In that case, I would recommend fix the bug that prints everything when
an arbitrary number of arguments is given.
On 23/03/2023 13:40, guo Maxwell wrote:
firstly I think anything existing must be reasonable，so ignore option
for tablestats must be a need for the user to use. at least I used it
some time ；
secondly in order to keep this as simple as possible ，I think left
the option unchanged is enough ，because the original usage is simple
enough. user can just print the specified table after set nodetool
tablehistorgrams ks table ，and if there is ten tables in kesypace ，it
is simple for him to type ten times with different table names which I
think at first Only set with argument ks keyspace name is enough.
When we just want to see eight tables in the ks ，the user should just
type eight table name which ignore two table may be enough.
Bowen Song via dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org>于2023年3月23日
周四下午8:07写道：
I don't think the nodetool tablestats command's parameters should
be used as a reference implementation for the nodetool
tablehistograms command. Because:
* the tablehistograms command can take the keyspace and table as
two separate parameters, but the tablestats command can't.
* the tablestats command can take keyspace (without table) as a
parameter, but the tablehistograms command can't.
The introduction of the -ks and -tbs options are unnecessary for
the tablestats command, because it's parameters are:
nodetool tablestats [<keyspace.table>|<keyspace>
[<keyspace.table>|<keyspace>[...]]]
Which means any positional parameter without a dot is treated as a
keyspace name, otherwise it's treated as dot-separated keyspace
and table name. That, however, does not apply to the nodetool
tablehistograms command, which led to your workaround - the
addition of the -ks and -tbs options.
But if you could just forget about the nodetool tablestats command
for a moment, and look at the nodetool tablehistograms command
alone, you will see that it's unnecessary to introduce the -ks and
-tbs options, because the command already takes keyspace name and
table name, just in a different format.
In addition to that, I would be interested to know how often do
people use the -i option in the nodetool tablestats command. My
best guess is, very very rarely.
If my guess is correct, we should keep the nodetool
tablehistograms command as simple as:
nodetool tablehistograms [<keyspace> <table> [<table> [...]] |
<keyspace.table> [<keyspace.table>[...]]]
It's good enough if the above can cover the majority of use cases.
The remaining use cases can be dealt with individually, by
multiple invocations of the same command or providing it with a
script-generated list of tables in the <keyspace.table> format.
TL;DR: The KISS principle
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle> should apply here -
keep it simple.
On 23/03/2023 03:05, guo Maxwell wrote:
Maybe I didn't describe the usage of option "-i" clearly, The
reason why I think the command argument should be like this :
1. nodetool tablehistograms ks.tb1 or ks tb1 ... //this is
*one of the old way *of using tablehistogram. will print out
the histograms of tabke ks.tb1 , we keep the old format to
print out the table histograms,besides if more than two
arguments is provied, suchu as nodetool tablehistograms
system.local system_schema.columns system_schema.tables then
all tables's histograms will be printed out (I think this is
a bug that not as excepted in the document's decription, we
should remind the user that this is an incorrenct usage)
2. nodetool tablehistograms -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 .... //print
out list of tables' histograms with format keyspace.table
3.nodetool tablehistograms -ks ks1 ks2 ks3 ... //print out
list of keyspaces histograms
4.nodetool tablehistograms -i -ks ks1 ks2 .... //print out
list of table histograms except for the keyspaces list behind
the option -i
5.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 // print out
list tables' histograms except for table in ks.tb1 ks.tb2
6.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 -ks ks1 //
print out list tables' histograms except for table in ks.tb1
ks.tb2 and all tables in ks1
6.none option specified ,then all tables histograms will be
print out.// this is *another one of the old way* of using
tablehistogram.
is to make the command format to be consistent with the format
of nodetool tablestats, so for users, there will be a unified
awareness of using these two commands, rather than different
commands requiring different usage awareness , we can see the
description of the tablestats doc for option "-i "
Ignore the list of tables and display the remaining tables
that is to say if -i appears all the lists of tables and
kespaces will be ignored and will display the remaining tables.
For example, for this command:
(1)nodetool tablehistograns -ks ks1 -i -tbs ks1.tb1 ks2.tb2
Which one of the following should it do?
1. all tables in the keyspace ks1, except the table tb1; or
2. all tables in all keyspaces, except any table in the
keyspace ks1 and the table tb2 in the keyspace ks2
A more complex and possibly confusing option could be:
(2)nodetool tablehistograms ks1 -i ks1.tb1 -i ks1.tb2 #
all tables in the keyspace ks1, except the table tb1 and tb2
(3)nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1.tb1 -i ks1.tb2 ks1 #
identical as above, as -i takes only one parameter
In my mind it is better to use -i option only once (though it is
right to use before every ks and tbs lists ) , so (1) means all
tables in ks1 (including ks1.tb1) and ks2.tb2 will be ignored
and display the remaining (2) will ignore all tables in ks1
(including ks1.tb1, ks1.tb2) and display remaing (3) will show
the same result with (2)
the newly added options' behavior is same with nodetool
tablestats , the difference is I displayed parameters specifying
option -ks and -tbs , but tablestats don't.
Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> 于2023年3月22日周三 23:35写道：
Agree w/Bowen. I think the straight forward simplicity of
"clear inclusion and exclusion semantics, default to include
all in scope excepting things that are explicitly ignored"
would be ideal.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023, at 8:45 AM, Bowen Song via dev wrote:
TBH, the syntax looks unnecessarily complex and confusing to me.
For example, for this command:
nodetool tablehistograns -ks ks1 -i -tbs ks1.tb1 ks2.tb2
Which one of the following should it do?
