Strong +1 to copy all options by default. This is intuitive to me. Then I would like to explicitly override any options of my choosing.
-Dave On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 9:57 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK，thank you for your suggestions ，I will revise the CEP and copy table > OPTIONS by default. > > Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com>于2024年10月23日 周三下午9:18写道： > >> Also strongly +1 to copying all the options. >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 5:52 AM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm a very strong +1 to having the default functionality be to copy >>> *ALL* options. >>> >>> Intuitively, as a user, if I tell a software system to make a clone of >>> something I don't expect it to be shallow or a subset defined by some >>> external developer somewhere. I expect it to be a clone. >>> >>> Adding in some kind of "lean" mode or "column only" is fine if someone >>> can make a cogent argument around its inclusion. I don't personally see a >>> use-case for it right now but definitely open to being educated. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024, at 3:03 AM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: >>> >>> options are inherently part of that table as well, same as schema. In >>> fact, _schema_ includes all options. Not just columns and its names. If you >>> change some option, you effectively have a different schema, schema version >>> changes by changing an option. So if we do not copy options too, we are >>> kind of faking it (when we do not specify WITH OPTIONS). >>> >>> Also, imagine a situation where Accord is merged to trunk. It introduces >>> a new schema option called "transactional = full" which is not default. (I >>> am sorry if I did the spelling wrong here). So, when you have a table with >>> transactional support and you do "create table ks.tb_copy like ks.tb", when >>> you _do not_ copy all options, this table will _not_ become transactional. >>> >>> The next thing you go to do is to execute some transactions against this >>> table but well ... you can not do that, because your table is not >>> transactional, because you have forgotten to add "WITH OPTIONS". So you >>> need to go back to that and do "ALTER ks.tb_copy WITH transactional = full" >>> just to support that. >>> >>> I think that you see from this pattern that it is way better if we copy >>> all options by default instead of consciously opt-in into them. >>> >>> also: >>> >>> "but I think there are also some users want to do basic column >>> information copy" >>> >>> where is this coming from? Do you have this idea somehow empirically >>> tested? I just do not see why somebody would want to have Cassandra's >>> defaults instead of what a base table contains. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 8:28 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The reason for using OPTION keyword is that I want to provide users with >>> more choices . >>> The default behavior for copying a table is to copy the basic item of >>> table （column and their data type，mask，constraint），others thing belongs to >>> the table like option，views，trigger >>> are optional in my mind. >>> You are absolutely right that users may want to copy all stuff but I >>> think there are aslo some users want to do basic column information copy，So >>> I just give them a choice。As we know that the number of table parameters is >>> not small，compression，compaction，gc_seconds，bf_chance，speculative_retry and >>> so on. >>> >>> Besides we can see that pg have also the keyword COMMENT，COMPRESSION >>> which have the similar behavior as our OPTION keyword。 >>> >>> So that is why I add this keyword OPTION. >>> >>> >>> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org>于2024年10月22日 周二下午11:40写道： >>> >>> The problem is that when I do this minimal CQL which shows this feature: >>> >>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb; >>> >>> then you are saying that when I _do not_ specify WITH OPTIONS then I get >>> Cassandra's defaults. Only after I specify WITH OPTIONS, it would truly be >>> a copy. >>> >>> This is not a good design. Because to have an exact copy, I have to make >>> a conscious effort to include OPTIONS as well. That should not be the case. >>> I just want to have a copy, totally the same stuff, when I use the minimal >>> version of that statement. It would be better to opt-out from options like >>> >>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITHOUT OPTIONS (you feel me) but we >>> do not support this (yet). >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:28 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> I just don't see OPTIONS as important. When I want to copy a table, I am >>> copying a table _with everything_. Options included, by default. Why would >>> I want to have a copy of a table with options different from the base one? >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:55 PM Bernardo Botella < >>> conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Guo, >>> >>> +1 for the CONSTRAINTS keyword to be added into the default behavior. >>> >>> Bernardo >>> >>> On Oct 21, 2024, at 12:01 AM, guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think the CONSTRAINTS keyword keyword may be in the same situation as >>> datamask. >>> Maybe it is better to include constraints into the default behavior of >>> table copy together with column name, column data type and data mask. >>> >>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月21日周一 14:56写道： >>> >>> To yifan : >>> I don't mind adding the ALL keyword, and it has been updated into CEP. >>> >>> As all you can see, our original intention was that the grammar would >>> not be too complicated, which is what I described in cep >>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >>> . >>> We gave up PG-related grammar, including INCLUDING/EXCLUDING and so on . >>> >>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月21日周一 14:52写道： >>> >>> Hi , >>> To sefan : >>> I may want to explain that if there is no OPTION keyword in the CQL >>> statement, then the newly created table will only have the >>> original table's column name 、column type and data mask ,I think this is >>> the most basic choice when copying tables to users. >>> Then we do some addition, we can add original table's table options >>> like compaction strategy/compress strategy、index and so on. >>> >>> Recently, I have also thought about the situation of CONSTRAINTS >>> keyword. I think it is similar to data mask. Agree that it should be >>> included in the basic options of table copy (column name, column data type >>> , column data mask and constraints). >>> >>> >>> Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> 于2024年10月19日周六 01:15写道： >>> >>> It seems like a natural extension of the CREATE TABLE statement. >>> Looking forward to using it in the future. >>> >>> -Dave >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:11 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Right?! Reads like English, the impact on the existing CQL is minimal. >>> One LIKE which basically needs to be there and keywords of logical >>> "components" which seamlessly integrate with WITH. >>> >>> I would _not_ use WITH CONSTRAINTS because constraints will be >>> inherently part of a table schema. It is not an "option". We can not >>> "opt-out" from them. Remember we are copying a table here so if a base one >>> has constraints, its copy will have them too. A user can subsequently >>> "ALTER" them. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:31 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Basing it on CREATE TABLE, the BNF definition of the simple >>> implementation would look something like this: >>> >>> create_table_statement::= CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] table_name LIKE >>> base_table_name >>> [ WITH included_objects ] [ [ AND ] table_options ] >>> table_options::= COMPACT STORAGE [ AND table_options ] >>> | CLUSTERING ORDER BY '(' clustering_order ')' >>> [ AND table_options ] | options >>> clustering_order::= column_name (ASC | DESC) ( ',' column_name (ASC | >>> DESC) )* >>> included_objects::= dependent_objects [ AND dependent_objects ] >>> dependent_objects:= INDEXES | TRIGGERS | CONSTRAINTS | VIEWS >>> >>> >>> CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] [<keyspace_name>.]<table_name> LIKE >>> [<keyspace_name>.]<base_table_name> >>> [ WITH [ <included_objects > ] >>> [ [ AND ] [ <table_options> ] ] >>> [ [ AND ] CLUSTERING ORDER BY [ <clustering_column_name> (ASC | DESC) >>> ] ] >>> ; >>> >>> Examples: >>> >>> -- Create base table: >>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name ( >>> id UUID PRIMARY KEY, >>> lastname text, >>> firstname text >>> ); >>> >>> -- Create an exact copy of the base table, but do not create any >>> dependent objects: >>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name2 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name; >>> >>> -- Create an exact copy with all dependent objects (constraints excluded >>> for now): >>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name3 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name >>> WITH INDEXES AND TRIGGERS AND VIEWS; >>> >>> -- Create a copy with LCS compaction, a default TTL and all dependent >>> objects except indexes: >>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name4 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name >>> WITH TRIGGERS AND VIEWS >>> AND compaction = { 'class' : 'LeveledCompactionStrategy' } >>> AND default_time_to_live = 86400; >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This seems pretty clean & straightforward. >>> >>> -Dave >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 4:05 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> This simple approach resonates with me. I think the Cassandra doc uses >>> "INDEXES" as the plural for index, i.e.: >>> https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/stable/cassandra/cql/indexes.html >>> >>> -Dave >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 2:39 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Well we could do something like: >>> >>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDICES AND TRIGGERS AND >>> compaction = {'class': '.... } AND ... >>> >>> but I can admit it might be seen as an overreach and I am not sure at >>> all how it would look like in the implementation because we would need to >>> distinguish WITH INDICES from table options. >>> >>> I would >>> >>> 1. +0 on ALL. - we don't need this. If we have just INDICES, >>> TRIGGERS, VIEWS at this point, I don't think enumerating it all is too >>> much >>> to ask. This is just an implementation detail and if we find it necessary >>> we can add it later. If you feel strongly about this then add that but it >>> is not absolutely necessary. >>> 2. omit OPTIONS - aren't all options copied by default? That is the >>> goal of the CEP, no? We might just use normal CQL while overriding >>> from the base table >>> 3. mix keywords like TRIGGERS / INDICES / CONSTRAINTS into normal >>> table creation statement >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 3:20 PM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I would second Štefan's option for functionality simplicity. It seems to >>> be unnecessary to have the keywords for both inclusion and exclusion in the >>> CEP. If needed, the exclusion (WITHOUT) can be introduced later. It would >>> still be backward compatible. >>> >>> Regarding "CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH compaction = >>> {'class': '.... } AND ... ", I think it only overrides the table options. >>> The CEP suggests the coarse-grained keyword for each category like table >>> options, indexes, etc. The functionality provided is not identical. >>> >>> I understand that the suggestions are to make operators' life easier by >>> achieving table creation in a single statement. What is being proposed in >>> the CEP seems to be at a good balance point. Operators can alter the table >>> options if needed in the follow-up ALTER table statement. >>> >>> - Yifan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:41 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> I think we are starting to complicate it. For me the most important >>> question is who is actually this feature for? If people want to just >>> prototype something fast or they just want to have "the same table just >>> under a different name", I think that is going to be used in 99% of cases. >>> >>> >>> My assumption of using WITH which I think I proposed first (4th post in >>> this thread) was to just blindly copy the most important "parts" logically >>> related to a table, be it indices, materialized views, or triggers and >>> enable / disable them as we wish. If no "WITH" is used, then we just get a >>> table with nothing else. "WITH" will opt-in into that. >>> >>> Seeing us contemplating using "INCLUDING" and "EXCLUDING" on individual >>> options makes me sad a little bit. I think we are over-engineering this. I >>> just don't see a reasonable use-case where users would need to cherry-pick >>> what they want and what not. Isn't that just too complicated? If a table >>> being copied drifts away too much from the original one then users would be >>> better off with creating a brand new table with CQL as they are used to, >>> not dealing with "copying" at all. More we drift from what the original >>> table was like, the less useful this feature is. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:03 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry that I overlooked the definition of the default in the CEP. I did >>> look for it but I didn’t see it. >>> >>> I think the default behavior you explained makes perfect sense & what >>> one would expect. >>> >>> I like the flexibility of INCLUDING and EXCLUDING that you are >>> considering. >>> >>> Would it make sense to use WITH for table options, which would make it >>> easy (and less confusing IMHO) to override the defaults from the source >>> table, then use INCLUDING/EXCLUDING for all non-table options such as >>> constraints and indices? >>> >>> It seems this would be easier to document as well, as it could just >>> point to the CREATE TABLE doc for the options, rather than trying to >>> explain a bunch of keywords that map to table options. >>> >>> -Dave >>> >>> David A. Herrington II >>> President and Chief Engineer >>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>> >>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>> >>> www.rhinosource.com >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:57 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> To yifan : >>> At the beginning of the period, I also thought about adding the keyword >>> ALL, refer to pg >>> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html> , but I >>> give up when writing cep as I find that there may be not so many properties >>> (only three) to copy for C* and >>> It is possible to decide what is needed and what is not in a very simple >>> cql, as our ALL is only three properties here. I want to keep it as simple >>> as possible (based on the advice given by Benjamin), So I grouped >>> the properties of the table into one category and expressed it with >>> OPTION keyword. >>> >>> But if we are going to split the first keyword OPTION to COMPRESSION >>> 、COMPACTION、COMMENT and so on. I am +1 on adding ALL back as the properties >>> are so many and it is simple to use ALL instead of >>> list all properties. Besides I may change my keyword WITH to INCLUDING >>> and adding another keyword EXCLUDING to flexibly copy table >>> properties through simple sql statements, like using 1 not 2 >>> >>> >>> 1. CREATE TABLE newTb like oldTb INCLUDING ALL EXCLUDING INDEXES >>> AND COMMENTS. >>> 2. CREATE TABLE newTb like oldTb INCLUDING COMPRESSION CONSTRAINTS >>> GENERATED IDENTITY STATISTICS STORAGE >>> >>> Conclusion: If there may be more keywords to consider in the future, >>> such as more than 4 , I am +1 on adding ALL back . >>> >>> To Dave : >>> Default behavior is only copy column name, data type ,data mask , >>> you can see more detail from CEP-43 >>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >>> . >>> >>> >>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月17日周四 06:43写道： >>> >>> +1 That makes much more sense in my experience. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:12 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm coming at this with both a deep ANSI SQL background as well as CQL >>> background. >>> >>> Defining the default behavior is the starting point. What gets copied >>> if we do "CREATE TABLE new_table LIKE original_table;" without a WITH >>> clause? >>> >>> Then, you build on that with the specific WITH options. WITH ALL >>> catches everything. >>> >>> -Dave >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:16 AM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> "WITH ALL" seems to be a natural addition to the directives. What do you >>> think about adding the fifth keyword ALL to retain all fields of the table >>> schema? >>> >>> For instance, CREATE TABLE new_table LIKE original_table WITH ALL, it >>> replicates options, indexes, triggers, constraints and any applicable kinds >>> that are introduced in the future. >>> >>> - Yifan >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:46 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Disscussed with Bernardo on slack，and +1 with his advice on adding a >>> fourth keyword. >>> >>> The keyword would be CONSTRAINTS ， any more suggestion ？ >>> >>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com>于2024年10月16日 周三上午9:55写道： >>> >>> Hi yifan, >>> Thanks for bringing this up. The SELECT permission on the original table >>> is needed. Mysql and PG all have mentioned this, and I also specifically >>> noticed this in my code. >>> >>> I probably missed this in the cep documentation. 😅 >>> >>> Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月16日周三 07:46写道： >>> >>> Thanks for creating the CEP! I think it is missing Bernardo's comment on >>> "the need for read permissions on the source table". >>> >>> CreateTableStatement does not check the permissions outside of the >>> enclosing keyspace. Having the SELECT permission on the original table is a >>> requirement for CREATE TABLE LIKE. >>> >>> - Yifan >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 11:01 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, everyone , >>> I have finished the doc for CEP-43 for CREATE_TABLE_LIKE >>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >>> as >>> said before, looking forward to your suggestions. >>> >>> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> 于2024年9月25日周三 03:51写道： >>> >>> I am sorry I do not follow what you mean, maybe an example would help. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 6:18 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> If there are multiple schema information changes in one ddl statement, >>> will there be schema conflicts in extreme cases? >>> For example, our statement contains both table creation and index >>> creation. >>> >>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com>于2024年9月24日 周二下午8:12写道： >>> >>> +1 on splitting this task and adding the ability to copy tables through >>> different keyspaces in the future. >>> >>> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> 于2024年9月23日周一 22:05写道： >>> >>> If we have this table >>> >>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb2 ( >>> id int PRIMARY KEY, >>> name text >>> ); >>> >>> I can either specify name of an index on my own like this: >>> >>> CREATE INDEX name_index ON ks.tb2 (name) ; >>> >>> or I can let Cassandra to figure that name on its own: >>> >>> CREATE INDEX ON ks.tb2 (name) ; >>> >>> in that case it will name that index "tb2_name_idx". >>> >>> Hence, I would expect that when we do >>> >>> ALTER TABLE ks.to_copy LIKE ks.tb2 WITH INDICES; >>> >>> Then ks.to_copy table will have an index which is called >>> "to_copy_name_idx" without me doing anything. >>> >>> For types, we do not need to do anything when we deal with the same >>> keyspace. For simplicity, I mentioned that we might deal with the same >>> keyspace scenario only for now and iterate on that in the future. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 8:53 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> Cep is being written, and I encountered some problems during the >>> process. I would like to discuss them with you. If you read the description >>> of this CASSANDRA-7662 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7662>, we will find >>> that initially the original creator of this jira did not intend to >>> implement structural copying of indexes, views, and triggers only the >>> column and its data type. >>> >>> However, after investigating some db related syntax and function >>> implementation, I found that it may be necessary for us to provide some >>> rich syntax to support the replication of indexes, views, etc. >>> >>> In order to support selective copy of the basic structure of the table >>> (columns and types), table options, table-related indexes, views, triggers, >>> etc. We need some new syntax, it seems that the syntax of pg is relatively >>> comprehensive, it use the keyword INCLUDING/EXCLUDING to flexibly control >>> the removal and retention of indexes, table information, etc. see pg >>> create table like >>> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/sql-createtable.html> , the new >>> created index name is different from the original table's index name , >>> seenewly >>> copied index names are different from original >>> <https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml#L749> >>> , the name is based on some rule. >>> Mysql is relatively simple and copies columns and indexes by default. >>> see mysql create table like >>> <https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/create-table-like.html> and >>> the newly created index name is the same with the original table's index >>> name. >>> >>> So for Casandra, I hope it can also support the information copy of >>> index and even view/trigger. And I also hope to be able to flexibly decide >>> which information is copied like pg. >>> >>> Besides, I think the copy can happen between different keyspaces. And >>> UDT needs to be taken into account. >>> >>> But as we know the index/view/trigger name are all under keyspace level, >>> so it seems that the newly created index name (or view name/ trigger name) >>> must be different from the original tables' ,otherwise names would clash . >>> >>> So regarding the above problem, one idea I have is that for newly >>> created types, indexes and views under different keyspaces and the same >>> keyspace, we first generate random names for them, and then we can add the >>> ability of modifying the names(for types/indexes/views/triggers) so that >>> users can manually change the names. >>> >>> >>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年9月20日周五 08:06写道： >>> >>> No，I think still need some discuss on grammar detail after I finish the >>> first version >>> >>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com>于2024年9月20日 周五上午2:24写道： >>> >>> Is this CEP ready for a VOTE thread? >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 8:56 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you for your replies, I will prepare a CEP later. >>> >>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> 于2024年8月20日周二 02:11写道： >>> >>> +1 This is a CEP >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:50 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >>> >>> Given the fairly large surface area for this, i think it should be a >>> CEP. >>> >>> — >>> Jon Haddad >>> Rustyrazorblade Consulting >>> rustyrazorblade.com >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:44 AM Bernardo Botella < >>> conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: >>> >>> Definitely a nice addition to CQL. >>> >>> Looking for inspiration at how Postgres and Mysql do that may also help >>> with the final design (I like the WITH proposed by Stefan, but I would >>> definitely take a look at the INCLUDING keyword proposed by Postgres). >>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html >>> https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/create-table-like.html >>> >>> On top of that, and as part of the interesting questions, I would like >>> to add the permissions to the mix. Both the question about copying them >>> over (with a WITH keyword probably), and the need for read permissions on >>> the source table as well. >>> >>> Bernardo >>> >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2024, at 10:01 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> BTW this would be cool to do as well: >>> >>> ALTER TABLE ks.to_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDICES; >>> >>> This would mean that if we create a copy of a table, later we can decide >>> that we need indices too, so we might "enrich" that table with indices from >>> the old one without necessarily explicitly re-creating them on that new >>> table. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:55 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> I think this is an interesting idea worth exploring. I definitely agree >>> with Benjamin who raised important questions which needs to be answered >>> first. Also, what about triggers? >>> >>> It might be rather "easy" to come up with something simple but it should >>> be a comprehensive solution with predictable behavior we all agree on. >>> >>> If a keyspace of a new table does not exist we would need to create that >>> one too before. For the simplicity, I would just make it a must to create >>> it on same keyspace. We might iterate on that in the future. >>> >>> UDTs are created per keyspace so there is nothing to re-create. We just >>> need to reference it from a new table, right? >>> >>> Indexes and MVs are interesting but in theory they might be re-created >>> too. >>> >>> Would it be appropriate to use something like this? >>> >>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDEXES AND VIEWS AND TRIGGERS >>> .... >>> >>> Without "WITH" it would just copy a table with nothing else. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:10 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello， everyone： >>> As Jira CASSANDRA-7662 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7662> has described , >>> we would like to introduce a new grammer " CREATE TABLE LIKE " >>> ,which simplifies creating new tables duplicating the existing ones . >>> The format may be like : CREATE TABLE <new_table> LIKE <old_table> >>> Before I implement this function, do you have any suggestions on this? >>> >>> Looking forward to your reply！ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Dave >>> >>> David A. Herrington II >>> President and Chief Engineer >>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>> >>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>> >>> www.rhinosource.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Dave >>> >>> David A. Herrington II >>> President and Chief Engineer >>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>> >>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>> >>> www.rhinosource.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Dave >>> >>> David A. Herrington II >>> President and Chief Engineer >>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>> >>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>> >>> www.rhinosource.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Dave >>> >>> David A. Herrington II >>> President and Chief Engineer >>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>> >>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>> >>> www.rhinosource.com >>> >>> >>>
