stored in cache 2 differently than the
>>> domain class stored in cache 1.
>>> I can concede that I am pushing a bit the use case towards bad-ish design
approaches.
>>>
>>>> 2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be set on
>>>> the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking forward to
>>>> use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better configuration
>>>> experience than the current <properties />.
>>>> 3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need to be
>>>> able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
>>>> 3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
>>>> of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
>>>> 3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
>>>> index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index view but
>>>> extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of "which
index"..
>>>> I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
>>>>
>>>> It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different caches in
>>>> different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the user
>>>> defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the user
>>>> defined string.
>>>>
>>>> Any comment?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Sanne
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Galder Zamarreño
galder(a)redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante
http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan
http://infinispan.org
1:51 p.m.
On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified Cache
API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why they
ask for a unified query.
>> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better understand what
is really requested?
>
> IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several caches makes
the programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to a single
entity type, with potentially different configuration.
Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO, it just adds
clutter.
Not sure I follow: having a cache that contains both Cars and Persons sound more
cluttering to me. I think it's cumbersome to write any kind of querying with an
heterogenous cache, e.g. Map/Reduce tasks that need to count all the green Cars would
need to be aware of Persons and ignore them. Not only it is harder to write, but
discourages code reuse and makes it hard to maintain (if you'll add Pets in the same
cache in future you need to update the M/R code as well). And of course there are also
different cache-based configuration options that are not immediately obvious (at design
time) but will be in the future (there are more Persons than Cars, they live longer/expiry
etc): mixing everything together in the same cache from the begging is a design decision
that might bite you in the future.
The way I see it - and very curious to see your opinion on this - following an database
analogy, the CacheManager corresponds to an Database and the Cache to a Table. Hence my
thought that queries spreading multiple caches are both useful and needed (same as query
spreading over multiple tables).
Just yesterday I discovered this gem in Scala's Shapeless extensions [1]. This is
experimental stuff but essentially it allows to define what the key/value type pairs a map
will contain, and it does type checking at compile time. I almost wet my pants when I saw
that ;) :p. In the example, it defines a map as containing Int -> String, and String
-> Int key/value pairs. If you try to add an Int -> Int, it fails compilation.
Agreed the compile time check is pretty awesome :-) Still mix and matching types in a Map
doesn't look great to me for ISPN.
Java's type checking is not powerful enough to do this, and it's compilation
logic is not extendable in the same way Scala macros does, but I think the fact that other
languages are looking into this validates Paul's suggestion in [2], on top of all the
benefits listed there.
Cheers,
[1]
https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/wiki/Feature-overview:-shapeless-...
[2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3640
> Besides the query API that would need to be extended to support accessing multiple
caches, not sure what other APIs would need to be extended to take advantage of this?
>
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 12:59, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Up this: it was proposed again today ad a face to face meeting.
>>> Apparently multiple parties have been asking to be able to run
>>> cross-cache queries.
>>>
>>> Sanne
>>>
>>> On 11 April 2012 12:47, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10 avr. 2012, at 19:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>> currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
>>>>> specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
>>>>> interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of
the
>>>>> cache it was registered in.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches, there
>>>>> will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in background,
>>>>> and they are all unaware of each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
>>>>> calling attention on something that bothered me since some time,
I'd
>>>>> evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
>>>>> registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across indexed
>>>>> caches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Current design limitations:
>>>>>
>>>>> A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
>>>>> store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll
share
>>>>> the index without being aware of each other. This is going to break
>>>>> unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
>>>>> performance won't be great: instances will lock each other out,
or at
>>>>> best write in alternate turns.
>>>>> B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy", still
it would be
>>>>> nice to share some components and internal services.
>>>>> C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
>>>>> JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating
each
>>>>> instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar but
>>>>> not totally equal)
>>>>> D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed not
>>>>> only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This prevents
>>>>> Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
>>>>>
>>>>> Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
>>>>> stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same
index. Is
>>>>> it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but
wonder if
>>>>> it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
>>>>
>>>> I would not expect that. Unicity in Hibernate Search is not defined per
identity but per class + provided id.
>>>> I can see people reusing the same class as partial DTO and willing to
index that. I can even see people
>>>> using the Hibernate Search programmatic API to index the "DTO"
stored in cache 2 differently than the
>>>> domain class stored in cache 1.
>>>> I can concede that I am pushing a bit the use case towards bad-ish design
approaches.
