Dmitriy, Sorry, link access fixed, please check now. Will sum up current status on issue page, meanwhile links to both docs are there.
— Alex 2 авг. 2016 г. 10:51 PM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < dsetrak...@apache.org> написал: > Alex, > > Can you please also make me happy and put all your design into the ticket > instead of sending it around in emails? > > On top of that, the link you provided is protected. I cannot access it. > > D. > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko < > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have pushed "zero" version of JDBC updates support, currently > > without batching (working on it). > > Sergi, also to make you happy here's another doc with changes to > > public API: http://goo.gl/FvGKUs > > > > - Alex > > > > 2016-08-01 20:06 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>: > > > Ok, I think you don't really understand what public API really is, so > let > > > me clarify. What you have described are all internal classes, public > API > > is > > > what end user will see and work with, like Ignite, IgniteCache, > > > QueryCursor, etc... All the internal changes do not require any special > > > discussion, until they are really complex or big or important, so you > > think > > > it makes sense to notify everyone about them. > > > > > > Here we should not have any public API changes for now and I don't see > > any > > > in your doc, so it looks fine to me. > > > > > > The only possible issue I see is origKeyClass and origValueClass. These > > > classes can be unavailable on nodes and most of the time we will have > to > > > work with binary format. Please make sure that this case is correctly > > > handled. > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > > 2016-08-01 18:14 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > >> Guys, > > >> > > >> Here's documented version of current API changes - it's quite modest > > >> https://goo.gl/Y6Cv1b > > >> > > >> - Alex > > >> > > >> 2016-07-28 20:34 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko > > >> <alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > >> > Sergi, > > >> > > > >> > OK, I've done it as you said, thanks. > > >> > Now working on binary marshaller support. > > >> > > > >> > - Alex > > >> > > > >> > 2016-07-28 9:08 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > >: > > >> >> I had a quick look at the PR. > > >> >> > > >> >> I don't like this @QueryCacheKey and setKeyProp method on public > API. > > >> They > > >> >> solve nothing but add complexity and make key to be stored twice in > > >> cache, > > >> >> which is wrong. Please remove this. > > >> >> > > >> >> If you want to do some public API changes you have to discuss them > > >> publicly > > >> >> before implementing them, ok? > > >> >> > > >> >> I did not look deeper yet, lets fix the obvious issue first. > > >> >> > > >> >> Sergi > > >> >> > > >> >> 2016-07-27 21:44 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > >> >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > >> >> > > >> >>> Sergi, > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I've made changes to the API according to your valuable > > >> >>> recommendations, thank you very much for giving them. Please refer > > to > > >> >>> PR to see current state of the work. > > >> >>> Will surely look into ODBC, .NET and Visor. Though they will most > > >> >>> likely have to support a new feature rather than considerably > change > > >> >>> existing logic. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> - Alex > > >> >>> > > >> >>> 2016-07-27 14:23 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin < > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > >: > > >> >>> > Please don't forget about ODBC, .NET and Visor. They all have to > > >> work in > > >> >>> > the same way. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > Sergi > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > 2016-07-27 14:15 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > >> >>> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> >> OK, I've found that bold cast to QueryCursor<R> in > > IgniteCacheProxy > > >> >>> >> and had a look at how SqlFieldsQuery is used in JDBC driver. > > Thanks. > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> - Alex > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> 2016-07-27 13:02 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin < > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > >> >: > > >> >>> >> > Where did you see R in SqlFieldsQuery? > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > Sergi > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > 2016-07-27 12:59 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > >> >>> >> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> Sergi, > > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> But current signature of query() method returns not just > some > > >> >>> >> >> iterator, but rather iterator of R which is type param of > > Query - > > >> >>> >> >> i.e., we won't be able to return an int inside a > > QueryCursor<R>. > > >> At > > >> >>> >> >> least without API change (signature of query() method will > > have > > >> to be > > >> >>> >> >> changed to drop genericness, or in some other weird way). Is > > this > > >> >>> what > > >> >>> >> >> we really want? Or am I missing something in your point? > > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> - Alex > > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> 2016-07-27 12:51 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin < > > >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > >> >>> >: > > >> >>> >> >> > Exactly. This will allow our Jdbc driver to work > > transparently. > > >> >>> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> > Sergi > > >> >>> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> > 2016-07-27 12:40 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > >> >>> >> >> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > >> >>> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> Sergi, > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> You wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> >> > I'd prefer to return the same information, so it will > > not be > > >> >>> empty > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> Do you mean return iterator with single element that > > denotes > > >> >>> number > > >> >>> >> of > > >> >>> >> >> >> rows? > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> Dmitriy, > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> You wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> >> > What is the ticket number for this. Is the new API > > >> documented > > >> >>> >> there? > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> Overall issue number is 2294. There's no particular issue > > on > > >> API > > >> >>> >> >> >> changes, but creating one seems to be a good idea, I will > > do > > >> it. > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> - Alex > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> 2016-07-27 9:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> >>> dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > >> >>> >> >> >> > What is the ticket number for this. Is the new API > > >> documented > > >> >>> >> there? > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Sergi Vladykin < > > >> >>> >> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> >> >> >> > wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> I don't see anything ugly in empty iterator, sorry if > I > > >> >>> insulted > > >> >>> >> your > > >> >>> >> >> >> taste > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> of beauty. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> If you will take a look at Jdbc, you will see that > > >> >>> >> >> >> Statement.executeUpdate > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> method returns number of updated rows, I'd prefer to > > >> return the > > >> >>> >> same > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> information, so it will not be empty (beauty is > > restored!). > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> Sergi > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> 2016-07-26 18:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > I see your point. But what about my concerns from > > initial > > >> >>> post? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Particularly about signatures of existing methods? I > > >> >>> personally > > >> >>> >> >> don't > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > like an option of query() method always returning an > > >> empty > > >> >>> >> iterator > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > for any non-select query, it seems ugly design wise. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > - Alex > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > 2016-07-26 18:15 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin < > > >> >>> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > BTW, the simplest way to solve this issue is to > > allow > > >> >>> running > > >> >>> >> SQL > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > commands > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > inside of SqlFieldsQuery. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > We may add some additional convenience API for > > updates > > >> if > > >> >>> we > > >> >>> >> >> want, > > >> >>> >> >> >> but > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > JDBC > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > client will always call it like this: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > cache.query(new SqlFieldsQuery("INSERT INTO > MY_TABLE > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > VALUES(?,?)").setArgs(1,2)); > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > This will resolve any ambiguity. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > Sergi > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > 2016-07-26 17:56 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin < > > >> >>> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > >> >>> >> >> >> >: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> I don't like any pre-parsing, especially with > some > > >> >>> libraries > > >> >>> >> >> other > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> than > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> H2. H2 itself has enough quirks to multiply it on > > >> quirks > > >> >>> of > > >> >>> >> >> another > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > library. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> This is exactly what I was talking about - we > need > > >> some > > >> >>> >> single > > >> >>> >> >> >> entry > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > point > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> on API for all the SQL commands and queries. > Thats > > >> why I > > >> >>> >> >> suggested > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> SqlUpdate to extend Query. To me its is the > > cleanest > > >> >>> >> approach. > > >> >>> >> >> May > > >> >>> >> >> >> be > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> we > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> need to change in some backward compatible way > this > > >> Query > > >> >>> >> >> >> hierarchy to > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > get > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> rid of extra methods but the idea is still the > > same. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> Sergi > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> 2016-07-26 14:34 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Guys, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> I would like to advance the discussion further. > > >> There's > > >> >>> one > > >> >>> >> >> quite > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> important question that arose based on current > > state > > >> of > > >> >>> >> work on > > >> >>> >> >> >> this > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> issue. If we use some kind of interactive > console, > > >> like > > >> >>> >> Visor, > > >> >>> >> >> >> then > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> how should it know whether SQL query it is > > requested > > >> to > > >> >>> >> execute > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> returns a result set or not? In JDBC world, > > solution > > >> is > > >> >>> >> quite > > >> >>> >> >> >> simple > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> - > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> there's base interface called Statement that all > > >> commands > > >> >>> >> >> >> implement, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and it has magic isResultSet method that tells > > >> whether > > >> >>> >> >> statement > > >> >>> >> >> >> is a > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> query or an update command. The API proposed now > > has > > >> >>> >> separate > > >> >>> >> >> >> Query > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and Update operations which I believe to be a > > right > > >> >>> thing by > > >> >>> >> >> the > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> reasons I outlined in the beginning of this > > thread. > > >> >>> However, > > >> >>> >> >> their > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> lack of common ancestor prevents possible > console > > >> clients > > >> >>> >> from > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> running > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> text SQL commands in a fully transparent manner > - > > >> like > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> IgniteCache.execute(String sql). Therefore I see > > two > > >> >>> >> possible > > >> >>> >> >> >> ways of > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> solving this: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - we change API so that it includes new class or > > >> >>> interface > > >> >>> >> >> >> parenting > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> both Query and Update, and clients use it to > > >> communicate > > >> >>> >> with > > >> >>> >> >> >> cache > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - we let (or make :) ) the client determine > > command > > >> type > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> independently > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> and behave accordingly - for it to work it will > > have > > >> some > > >> >>> >> kind > > >> >>> >> >> of > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> command parsing by itself just to determine its > > type. > > >> >>> Visor > > >> >>> >> >> >> console > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> may use simple library like JSqlParser > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> (https://github.com/JSQLParser/JSqlParser; dual > > LGPL > > >> >>> >> 2.1/ASF > > >> >>> >> >> 2.0 > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> licensed) to determine request type in terms of > > >> JDBC, and > > >> >>> >> >> behave > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> accordingly. