ok thanks!just one last question: an inputformat is instantiated for each
task slot or once for task manger?
On 14 Apr 2016 18:07, "Chesnay Schepler" <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
> no.
>
> if (connection==null) {
> establishCOnnection();
> }
>
> done. same connection for all splits.
>
> On 14.04.2016 17:59, Flavio Pompermaier wrote:
>
>> I didn't understand what you mean for "it should also be possible to reuse
>> the same connection of an InputFormat across InputSplits, i.e., calls of
>> the open() method".
>> At the moment in the open method there's a call to establishConnection,
>> thus, a new connection is created for each split.
>> If I understood correctly, you're suggesting to create a pool in the
>> inputFormat and simply call poo.borrow() in the open() rather than
>> establishConnection?
>>
>> On 14 Apr 2016 17:28, "Chesnay Schepler" <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 14.04.2016 17:22, Fabian Hueske wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Flavio,
>>>>
>>>> that are good questions.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Replacing null values by default values and simply forwarding records
>>>> is
>>>> very dangerous, in my opinion.
>>>> I see two alternatives: A) we use a data type that tolerates null
>>>> values.
>>>> This could be a POJO that the user has to provide or Row. The drawback
>>>> of
>>>> Row is that it is untyped and not easy to handle. B) We use Tuple and
>>>> add
>>>> an additional field that holds an Integer which serves as a bitset to
>>>> mark
>>>> null fields. This would be a pretty low level API though. I am leaning
>>>> towards the user-provided POJO option.
>>>>
>>>> i would also lean towards the POJO option.
>>>
>>> 2) The JDBCInputFormat is located in a dedicated Maven module. I think we
>>>> can add a dependency to that module. However, it should also be possible
>>>> to
>>>> reuse the same connection of an InputFormat across InputSplits, i.e.,
>>>> calls
>>>> of the open() method. Wouldn't that be sufficient?
>>>>
>>>> this is the right approach imo.
>>>
>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>
>>>> 2016-04-14 16:59 GMT+02:00 Flavio Pompermaier <pomperma...@okkam.it>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>>> I'm integrating the comments of Chesnay to my PR but there's a couple
>>>>> of
>>>>> thing that I'd like to discuss with the core developers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. about the JDBC type mapping (addValue() method at [1]: At the
>>>>> moment
>>>>> if I find a null value for a Double, the getDouble of jdbc return
>>>>> 0.0.
>>>>> Is
>>>>> it really the correct behaviour? Wouldn't be better to use a POJO
>>>>> or
>>>>> the
>>>>> Row of datatable that can handle void? Moreover, the mapping
>>>>> between
>>>>> SQL
>>>>> type and Java types varies much from the single JDBC
>>>>> implementation.
>>>>> Wouldn't be better to rely on the Java type coming from using
>>>>> resultSet.getObject() to get such a mapping rather than using the
>>>>> ResultSetMetadata types?
>>>>> 2. I'd like to handle connections very efficiently because we
>>>>> have a
>>>>> use
>>>>> case with billions of records and thus millions of splits and
>>>>> establish
>>>>> a
>>>>> new connection each time could be expensive. Would it be a
>>>>> problem to
>>>>> add
>>>>> apache pool dependency to the jdbc batch connector in order to
>>>>> reuase
>>>>> the
>>>>> created connections?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/fpompermaier/flink/blob/FLINK-3750/flink-batch-connectors/flink-jdbc/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/io/jdbc/JDBCInputFormat.java
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