>>>>
>>>>> 2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be set
on
>>>>> the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking forward
to
>>>>> use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better configuration
>>>>> experience than the current <properties />.
>>>>> 3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need to
be
>>>>> able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
>>>>> 3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
>>>>> of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
>>>>> 3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
>>>>> index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index view
but
>>>>> extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of "which
index"..
>>>>> I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different caches
in
>>>>> different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the
user
>>>>> defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the user
>>>>> defined string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comment?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Sanne
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
--
Galder Zamarreño
galder(a)redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante
http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan
http://infinispan.org
_______________________________________________
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)
1:30 a.m.
On 01/30/2014 08:51 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Galder Zamarreño
<galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified
Cache API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why
they ask for a unified query.
>>> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better understand
what is really requested?
>> IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several caches
makes the programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to a
single entity type, with potentially different configuration.
> Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO, it just
adds clutter.
Not sure I follow: having a cache that contains both Cars and Persons sound more
cluttering to me. I think it's cumbersome to write any kind of querying with an
heterogenous cache, e.g. Map/Reduce tasks that need to count all the green Cars would
need to be aware of Persons and ignore them. Not only it is harder to write, but
discourages code reuse and makes it hard to maintain (if you'll add Pets in the same
cache in future you need to update the M/R code as well). And of course there are also
different cache-based configuration options that are not immediately obvious (at design
time) but will be in the future (there are more Persons than Cars, they live longer/expiry
etc): mixing everything together in the same cache from the begging is a design decision
that might bite you in the future.
The way I see it - and very curious to see your opinion on this - following an database
analogy, the CacheManager corresponds to an Database and the Cache to a Table. Hence my
thought that queries spreading multiple caches are both useful and needed (same as query
spreading over multiple tables).
I would be all hands for this approach, but
there's still one thing
where it makes sense - Animal cache with Cats and Dogs.
Radim
3:39 a.m.
On Jan 31, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 01/30/2014 08:51 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified
Cache API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why
they ask for a unified query.
>>>> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better
understand what is really requested?
>>> IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several
caches makes the programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to
a single entity type, with potentially different configuration.
>> Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO, it
just adds clutter.
> Not sure I follow: having a cache that contains both Cars and Persons sound more
cluttering to me. I think it's cumbersome to write any kind of querying with an
heterogenous cache, e.g. Map/Reduce tasks that need to count all the green Cars would
need to be aware of Persons and ignore them. Not only it is harder to write, but
discourages code reuse and makes it hard to maintain (if you'll add Pets in the same
cache in future you need to update the M/R code as well). And of course there are also
different cache-based configuration options that are not immediately obvious (at design
time) but will be in the future (there are more Persons than Cars, they live longer/expiry
etc): mixing everything together in the same cache from the begging is a design decision
that might bite you in the future.
>
> The way I see it - and very curious to see your opinion on this - following an
database analogy, the CacheManager corresponds to an Database and the Cache to a Table.
Hence my thought that queries spreading multiple caches are both useful and needed (same
as query spreading over multiple tables).
I would be all hands for this approach, but there's still one thing
where it makes sense - Animal cache with Cats and Dogs.
Not a good idea to keep cats and dogs together :-)
Would it be a problem iff the user works with Animals only?
Cheers,
--
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)
2:28 a.m.
On 30 janv. 2014, at 20:51, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified
Cache API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why
they ask for a unified query.
>>> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better understand
what is really requested?
>>
>> IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several caches
makes the programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to a
single entity type, with potentially different configuration.
>
> Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO, it just
adds clutter.
Not sure I follow: having a cache that contains both Cars and Persons sound more
cluttering to me. I think it's cumbersome to write any kind of querying with an
heterogenous cache, e.g. Map/Reduce tasks that need to count all the green Cars would
need to be aware of Persons and ignore them. Not only it is harder to write, but
discourages code reuse and makes it hard to maintain (if you'll add Pets in the same
cache in future you need to update the M/R code as well). And of course there are also
different cache-based configuration options that are not immediately obvious (at design
time) but will be in the future (there are more Persons than Cars, they live longer/expiry
etc): mixing everything together in the same cache from the begging is a design decision
that might bite you in the future.
The way I see it - and very curious to see your opinion on this - following an database
analogy, the CacheManager corresponds to an Database and the Cache to a Table. Hence my
thought that queries spreading multiple caches are both useful and needed (same as query
spreading over multiple tables).
