From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org> To: Kirill Shcherbatov <kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] lua: add key_def lua module Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 05:01:47 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190328020146.lluz4mg5tacpghwv@tkn_work_nb> (raw) In-Reply-To: <d1c3d7d8e7934279da2b8437b4e5105e27167cfd.1553696707.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> Thank you, it works like a charm. I added a fixup commit on top of your patchset (added a test case, updated comments in the test a bit). Also please consider comments below. Vladimir, I CCed you to ask a question at end of the email (the code is on kshch/gh-4025-lua-key-kef-methods branch). WBR, Alexander Turenko. On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:29:28PM +0300, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote: > There are several reasons to add this module: > > * Factor out key parts parsing code from the tuples merger (#3276). > * Support comparing a tuple with a key / a tuple, support merging > key_defs from Lua (#3398). > * Support extracting a key from a tuple (#4025). > > The format of `parts` parameter in the `key_def.new(parts)` call is > compatible with the following structures: > > * box.space[...].index[...].parts; > * net_box_conn.space[...].index[...].parts. > > A key_def instance has the following methods: > > * :extract_key(tuple) -> key (as tuple) > * :compare(tuple_a, tuple_b) -> number > * :compare_with_key(tuple, key) -> number > * :merge(another_key_def) -> new key_def instance > * :totable() -> table > I would add here 'Functions that accept tuple(s) also allow to pass Lua table(s) instead'. > +static int > +lbox_key_def_compare(struct lua_State *L) > +{ > + struct key_def *key_def; > + if (lua_gettop(L) != 3 || (key_def = check_key_def(L, 1)) == NULL) { > + return luaL_error(L, "Usage: key_def:" > + "compare(tuple_a, tuple_b)"); > + } > + > + struct tuple *tuple_a, *tuple_b; > + struct tuple_format *format = box_tuple_format_default(); > + if ((tuple_a = luaT_tuple_new(L, 2, format)) == NULL || > + tuple_validate_parts(key_def, tuple_a) != 0) > + return luaT_error(L); > + tuple_ref(tuple_a); > + if ((tuple_b = luaT_tuple_new(L, 3, format)) == NULL || > + tuple_validate_parts(key_def, tuple_b) != 0) { > + tuple_unref(tuple_a); > + return luaT_error(L); > + } > + tuple_ref(tuple_b); Consider the case when a user get tuples from a local space (or merger) and they have a format that allows to compare faster using precalculated offsets. I think we should not create a new tuple(s) in the case. Applicable for other functions too. > diff --git a/src/box/tuple.h b/src/box/tuple.h > index 8b12fd5a8..faa42fdf7 100644 > --- a/src/box/tuple.h > +++ b/src/box/tuple.h > @@ -672,6 +672,39 @@ tuple_field_by_part(const struct tuple *tuple, struct key_part *part) > tuple_field_map(tuple), part); > } > > +/** > + * Check that tuple match with the key definition. > + * @param key_def Key definition. > + * @param tuple Tuple for matching. > + * @param allow_nullable True if nullable parts are allowed. > + * > + * @retval 0 The tuple is valid. > + * @retval -1 The tuple is invalid. > + */ > +static inline int > +tuple_validate_parts(struct key_def *key_def, struct tuple *tuple) I don't sure it worth to inline this function: it is not so lightweight as, say, a structure field access. I'm tentative whether this function should be in tuple.[ch] or key_def.[ch]. What do you think? (If it is in tuple.[ch] maybe it is better to let a tuple being the first parameter?) Maybe we need to ask Vladimir (CCed).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-28 2:01 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-03-27 14:29 [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 0/2] " Kirill Shcherbatov 2019-03-27 14:29 ` [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 1/2] lua: add luaT_tuple_new() Kirill Shcherbatov 2019-03-28 9:01 ` [tarantool-patches] " Konstantin Osipov 2019-03-28 9:18 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-03 18:01 ` [tarantool-patches] " Vladimir Davydov 2019-04-04 2:51 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-04 8:14 ` Vladimir Davydov 2019-03-27 14:29 ` [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 2/2] lua: add key_def lua module Kirill Shcherbatov 2019-03-28 2:01 ` Alexander Turenko [this message] 2019-03-28 7:38 ` [tarantool-patches] " Kirill Shcherbatov 2019-03-28 8:41 ` Kirill Shcherbatov [not found] ` <6d915212-e80f-4a6d-d884-b838bf25f8a7@tarantool.org> 2019-03-28 11:22 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-03 11:10 ` Vladimir Davydov 2019-04-03 11:46 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-03 12:01 ` Vladimir Davydov 2019-04-03 13:26 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-04 5:07 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-04 8:04 ` Kirill Shcherbatov 2019-04-04 9:05 ` Vladimir Davydov 2019-04-04 11:46 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-04 14:36 ` Vladimir Davydov 2019-04-04 8:38 ` Vladimir Davydov 2019-04-04 11:17 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-04 12:00 ` Alexander Turenko 2019-04-04 14:42 ` Vladimir Davydov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190328020146.lluz4mg5tacpghwv@tkn_work_nb \ --to=alexander.turenko@tarantool.org \ --cc=kshcherbatov@tarantool.org \ --cc=tarantool-patches@freelists.org \ --cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] lua: add key_def lua module' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox