OK, will remove redundant query tasks creation for the case of DML statements - they at least incur some GC overhead even if not context switching.
- Alex 2016-12-20 12:49 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Alexander Paschenko < > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I see what you are suggesting and will remove this feature from the driver >> if there are no objections. (Anyone?) >> Still, for clarity and your better understanding I'd like to again point >> out that there's no thread context switching or any Ignite imposed overhead >> by default as even ignite compute ia not used — closure's call() method is >> called directly in the same thread. Wrapped task isn't going anywhere in >> local case. And it's the pattern that is used in Ignite code quite >> extensively — if the task is local anyway, let's just run it "on the spot", >> directly, without any unnecessary overhead. >> >> > I disagree, there is an overhead, especially for relatively small batches. > Why do you keep insisting on having this flawed design? Why not fix it > properly by calling putAll(...) directly? > > >> — Alex >> 19 дек. 2016 г. 11:44 PM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < >> dsetrak...@apache.org> написал: >> >> > Alex, >> > >> > What Val and I are suggesting is that we get rid of any JdbcCallable >> calls >> > and invoke putAll(...) directly. Wrapping it into JdbcCallable will slow >> us >> > down and introduce unnecessary thread context switch. >> > >> > Do you agree? >> > >> > D. >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < >> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > By "locally executed callable" I meant something like this: >> > > >> > > new JdbcCallable(...).call(); >> > > >> > > So it's not a network call and it's not even going through >> IgniteCompute. >> > > It's just the logic is incapsulated in the callable to support remote >> > > execution of the same logic. >> > > >> > > But anyway, +1 to removing nodeId property. It doesn't make much sense >> > with >> > > the new implementation of JDBC. >> > > >> > > -Val >> > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Alexander Paschenko < >> > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > When node is local, no network interaction occurs on query send. >> Would >> > be >> > > > shame otherwise :) >> > > > >> > > > — Alex >> > > > 19 дек. 2016 г. 8:36 PM пользователь "Denis Magda" < >> dma...@apache.org> >> > > > написал: >> > > > >> > > > > Dmitriy, >> > > > > >> > > > > According to Val and Alex P. explanations this happens when a >> > specific >> > > > > node id is set. I got confused by the code flow initially. >> > > > > >> > > > > — >> > > > > Denis >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Dec 19, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> > > dsetrak...@apache.org> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, Alex. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you clarify if the putAll(...) call is made directly, or from >> > > > locally >> > > > > > executed callable? According to Denis, "even single (non batched) >> > > > updates >> > > > > > or queries are sent as callables", which should be fixed in my >> > view. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > D. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Alexander Paschenko < >> > > > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Dima, Val, >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Introduction of updates has not changed public API at all (only >> > > > > >> configuration, in some cases), so they work in this respect >> > exactly >> > > > > >> like SELECTs - by default they run on client node started by the >> > > > > >> driver itself, but can be sent via the same callables mechanism >> to >> > > any >> > > > > >> remote node by its id. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> So Dima, you're right, currently it's possible to send query to >> > any >> > > > > >> given node. And, at the same time, currently by default >> everything >> > > > > >> works exactly like you want it to - that is, any MERGE, batched >> or >> > > > > >> not, boils down to putAll, and by default this call happens >> > locally. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> - Alex >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> 2016-12-17 18:47 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> > dsetrak...@apache.org >> > > >: >> > > > > >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >> > > > > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>>> I'm not sure about updates, but can tell about how selects are >> > > > > >> implemented >> > > > > >>>> there. Basically, there is an option to execute the query on a >> > > > > >> particular >> > > > > >>>> node specified by ignite.jdbc.nodeId property. Not sure why we >> > > need >> > > > > this >> > > > > >>>> though, probably it's just leftover from the legacy version of >> > the >> > > > > >> driver >> > > > > >>>> based on thin client. >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> If the property is set, the callable is sent to a remote node. >> > But >> > > > if >> > > > > >> it is >> > > > > >>>> not, the same callable is created, but it is invoked directly >> on >> > > the >> > > > > >>>> embedded client which is the behavior that you expect. And >> it's >> > > the >> > > > > >> default >> > > > > >>>> one. >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>> Ouch. If this is the reason, I would drop the nodeId property. >> I >> > > > don't >> > > > > >>> think it makes sense and it significantly slows down the >> > > > > implementation. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>>> -Val >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Denis Magda < >> dma...@apache.org >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>>> Frankly speaking, even single (non batched) updates or >> queries >> > > are >> > > > > >> sent >> > > > > >>>> as >> > > > > >>>>> callables. This is what I see in the code. >> > > > > >>>>> No idea what was the reason behind this design. >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> Andrey G., Alex P. could you shed a light on this? >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> — >> > > > > >>>>> Denis >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Dec 16, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> > > > > >> dsetrak...@apache.org> >> > > > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> To my understanding, we are implementing JDBC batches by >> > > sending a >> > > > > >>>>> callable >> > > > > >>>>>> to another node. If we already have a client node on the >> JDBC >> > > > driver >> > > > > >>>>> side, >> > > > > >>>>>> why not just issue a putAll(...) call from the client? >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> D. >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Denis Magda < >> > dma...@apache.org >> > > > >> > > > > >>>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Dmitriy, >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> JDBC drivers spawns an Ignite client node and uses it for >> > > cluster >> > > > > >>>>>>> connectivity and queries execution. Queries issued over the >> > > JDBC >> > > > > >> are >> > > > > >>>>> turned >> > > > > >>>>>>> into SqlFieldsQueries and sent to the cluster in this form. >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> ODBC driver works in a bit different way. It connects to >> the >> > > > > >> cluster >> > > > > >>>> via >> > > > > >>>>>>> ODBC processor that needs to be running on one of the >> nodes: >> > > > > >>>>>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/odbc-driver#cluster- >> > > > > >> configuration >> > > > > >>>> < >> > > > > >>>>>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/odbc-driver#cluster- >> > > > > >> configuration >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> — >> > > > > >>>>>>> Denis >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Dec 16, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> > > > > >>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Igniters, >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Can someone explain to me how Ignite executes SQL from >> JDBC >> > > and >> > > > > >> ODBC >> > > > > >>>>>>>> drivers? Do we start an Ignite client node on the driver >> > side? >> > > > Or >> > > > > >> do >> > > > > >>>> we >> > > > > >>>>>>> use >> > > > > >>>>>>>> some other protocol to send commands to one of the Ignite >> > > nodes? >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, >> > > > > >>>>>>>> D. >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
