Well said, Mike. We should document that as best practices.
As Anthony mentioned, we should look for fuzzy type checking, atleast for
numbers. I did consider this some time back. But It is tedious to support
backward compability, unless we say pdx version 2.
From: Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io>
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Global PDX Types -> Move to Region Level?
Converting from schema-less (JSON) to schema-typed (PDX) is hard. Perhaps we
should explore fuzzy matching or type supersets to better JSON into Geode.
Anthony
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> There's nothing to prevent putting the same object into multiple regions.
> The type catalog for a database shouldn't be relative to a table.
> It should be database wide.
>
> The real problem in this case is the proliferation of PDX Types caused by
> using JSON documents that have only some of their fields populated, and
> have their fields in arbitrary orders. The documents in the particular case
> studied really are intended to all be the same type, but it's difficult to
> tell because they are structurally mutated in so many ways.
>
> It might be possible to make Geode figure out that they are all the same
> type, but the real best-practice here is make sure you structure your JSON
> documents consistently so that Geode can know that they are all of the same
> type. Don't leave fields empty, default them to null or zero. Don't change
> the order of the fields.
>
> This behavioral change will make the JSON documents as structured as the
> Java Objects representing the same data would be. Geode doesn't have
> PDXtype explosion with Java Objects.
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Stolz
> Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
> Mobile: +1-631-835-4771
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Olivier Mallassi <olivier.malla...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> I do not know about the negative impact but could you elaborate about the
>> DLock?
>>
>> thx.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Real Wes <thereal...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Would there be a negative impact in moving PDXType’s to the region level
>>> instead of the cache level? On the positive side, when there is an
>> object
>>> with a variable number of fields being stored in a partitioned region, we
>>> would get rid of the distributed lock. As it is now at the cache level,
>> a
>>> DLock is made, slowing performance. Another positive is that export
>> would
>>> go much, much, much faster in systems with a lot of PDXType’s because all
>>> PDXType’s are exported with every region.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Wes
>>>
>>>
>>
