Hi, 1. For now I'm against inventing any custom SQL syntax and implementing parsing. Currently H2 supports the following syntax:
CREATE TABLE test(...) WITH "myCustomParamString" This is enough for us to pass the needed parameters. 2. Agree with AG, we have to separate cache creation from table creation. Cache == SQL schema for us. We just have to add the same WITH syntax in H2 for schema creation like this: CREATE SCHEMA "MyCacheName" WITH "cacheConfig=myCache.xml" 3. If we want to create tables then I suggest to put this functionality to 2.0+PageMemory right away and think where and how we are going to store all the related metadata.This is especially important for persistent storages. Sergi 2017-01-12 16:56 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > I am afraid in this case user will have to define too much schemes - > boilerplate. > Does it make sense at all to pack multiple tuples into a single cache from > user perspective? > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Alexander, > > > > Will we keep the old option to have multiple tables in one cache? If so, > > how will create table statement know which cache to choose? > > > > It seems to me that to be consistent with the current DML implementation > we > > should have a CREATE SCHEMA statement which will define the cache and > cache > > configuration, and CREATE TABLE should specify the schema name. > > > > Otherwise, we should enforce the single type per cache rule at the > > configuration level and in runtime. > > > > As for affinity and primary key - agree with Vladimir. > > > > -- > > AG > > > > 2017-01-12 11:41 GMT+03:00 Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > As first stage of DDL we can implement following CREATE TABLE statement > > > support: > > > - CREATE TABLE without cache properties (use default cache properties > or > > > cache properties defined in SQL Schema) > > > - CREATE TABLE .. LIKE where we can create a cache based on an another > > > existing cache. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Agree with Sergey. We should be able to specify cache properties > inside > > > of > > > > SQL statements. Does H2 have any support to process SQL hints? Can we > > > > change it? > > > > > > > > Having said that, while we finalize the above, I think we should > start > > > > working on DDL implementation to use the default settings, as > specified > > > in > > > > Alexander's email. > > > > > > > > Also agree with the stop-the-world on the cache for index creation. > We > > > can > > > > always improve on it in future. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Sergey Kozlov < > skoz...@gridgain.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > I suppose we should put any ignite cache properties as additional > > > > > non-standard attributes after CREATE TABLE () clause as it does > > > > Postgress, > > > > > MySQL and other RDBMS. > > > > > Take a look on CREATE TABLE with using TABLESPACE (Postgess) or for > > > > CREATE > > > > > TABLE with using PARTITIONS (MySQL). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I believe custom synthax and parsing is a *must* for us, as well > as > > > for > > > > > any > > > > > > distributed database. At the very least we need to specify > affinity > > > key > > > > > > column somehow. Any cache property can be specified at the very > end > > > of > > > > > > table definition. Key columns can be determined as the ones with > > > > PRIMARY > > > > > > KEY constraint (Alex K. idea) + affinity column(s): > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE employee ( > > > > > > id BIGINT PRIMARY KEY, > > > > > > dept_id BIGINT AFFINITY KEY, > > > > > > name VARCHAR(128), > > > > > > address VARCHAR(256) > > > > > > BACKUPS 2, > > > > > > ATOMICITY_MODE ATOMIC, > > > > > > ); > > > > > > > > > > > > "id" and "dept_id" form key type, "name" and "address" form value > > > type. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov < > > > > akuznet...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Alex! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I know most RDBMS allow something like: create table > t1 > > > (id > > > > > > > integer primary key, ....) > > > > > > > How about to take as key field that marked as "primary key"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of atomicity and replication - I think it is a cache > > properties > > > > and > > > > > > with > > > > > > > create table we will create "types" in cache. No? > > > > > > > I thought that cache it is a kind of "schema" in RDBMS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you describe what will be created with CREATE TABLE? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Alexander Paschenko < > > > > > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start discussion about implementation of SQL > > DDL > > > > > > > commands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the first stage, the most important ones seem to be CREATE > > > TABLE > > > > > > > > (that will obviously correspond to creation of a cache) and > > > CREATE > > > > > > > > INDEX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding first one: SQL command for CREATE TABLE does not > > > contain > > > > > any > > > > > > > > hints about cache settings (atomicity, replication, etc.), so > > > these > > > > > > > > will probably be defined by some configuration properties > (like > > > > > > > > ignite.ddl.default_cache_atomiticity, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also it does not allow to distinguish between key and value > > > > columns - > > > > > > > > currently it is handled by keyFields property of QueryEntity, > > but > > > > it > > > > > > > > is unclear how to declare key fields via CREATE TABLE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So at a first glance it seems like we should either implement > > > some > > > > > > > > sort of custom parsing (I believe Sergi will be against it) > or > > > > > > > > introduce some kind of name prefix that would tell SQL engine > > > that > > > > > > > > certain column is a key field column. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, this problem disappears is key is of SQL type. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding CREATE INDEX: probably at first we will have to > > > implement > > > > > > > > this in "stop-the-world" manner, i.e. all cache will be > blocked > > > > > during > > > > > > > > the index's initial buildup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently I'm working on parsing of those commands as that > will > > > be > > > > > > > > needed anyway and does not affect further implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Sergey Kozlov > > > > > GridGain Systems > > > > > www.gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sergey Kozlov > > > GridGain Systems > > > www.gridgain.com > > > > > >
