You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If we are trying to log data about an entity and it ends up getting split over multiple log calls, it's important that we always log the non-primary component before the other data. If we don't, then the range-query will generate an entity missing this data for the start of the range.
Making a collection of log-calls calls "sync'd" in some way (sharing the exact timepoint) would be helpful for cases like this. Additionally we may need to add a bit of special casing in the join implementation.
It seems like any data with a timestamp that exactly matches the timestamp of the primary component should be included in the results, even if it arrived in a second call unless there is another primary component at that time timestamp, in which case 🤷♂️
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think syncing the time points is the right solution here
The arrow store will still treat two log messages (even with identical time stamps) separably based on insertion order. You still end up with multiple rows in the store.
So if multiple rows have identical time stamps the initial range-result is just the first row.
…still, we should strive to have identical times when logging different components of the same entity.
See #1215 and #1217 for additional context.
If we are trying to log data about an entity and it ends up getting split over multiple log calls, it's important that we always log the non-primary component before the other data. If we don't, then the range-query will generate an entity missing this data for the start of the range.
Making a collection of log-calls calls "sync'd" in some way (sharing the exact timepoint) would be helpful for cases like this. Additionally we may need to add a bit of special casing in the join implementation.
It seems like any data with a timestamp that exactly matches the timestamp of the primary component should be included in the results, even if it arrived in a second call unless there is another primary component at that time timestamp, in which case 🤷♂️
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: