From: "n.pettik" <korablev@tarantool.org>
To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org
Cc: Ivan Koptelov <ivan.koptelov@tarantool.org>
Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2] sql: add index_def to struct Index
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 04:22:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <A4A2ECC2-C4A1-4915-BE77-9A5C130212D7@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c23a07e1-1c83-3a8f-b856-665a03adf215@tarantool.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1245 bytes --]
I have pushed some fixes and refactoring on branch.
Please, look at them and squash, if you are agree with them.
In case you disagree or have doubts - reply to this letter with
your comments.
If they are OK to you, patch LGTM.
(Btw, you forgot to squash your last fixes with whole patch.)
>> I don’t understand: why do you need at all this cmp_def?
>> In SQL it is extremely unlikely to be useful.
> SQL has memtx/vinyl under it, where cmp_def is used, isn't it?
> As far as I understand, there is some mechanism, which creates
> struct index with struct index_def inside memtx (for example, for
> memtx_tree_create()) based on what we passed inside in
> createIndex() in sql/build.c
> Is it right? I am confused.
> If it is right, then we can simplify code in build by always
> using key_def for cmp_def ?
These defs are stored only in our SQL hash. After tuple is inserted into _index,
the real key_def and cmp_def are created under the hood. And those
defs are used (see on_replace_dd_index()) in Tarantool's core.
So, I basically removed all ceremony with cmp_def during index building;
also I noticed that now only PK can feature ON REPLACE conflict action,
thus I simplified addIndexToTable routine.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8804 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 1:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-09 10:46 Ivan Koptelov
2018-07-12 11:18 ` n.pettik
2018-07-13 15:58 ` Ivan Koptelov
2018-07-13 19:19 ` n.pettik
2018-07-16 5:54 ` Ivan Koptelov
2018-07-17 1:22 ` n.pettik [this message]
2018-07-17 11:21 ` Kirill Yukhin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-07-09 0:31 Ivan Koptelov
2018-06-13 7:30 [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v3] " Ivan Koptelov
2018-06-18 18:45 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-06-21 12:57 ` [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v4] " Ivan Koptelov
2018-06-22 8:46 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-06-27 17:46 ` [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v5] " Ivan Koptelov
2018-06-27 17:57 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-06-28 18:49 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-06-29 13:49 ` [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v6] " Ivan Koptelov
2018-06-29 20:46 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-03 11:37 ` [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v9] " Ivan Koptelov
2018-07-03 23:54 ` n.pettik
2018-07-04 15:55 ` [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v11] " Ivan Koptelov
2018-07-04 19:28 ` n.pettik
2018-07-05 14:50 ` Ivan Koptelov
2018-07-06 0:51 ` n.pettik
2018-07-08 14:17 ` [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2] " Ivan Koptelov
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=A4A2ECC2-C4A1-4915-BE77-9A5C130212D7@tarantool.org \
--to=korablev@tarantool.org \
--cc=ivan.koptelov@tarantool.org \
--cc=tarantool-patches@freelists.org \
--subject='[tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2] sql: add index_def to struct Index' \
/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