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Personally, I think that the second approach is > > >> better - > > >> >>> and > > >> >>> >> >> >> here's > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > why. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> First, it does not seem wise to change API > simply > > to > > >> make > > >> >>> >> >> console > > >> >>> >> >> >> (or > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> any other) clients simpler. Programmatic APIs > > should > > >> be > > >> >>> >> concise > > >> >>> >> >> >> and > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> short for programmatic use, console clients > > should be > > >> >>> easy > > >> >>> >> to > > >> >>> >> >> use > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> from > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> console - and that's it: after all, console > client > > >> >>> exists to > > >> >>> >> >> free > > >> >>> >> >> >> a > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> user from burden of doing things > programmatically, > > >> so its > > >> >>> >> aim > > >> >>> >> >> is > > >> >>> >> >> >> to > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> adapt API to console or whatever UI. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Second, possible complications in client implied > > by > > >> such > > >> >>> >> >> approach > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> certainly won't be dramatic - I don't think that > > >> >>> additional > > >> >>> >> >> single > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> query parsing operation in client code will make > > it > > >> much > > >> >>> >> >> harder to > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> develop. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Third, as I see it now, adding a new "synthetic" > > >> entity > > >> >>> and > > >> >>> >> new > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> method > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> would take more effort to adapting the client to > > new > > >> API. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> Dmitry, Sergi, I would like to hear what you > think > > >> about > > >> >>> it > > >> >>> >> >> all. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Thanks. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> - Alex > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> 2016-07-21 21:17 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> >>> >> >> >> dsetrak...@apache.org > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > OK, then using your analogy, the current > > behavior > > >> in > > >> >>> >> Ignite > > >> >>> >> >> is > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> MERGE > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > for > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > the most part. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > My preference is that Ignite SQL should work > no > > >> >>> different > > >> >>> >> >> from > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> traditional > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > databases, which means: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - INSERT is translated into *putIfAbsent()* > > call in > > >> >>> Ignite > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - UPDATE is translated into *replace()* call > in > > >> Ignite > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - MERGE is translated into *put()* call in > > Ignite > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > - For SQL BATCH calls we should delegate to > > Ignite > > >> >>> batch > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> operations, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> e.g. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > *putAll()* > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > The above should hold true for atomic and > > >> transactional > > >> >>> >> >> >> put/putAll > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> calls, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > as well as for the data streamer. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > Does this make sense? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > D. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Sergi > Vladykin > > < > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> No, this does not make sense. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> There is no upsert mode in databases. There > are > > >> >>> >> operations: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> INSERT, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> UPDATE, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> DELETE, MERGE. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> I want to have clear understanding of how > they > > >> have to > > >> >>> >> >> behave > > >> >>> >> >> >> in > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> SQL > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> databases and how they will actually behave > in > > >> Ignite > > >> >>> in > > >> >>> >> >> >> different > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> scenarios. Also I want to have clear > > >> understanding of > > >> >>> >> >> >> performance > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> implications of each decision here. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Anything wrong with that? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Sergi > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Dmitriy > > >> Setrakyan < > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> dsetrak...@apache.org> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Serj, are you asking what will happen as of > > >> today? > > >> >>> Then > > >> >>> >> >> the > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> answer > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> to all > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > your questions is that duplicate keys are > > not an > > >> >>> issue, > > >> >>> >> >> and > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> Ignite > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> always > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > operates in **upsert** mode (which is > > >> essentially a > > >> >>> >> >> *“put(…)” > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> *method). > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > However, the *“insert”* that is suggested > by > > >> Alex > > >> >>> would > > >> >>> >> >> >> delegate > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > to > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > *“putIfAbsent(…)”*, which in database world > > >> makes > > >> >>> more > > >> >>> >> >> sense. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> However, in > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > this case, the *“update”* syntax should > > >> delegate to > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > *“replace(…)”*, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> as > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > update should fail in case if a key is > > absent. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Considering the above, a notion of > > “*upsert”* or > > >> >>> >> “*merge” > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > *operation > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> is > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > very much needed, as it will give a user an > > >> option > > >> >>> to > > >> >>> >> >> perform > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > “insert-or-update” in 1 call. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Does this make sense? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > D. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Sergi > > Vladykin > > >> < > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > I'd prefer to do MERGE operation last > > because > > >> in > > >> >>> H2 > > >> >>> >> it > > >> >>> >> >> is > > >> >>> >> >> >> not > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> standard > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > ANSI > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > SQL MERGE. Or may be not implement it at > > all, > > >> or > > >> >>> may > > >> >>> >> be > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > contribute > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> ANSI > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > correct version to H2, then implement it > on > > >> >>> Ignite. > > >> >>> >> >> Need to > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> investigate > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > the > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > semantics deeper before making any > > decisions > > >> here. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > Lets start with simple scenarios for > INSERT > > >> and go > > >> >>> >> >> through > > >> >>> >> >> >> all > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > the > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > possible > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > cases and answer the questions: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen on key conflict in TX > > >> cache? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen on key conflict in > > Atomic > > >> >>> cache? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen with the previous two > if > > >> we use > > >> >>> >> >> >> DataLoader? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - How to make these operations efficient > > (it > > >> will > > >> >>> be > > >> >>> >> >> simple > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > enough > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> to > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > implement them with separate > > put/putIfAbsent > > >> >>> >> operations > > >> >>> >> >> but > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> probably we > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > will need some batching like > putAllIfAbsent > > >> for > > >> >>> >> >> >> efficiency)? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > As for API, we still will need to have a > > >> single > > >> >>> entry > > >> >>> >> >> point > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> for > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> all SQL > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > queries/commands to allow any console > work > > >> with it > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > transparently. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> It > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > would > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > be great if we will be able to come up > with > > >> >>> something > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> consistent > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> with > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > this > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > idea on public API. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > Sergi > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Dmitriy > > >> >>> Setrakyan < > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > dsetrak...@gridgain.com> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Like the idea of merge and insert. I > need > > >> more > > >> >>> >> time to > > >> >>> >> >> >> think > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> about > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> the > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > API > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > changes. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Sergi, what do you think? > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Dmitriy > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Alexander > > >> >>> Paschenko < > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Thus, I suggest that we implement > > MERGE > > >> as a > > >> >>> >> >> separate > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> operation > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > backed > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > by putIfAbsent operation, while INSERT > > will > > >> be > > >> >>> >> >> >> implemented > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> via > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> put. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > Sorry, of course I meant that MERGE > has > > >> to be > > >> >>> >> >> >> put-based, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > while > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> INSERT > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > has to be putIfAbsent-based. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > 2016-07-20 12:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander > > >> Paschenko > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > <alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Hell Igniters, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> In this thread I would like to share > > and > > >> >>> discuss > > >> >>> >> >> some > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> thoughts on > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > DML > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> operations' implementation, so let's > > >> start > > >> >>> and > > >> >>> >> >> keep it > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > here. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Everyone > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> is of course welcome to share their > > >> >>> suggestions. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> For starters, I was thinking about > > >> semantics > > >> >>> of > > >> >>> >> >> >> INSERT. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> In > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > traditional > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> RDBMSs, INSERT works only for > records > > >> whose > > >> >>> >> primary > > >> >>> >> >> >> keys > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > don't > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> conflict with those of records that > > are > > >> >>> already > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> persistent > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > - > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> you > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > can't > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> try to insert the same key more than > > once > > >> >>> >> because > > >> >>> >> >> >> you'll > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > get > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> an > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > error. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> However, semantics of cache put is > > >> obviously > > >> >>> >> >> >> different - > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> it > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> does > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> not > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> have anything about duplicate keys, > it > > >> just > > >> >>> >> quietly > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> updates > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> values > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > in > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> case of keys' duplication. Still, > > cache > > >> has > > >> >>> >> >> >> putIfAbsent > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> operation > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > that > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> is closer to traditional notion of > > >> INSERT, > > >> >>> and > > >> >>> >> H2's > > >> >>> >> >> >> SQL > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> dialect > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> has > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> MERGE operation which corresponds to > > >> >>> semantics > > >> >>> >> of > > >> >>> >> >> >> cache > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > put. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> Thus, I > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> suggest that we implement MERGE as a > > >> separate > > >> >>> >> >> >> operation > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> backed by > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> putIfAbsent operation, while INSERT > > will > > >> be > > >> >>> >> >> >> implemented > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> via > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> put. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> And one more, probably more > important > > >> thing: > > >> >>> I > > >> >>> >> >> suggest > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > that we > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > create > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> separate class Update and > > corresponding > > >> >>> >> operation > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> update() > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > in > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> IgniteCache. The reasons are as > > follows: > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - Query bears some flags that are > > clearly > > >> >>> >> redundant > > >> >>> >> >> >> for > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Update > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> (page > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> size, locality) > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - query() method in IgniteCache (one > > that > > >> >>> >> accepts > > >> >>> >> >> >> Query) > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > and > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> query() > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> methods in GridQueryIndexing return > > >> >>> iterators. > > >> >>> >> So, > > >> >>> >> >> if > > >> >>> >> >> >> we > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> strive to > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> leave interfaces unchanged, we still > > will > > >> >>> >> introduce > > >> >>> >> >> >> some > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> design > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> ugliness like query methods > returning > > >> empty > > >> >>> >> >> iterators > > >> >>> >> >> >> for > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> certain > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> queries, and/or query flags that > > indicate > > >> >>> >> whether > > >> >>> >> >> >> it's an > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> update > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > query > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> or not, etc. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - If some Queries are update > queries, > > >> then > > >> >>> >> >> continuous > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > queries > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> can't > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > be > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> based on them - more design-wise > ugly > > >> checks > > >> >>> and > > >> >>> >> >> stuff > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> like > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> that. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - I'm pretty sure there's more I > don't > > >> know > > >> >>> >> about. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Comments and suggestions are > welcome. > > >> Sergi > > >> >>> >> >> Vladykin, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Dmitry > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Setrakyan, your opinions are of > > >> particular > > >> >>> >> >> interest, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> please > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> advise. > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Regards, > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Alex > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> > > >> > > >