I know Sanne and you are keen to have one entity type per cache to be able to fine tune
the configuration. I am a little more skeptical but I don't have strong opinions on
the subject.
However, I don't think you can forbid the case where people want to store heterogenous
types in the same cache:
- it's easy to start with
- configuration is indeed simpler
- when you work in the same service with cats, dogs, owners, addresses and refuges,
juggling between these n Cache instances begins to be fugly I suspect - should write some
application code to confirm
- people will add to the grid types unknown at configuration time. They might want a
single bucket.
Btw with the distributed execution engine, it looks reasonably simple to migrate data from
one cache to another. I imagine you can also focus only on the keys whose node is primary
which should limit data transfers. Am I missing something?
11:36 a.m.
On 31 Jan 2014, at 09:28, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
> On 30 janv. 2014, at 20:51, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard
<emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified
Cache API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why
they ask for a unified query.
>>>> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better
understand what is really requested?
>>>
>>> IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several
caches makes the programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to
a single entity type, with potentially different configuration.
>>
>> Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO, it
just adds clutter.
>
> Not sure I follow: having a cache that contains both Cars and Persons sound more
cluttering to me. I think it's cumbersome to write any kind of querying with an
heterogenous cache, e.g. Map/Reduce tasks that need to count all the green Cars would
need to be aware of Persons and ignore them. Not only it is harder to write, but
discourages code reuse and makes it hard to maintain (if you'll add Pets in the same
cache in future you need to update the M/R code as well). And of course there are also
different cache-based configuration options that are not immediately obvious (at design
time) but will be in the future (there are more Persons than Cars, they live longer/expiry
etc): mixing everything together in the same cache from the begging is a design decision
that might bite you in the future.
>
> The way I see it - and very curious to see your opinion on this - following an
database analogy, the CacheManager corresponds to an Database and the Cache to a Table.
Hence my thought that queries spreading multiple caches are both useful and needed (same
as query spreading over multiple tables).
I know Sanne and you are keen to have one entity type per cache to be able to fine tune
the configuration. I am a little more skeptical but I don't have strong opinions on
the subject.
However, I don't think you can forbid the case where people want to store
heterogenous types in the same cache:
- it's easy to start with
- configuration is indeed simpler
- when you work in the same service with cats, dogs, owners, addresses and refuges,
juggling between these n Cache instances begins to be fugly I suspect - should write some
application code to confirm
- people will add to the grid types unknown at configuration time. They might want a
single bucket.
+100
Btw with the distributed execution engine, it looks reasonably simple to migrate data
from one cache to another. I imagine you can also focus only on the keys whose node is
primary which should limit data transfers. Am I missing something?
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Galder Zamarreño
galder(a)redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante
http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan
http://infinispan.org
10:36 a.m.
On Feb 17, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 09:28, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On 30 janv. 2014, at 20:51, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard
<emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a
unified Cache API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully
understanding why they ask for a unified query.
>>>>> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better
understand what is really requested?
>>>>
>>>> IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several
caches makes the programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to
a single entity type, with potentially different configuration.
>>>
>>> Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO,
it just adds clutter.
>>
>> Not sure I follow: having a cache that contains both Cars and Persons sound more
cluttering to me. I think it's cumbersome to write any kind of querying with an
heterogenous cache, e.g. Map/Reduce tasks that need to count all the green Cars would
need to be aware of Persons and ignore them. Not only it is harder to write, but
discourages code reuse and makes it hard to maintain (if you'll add Pets in the same
cache in future you need to update the M/R code as well). And of course there are also
different cache-based configuration options that are not immediately obvious (at design
time) but will be in the future (there are more Persons than Cars, they live longer/expiry
etc): mixing everything together in the same cache from the begging is a design decision
that might bite you in the future.
>>
>> The way I see it - and very curious to see your opinion on this - following an
database analogy, the CacheManager corresponds to an Database and the Cache to a Table.
Hence my thought that queries spreading multiple caches are both useful and needed (same
as query spreading over multiple tables).
>
> I know Sanne and you are keen to have one entity type per cache to be able to fine
tune the configuration. I am a little more skeptical but I don't have strong opinions
on the subject.
>
> However, I don't think you can forbid the case where people want to store
heterogenous types in the same cache:
>
> - it's easy to start with
> - configuration is indeed simpler
> - when you work in the same service with cats, dogs, owners, addresses and refuges,
juggling between these n Cache instances begins to be fugly I suspect - should write some
application code to confirm
> - people will add to the grid types unknown at configuration time. They might want a
single bucket.
+100
Totally agreed, there's no plan to forbid people storing heterogenous values in the
same cache. The discussion at hand was actually the other way around: do we want to allow
people to store data in multiple caches? if so we querying across multiple caches makes
sense, hence this email.
Cheers,
--
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)
11:35 a.m.
On 30 Jan 2014, at 20:51, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified
Cache API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why
they ask for a unified query.
>>> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better understand
what is really requested?
>>
>> IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several caches
makes the programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to a
single entity type, with potentially different configuration.
>
> Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO, it just
adds clutter.
Not sure I follow: having a cache that contains both Cars and Persons sound more
cluttering to me. I think it's cumbersome to write any kind of querying with an
heterogenous cache, e.g. Map/Reduce tasks that need to count all the green Cars would
need to be aware of Persons and ignore them. Not only it is harder to write, but
discourages code reuse and makes it hard to maintain (if you'll add Pets in the same
cache in future you need to update the M/R code as well). And of course there are also
different cache-based configuration options that are not immediately obvious (at design
time) but will be in the future (there are more Persons than Cars, they live longer/expiry
etc): mixing everything together in the same cache from the begging is a design decision
that might bite you in the future.
The way I see it - and very curious to see your opinion on this - following an database
analogy, the CacheManager corresponds to an Database and the Cache to a Table. Hence my
thought that queries spreading multiple caches are both useful and needed (same as query
spreading over multiple tables).
My opinion is that seeing it this way is limiting. A key/value store is schemaless. Your
view is forcing a particular schema on how to structure things.
I don’t pretend everyone to store everything in a single cache and of course there will be
situations where it’s not ideal or the best solution, such as in cases like the ones you
mention above, but if you want to do it, for any of the reasons I or Paul mentioned in
[1], it’d be nice to be able to do so.
Cheers,
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3640
>
> Just yesterday I discovered this gem in Scala's Shapeless extensions [1]. This is
experimental stuff but essentially it allows to define what the key/value type pairs a map
will contain, and it does type checking at compile time. I almost wet my pants when I saw
that ;) :p. In the example, it defines a map as containing Int -> String, and String
-> Int key/value pairs. If you try to add an Int -> Int, it fails compilation.
Agreed the compile time check is pretty awesome :-) Still mix and matching types in a Map
doesn't look great to me for ISPN.
>
> Java's type checking is not powerful enough to do this, and it's compilation
logic is not extendable in the same way Scala macros does, but I think the fact that other
languages are looking into this validates Paul's suggestion in [2], on top of all the
benefits listed there.
>
> Cheers,
>
> [1]
https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/wiki/Feature-overview:-shapeless-...
> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3640
>
>> Besides the query API that would need to be extended to support accessing
multiple caches, not sure what other APIs would need to be extended to take advantage of
this?
>>
>>>
>>> Emmanuel
>>>
>>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 12:59, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Up this: it was proposed again today ad a face to face meeting.
>>>> Apparently multiple parties have been asking to be able to run
>>>> cross-cache queries.
>>>>
>>>> Sanne
>>>>
>>>> On 11 April 2012 12:47, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10 avr. 2012, at 19:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>> currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on the
>>>>>> specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
>>>>>> interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole scope of
the
>>>>>> cache it was registered in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches,
there
>>>>>> will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in
background,
>>>>>> and they are all unaware of each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but also
>>>>>> calling attention on something that bothered me since some time,
I'd
>>>>>> evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
>>>>>> registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across
indexed
>>>>>> caches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Current design limitations:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory to
>>>>>> store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes, they'll
share
>>>>>> the index without being aware of each other. This is going to
break
>>>>>> unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even so
>>>>>> performance won't be great: instances will lock each other
out, or at
>>>>>> best write in alternate turns.
>>>>>> B- The search engine isn't particularly "heavy",
still it would be
>>>>>> nice to share some components and internal services.
>>>>>> C- Configuration details which need some care - like injecting a
>>>>>> JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right isolating
each
>>>>>> instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite similar
but
>>>>>> not totally equal)
>>>>>> D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be routed
not
>>>>>> only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This
prevents
>>>>>> Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class is
>>>>>> stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the same
index. Is
>>>>>> it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing, but
wonder if
>>>>>> it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not expect that. Unicity in Hibernate Search is not defined
per identity but per class + provided id.