1. all tables in the keyspace ks1, except the table tb1; or
2. all tables in all keyspaces, except any table in the
keyspace ks1 and the table tb2 in the keyspace ks2
I personally would prefer the simplicity of this approach:
nodetool tablehistograms ks1 tb1 tb2 tb3
nodetool tablehistograms ks1.tb1 ks1.tb2 ks2.tb3
nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1 -i ks2
nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1.tb1 -i ks2.tb2
They are self-explanatory. You don't need to read comments
to understand what do they do, as long as you know that "-i"
means "exclude".
A more complex and possibly confusing option could be:
nodetool tablehistograms ks1 -i ks1.tb1 -i ks1.tb2 #
all tables in the keyspace ks1, except the table tb1 and tb2
nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1.tb1 -i ks1.tb2 ks1 #
identical as above, as -i takes only one parameter
To avoid the above confusion, the command could enforce that
the "-i" option may only be used after any positional
options, thus makes the 2nd command a syntax error.
Beyond that, I don't see why the user can't make multiple
invocations of the nodetool tablehistograms command if they
have more complex or specific need.
For example, in this case:
/> 6.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 -ks
ks1 // print out list tables' histograms except for
table in ks.tb1 ks.tb2 and all tables in ks1/
The same result can be achieved by concatenating the outputs
of the following two commands:
nodetool tablehistograms -i ks -i ks1
nodetool tablehistograms ks -i ks.tb1 -i ks.tb2
On 22/03/2023 05:12, guo Maxwell wrote:
Thanks everyone , So It seems that it is better to add new
parameter options to meet our needs, while keeping the
original parameter functions unaffected to achieve backward
compatibility.
So the new options are :
1. nodetool tablehistograms ks.tb1 or ks tb1 ... //this is
*one of the old way *of using tablehistogram. will print
out the histograms of tabke ks.tb1 , we keep the old format
to print out the table histograms,besides if more than two
arguments is provied, suchu as nodetool tablehistograms
system.local system_schema.columns system_schema.tables
then all tables's histograms will be printed out (I think
this is a bug that not as excepted in the document's
decription, we should remind the user that this is an
incorrenct usage)
2. nodetool tablehistograms -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 .... //print
out list of tables' histograms with format keyspace.table
3.nodetool tablehistograms -ks ks1 ks2 ks3 ... //print out
list of keyspaces histograms
4.nodetool tablehistograms -i -ks ks1 ks2 .... //print out
list of table histograms except for the keyspaces list
behind the option -i
5.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 // print
out list tables' histograms except for table in ks.tb1 ks.tb2
6.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 -ks ks1 //
print out list tables' histograms except for table in
ks.tb1 ks.tb2 and all tables in ks1
6.none option specified ,then all tables histograms will be
print out.// this is *another one of the old way* of using
tablehistogram.
So we add some more options like "-i", "-ks", "-tbs" , we
can combine these options and we can also use any of them
individually, besides, we can also use the tool through old
way if a table with format ks.tb is provied.
Jeremiah D Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>
于2023年3月16日周四 23:14写道：
-1 on any change which breaks the previously documented
usage.
+1 any additions to what the tool can do without
breaking previously documented behavior.
On Mar 16, 2023, at 7:42 AM, Josh McKenzie
<jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
We could also consider augmenting the tool with new
named arguments with the functionality you described
and leave the positional usage intact.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, at 6:43 AM, Bowen Song via dev
wrote:
The documented command options are:
nodetool tablehistograms [<keyspace> <table> |
<keyspace.table>]
That means one parameter will be treated as dot
separated keyspace and table. Alternatively, two
parameters will be treated as the keyspace and table
respectively.
To remain compatible with the documented behaviour,
my suggestion is to change the command options to:
nodetool tablehistograms [<keyspace> <table>
[<table2> [...]] | <keyspace.table>
[<keyspace2.table2>[...]]]
Feel free to add the "all except ..." feature to the
above.
This doesn't break backward compatibility in
documented ways. It only changes the undocumented
behaviour. If someone is using the undocumented
behaviour, they must know things may break when the
software is upgraded. We can just add a line to the
NEWS.txt and let them update their scripts.
On 16/03/2023 08:53, guo Maxwell wrote:
Hello everyone :
The nodetool tablehistograms have one argument which
you can fill with only one table name with the
format "keyspace_name.table_name /keyspace_name
table_name", so that you can get the table
histograms of the specied table.
And if none arguments is set, all the tables'
histograms will be print out.And if more than 2
arguments (nomatter the format is right or
wrong) are set , all the tables' histograms will
also be print out too(Which is a bug In my mind).
So the usage of nodetool tablehistograms has some
usage restrictions, That is either output one , or
all informations.
As CASSANDRA-18296
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18296> described
, I will change the usage of nodetool
tablehistograms, which support the feature below:
1. nodetool tablehistograms ks.tb1 ks.tb2 ....
//print out list of tables' histograms with format
keyspace.table
2.nodetool tablehistograms ks1 ks2 ks3 ... //print
out list of keyspaces histograms
3.nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1 ks2 .... //print
out list of table histograms except for the
keyspaces list behind the option -i
4.nodetool tablehistograns -i ks ks.tb // print out
list tables' histograms except for table in keyspace
ks and ks.tb table.
5.none option specified ,then all tables histograms
will be print out.
The usage will breaks compatibility with how it was
done previously, and as this is a user facing tool.
So, What do you think?
Thanks~~~
--
you are the apple of my eye !
--
you are the apple of my eye !
--
you are the apple of my eye !
