> [POLL] Centralize existing syntax or create new syntax? 1.) CREATE INDEX ... USING .... WITH OPTIONS...
> [POLL] Should there be a default? (YES/NO) YES > [POLL] What do do with the default? 3.) YAML config to override default index (legacy 2i remains the default) DESCRIBE should always show the full CREATE INDEX … statement with the index specified, such that replaying the output of DESCRIBE will not depend on the default settings. This is what we do right now for CREATE TABLE OPTIONS. Things you don’t specify get a default, that default may change between releases, DESCRIBE shows the full CREATE TABLE with all OPTIONS listed so replaying DESCRIBE does not get any defaults. I don’t agree with the sentiment that a yaml option overriding CQL is bad. We have tons of local node yaml options that change how a given CQL query can act. All of the guardrails, all of the auth settings, tons of other things that should truly be in global configuration, but since we don’t have global configuration are in the C* yaml file. “Make sure you set these options the same on every node” is the only thing we have right now. We shouldn’t be limiting what we want to allow configuration of because we don’t have global config yet. -Jeremiah > On May 12, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [POLL] Centralize existing syntax or create new syntax? > > 1.) CREATE INDEX ... USING .... WITH OPTIONS... > 2.) CREATE LOCAL INDEX ... USING ... WITH OPTIONS... (same as 1, but adds > LOCAL keyword for clarity and separation from future GLOBAL indexes) > > (In both cases, we deprecate w/ client warnings CREATE CUSTOM INDEX) > > > [POLL] Should there be a default? (YES/NO) > > > [POLL] What do do with the default? > > 1.) Allow a default, and switch it to SAI (no configurables) > 2.) Allow a default, and stay w/ the legacy 2i (no configurables) > 3.) YAML config to override default index (legacy 2i remains the default) > 4.) YAML config/guardrail to require index type selection (not required by > default) > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:39 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org > <mailto:m...@apache.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Given it seems most DBs have a default index (see Postgres, etc.), I tend >>> to lean toward having one, but that's me... >> >> >> I'm for it too. Would be nice to enforce the setting is globally uniform to >> avoid the per-node problem. Or add a keyspace option. >> >> For users replaying <5 DDLs this would just require they set the default >> index to 2i. >> This is not a headache, it's a one-off action that can be clearly expressed >> in NEWS. >> It acts as a deprecation warning too. >> This prevents new uneducated users from creating the unintended index, it >> supports existing users, and it does not present SAI as the battle-tested >> default. >> >> Agree with the poll, there's a number of different PoVs here already. I'm >> not fond of the LOCAL addition, I appreciate what it informs, but it's just >> not important enough IMHO (folk should be reading up on the index type).