>>>>> I can see people reusing the same class as partial DTO and willing to
index that. I can even see people
>>>>> using the Hibernate Search programmatic API to index the
"DTO" stored in cache 2 differently than the
>>>>> domain class stored in cache 1.
>>>>> I can concede that I am pushing a bit the use case towards bad-ish
design approaches.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't be
set on
>>>>>> the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking
forward to
>>>>>> use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better
configuration
>>>>>> experience than the current <properties />.
>>>>>> 3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd need
to be
>>>>>> able to figure out from which cache the value should be loaded.
>>>>>> 3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as part
>>>>>> of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
>>>>>> 3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically separate
>>>>>> index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index
view but
>>>>>> extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of
"which index"..
>>>>>> I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different
caches in
>>>>>> different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with the
user
>>>>>> defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the
user
>>>>>> defined string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any comment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Sanne
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> --
> Galder Zamarreño
> galder(a)redhat.com
> twitter.com/galderz
>
> Project Lead, Escalante
> http://escalante.io
>
> Engineer, Infinispan
> http://infinispan.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Galder Zamarreño
galder(a)redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante
http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan
http://infinispan.org
10:32 a.m.
On Feb 17, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 30 Jan 2014, at 20:51, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, people looking for that feature are also asking for a unified
Cache API accessing these several caches right? Otherwise I am not fully understanding why
they ask for a unified query.
>>>> Do you have written detailed use cases somewhere for me to better
understand what is really requested?
>>>
>>> IMO from a user perspective, being able to run queries spreading several
caches makes the programming simplifies the programming model: each cache corresponding to
a single entity type, with potentially different configuration.
>>
>> Not sure if it simplifies things TBH if the configuration is the same. IMO, it
just adds clutter.
>
> Not sure I follow: having a cache that contains both Cars and Persons sound more
cluttering to me. I think it's cumbersome to write any kind of querying with an
heterogenous cache, e.g. Map/Reduce tasks that need to count all the green Cars would
need to be aware of Persons and ignore them. Not only it is harder to write, but
discourages code reuse and makes it hard to maintain (if you'll add Pets in the same
cache in future you need to update the M/R code as well). And of course there are also
different cache-based configuration options that are not immediately obvious (at design
time) but will be in the future (there are more Persons than Cars, they live longer/expiry
etc): mixing everything together in the same cache from the begging is a design decision
that might bite you in the future.
>
> The way I see it - and very curious to see your opinion on this - following an
database analogy, the CacheManager corresponds to an Database and the Cache to a Table.
Hence my thought that queries spreading multiple caches are both useful and needed (same
as query spreading over multiple tables).
My opinion is that seeing it this way is limiting. A key/value store is schemaless. Your
view is forcing a particular schema on how to structure things.
I'm not forcing anything at all, people can still use a Cache<Object,Object> if
they want to. What I'm saying is that, especially for larger application, grouping the
type on caches makes a lot of sense for the users.
I don’t pretend everyone to store everything in a single cache and of course there will
be situations where it’s not ideal or the best solution, such as in cases like the ones
you mention above, but if you want to do it, for any of the reasons I or Paul mentioned in
[1], it’d be nice to be able to do so.
of course, I don't plan to enforce this model at all, as it is useful. Just pondering
on the way the domain model is split between caches.
Cheers,
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3640
>
>>
>> Just yesterday I discovered this gem in Scala's Shapeless extensions [1].
This is experimental stuff but essentially it allows to define what the key/value type
pairs a map will contain, and it does type checking at compile time. I almost wet my pants
when I saw that ;) :p. In the example, it defines a map as containing Int -> String,
and String -> Int key/value pairs. If you try to add an Int -> Int, it fails
compilation.
>
> Agreed the compile time check is pretty awesome :-) Still mix and matching types in a
Map doesn't look great to me for ISPN.
>
>>
>> Java's type checking is not powerful enough to do this, and it's
compilation logic is not extendable in the same way Scala macros does, but I think the
fact that other languages are looking into this validates Paul's suggestion in [2], on
top of all the benefits listed there.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> [1]
https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/wiki/Feature-overview:-shapeless-...
>> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3640
>>
>>> Besides the query API that would need to be extended to support accessing
multiple caches, not sure what other APIs would need to be extended to take advantage of
this?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emmanuel
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 12:59, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Up this: it was proposed again today ad a face to face meeting.
>>>>> Apparently multiple parties have been asking to be able to run
>>>>> cross-cache queries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanne
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11 April 2012 12:47, Emmanuel Bernard
<emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10 avr. 2012, at 19:10, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>> currently Infinispan Query is an interceptor registering on
the
>>>>>>> specific Cache instance which has indexing enabled; one such
>>>>>>> interceptor is doing all what it needs to do in the sole
scope of the
>>>>>>> cache it was registered in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you enable indexing - for example - on 3 different caches,
there
>>>>>>> will be 3 different Hibernate Search engines started in
background,
>>>>>>> and they are all unaware of each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After some design discussions with Ales for CapeDwarf, but
also
>>>>>>> calling attention on something that bothered me since some
time, I'd
>>>>>>> evaluate the option to have a single Hibernate Search Engine
>>>>>>> registered in the CacheManager, and have it shared across
indexed
>>>>>>> caches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Current design limitations:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A- If they are all configured to use the same base directory
to
>>>>>>> store indexes, and happen to have same-named indexes,
they'll share
>>>>>>> the index without being aware of each other. This is going to
break
>>>>>>> unless the user configures some tricky parameters, and even
so
>>>>>>> performance won't be great: instances will lock each
other out, or at
>>>>>>> best write in alternate turns.
>>>>>>> B- The search engine isn't particularly
"heavy", still it would be
>>>>>>> nice to share some components and internal services.
>>>>>>> C- Configuration details which need some care - like
injecting a
>>>>>>> JGroups channel for clustering - needs to be done right
isolating each
>>>>>>> instance (so large parts of configuration would be quite
similar but
>>>>>>> not totally equal)
>>>>>>> D- Incoming messages into a JGroups Receiver need to be
routed not
>>>>>>> only among indexes, but also among Engine instances. This
prevents
>>>>>>> Query to reuse code from Hibernate Search.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problems with a unified Hibernate Search Engine:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1#- Isolation of types / indexes. If the same indexed class
is
>>>>>>> stored in different (indexed) caches, they'll share the
same index. Is
>>>>>>> it a problem? I'm tempted to consider this a good thing,
but wonder if
>>>>>>> it would surprise some users. Would you expect that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would not expect that. Unicity in Hibernate Search is not
defined per identity but per class + provided id.
>>>>>> I can see people reusing the same class as partial DTO and
willing to index that. I can even see people
>>>>>> using the Hibernate Search programmatic API to index the
"DTO" stored in cache 2 differently than the
>>>>>> domain class stored in cache 1.
>>>>>> I can concede that I am pushing a bit the use case towards
bad-ish design approaches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2#- configuration format overhaul: indexing options won't
be set on
>>>>>>> the cache section but in the global section. I'm looking
forward to
>>>>>>> use the schema extensions anyway to provide a better
configuration
>>>>>>> experience than the current <properties />.
>>>>>>> 3#- Assuming 1# is fine, when a search hit is found I'd
need to be
>>>>>>> able to figure out from which cache the value should be
loaded.
>>>>>>> 3#A we could have the cache name encoded in the index, as
part
>>>>>>> of the identifier: {PK,cacheName}
>>>>>>> 3#B we actually shard the index, keeping a physically
separate
>>>>>>> index per cache. This would mean searching on the joint index
view but
>>>>>>> extracting hits from specific indexes to keep track of
"which index"..
>>>>>>> I think we can do that but it's definitely tricky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's likely easier to keep indexed values from different
caches in
>>>>>>> different indexes. that would mean to reject #1 and mess with
the user
>>>>>>> defined index name, to add for example the cache name to the
user
>>>>>>> defined string.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any comment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Sanne
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Galder Zamarreño
>> galder(a)redhat.com
>> twitter.com/galderz
>>
>> Project Lead, Escalante
>> http://escalante.io
>>
>> Engineer, Infinispan
>> http://infinispan.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
--
Galder Zamarreño
galder(a)redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante
http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan
http://infinispan.org
_______________________________________________
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)
3934
days inactive
4619
days old
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
14 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Emmanuel Bernard -
Galder Zamarreño -
Manik Surtani -
Mircea Markus -
Radim Vansa -
Sanne Grinovero