I think "WITH" syntax is ugly and cumbersome. We should go with this one: CREATE TABLE Person (id int AFFINITY KEY, uid uuid KEY, firstName varchar, lastName varchar)
All databases (i.e. [1], [2]) work this way, I see no reason to invent something different and confuse the users. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/create-table-transact-sql#syntax-1 [2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createtable.html On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Paschenko < alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitry, > > For H2 it would be something like this - please note all those quotes, > commas and equality signs that would be mandatory: > > CREATE TABLE Person (id int, uid uuid, firstName varchar, lastName > varchar) WITH "keyFields=id,uuid","affinityKey=id" > > With suggested approach, it would be something like > > CREATE TABLE Person (id int AFFINITY KEY, uid uuid KEY, firstName > varchar, lastName varchar) > > While this may not look like a drastic improvement in this particular > case, we someday most likely will want either an all-custom CREATE > CACHE command, or a whole bunch of new options for CREATE TABLE, if we > decide not to go with CREATE CACHE - I personally think that stuff > like > > CREATE TABLE ... WITH > "keyFields=id,uuid","affinityKey=id","cacheType=partitioned","atomicity= > atomic","partitions=3" > > which will arise if we continue to try to stuff everything into WITH > will just bring more ugliness with time, and that's not to mention > that new CREATE CACHE syntax will be impossible or relatively hard to > introduce as we will have to approve it with H2 folks, and that's how > it will be with any new param or command that we want. > > Allowing to plug custom parser into H2 (as we do now with table > engine) will let us introduce any syntax we want and focus on > usability and not on compromises and workarounds (which WITH keyword > currently is). > > - Alex > > 2017-04-12 5:11 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > Alexeander, > > > > Can you please provide an example of what the CREATE TABLE command would > > look like if we use WITH syntax from H2 vs. what you are proposing? > > > > D. > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Alexander Paschenko < > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello Igniters, > >> > >> Yup, it's THAT time once again as we haven't ultimately settled on > >> anything with the subj. as of yet, but I believe that now with DDL on > >> its way this talk can't be avoided anymore (sorry guys). > >> > >> The last time we talked about Ignite specific stuff we need to have in > >> CREATE TABLE (key fields list, affinity key, am I missing anything?), > >> the simplest approach suggested by Sergi was that we simply use WITH > >> part of H2's CREATE TABLE to pass stuff we need. > >> > >> This could work, but needless to say that such commands would look plain > >> ugly. > >> > >> I think we should go with custom syntax after all, BUT not in a way > >> suggested before by Sergi (propose Apache Ignite mode to H2). > >> > >> Instead, I suggest that we propose to H2 patch that would allow > >> plugging in *custom SQL parser* directly based on theirs (quite > >> elegant one) – I've had a look at their code, and this should not be > >> hard. > >> > >> Work on such a patch making syntax parsing overridable would take a > >> couple days which is not much time AND would give us the opportunity > >> to introduce to Ignite virtually any syntax we wish - both now and in > >> the future. Without worrying about compatibility with H2 ever again, > >> that is. > >> > >> Thoughts? After we agree on this principally and after H2 patch for > >> custom parsing is ready, we can roll our sleeves and focus on syntax > >> itself. > >> > >> - Alex > >> >
