Hm... I think the truth is somewhere in the middle here. The syntax proposed by Sergi makes sense to me. However, I am still struggling why would H2 accept our patch, if it has AFFINITY KEY keyword in it, which has nothing to do with H2.
It does sound like certain portions of SQL do need to be plugable to support the user-specific syntax. Sergi, am I missing something? D. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> wrote: > If it is that little, then all this copy/paste shit-coding makes no sense. > > We have to add a respective mode to H2, add respective tests to H2, so that > other contributors of H2 will not occasionally break our stuff. Thats it. > > I will be the first H2 committer who will reject you patch, don't waste > your time. > > Sergi > > 2017-04-12 16:33 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > > Sergi, > > > > First, it would be as little as overriding the part responsible for > > CREATE TABLE - there's no need to touch anything else as luckily H2 > > parser is internally structured well enough. > > > > Second, although it is not all-around perfect, I am most confident > > that this is far better than dragging into H2 bunch of stuff that they > > don't really need just because we need it there or can smug it there. > > > > I think I'll just spend some time in the weekend and come up with a > > prototype as otherwise this talk seems to be just a chit-chat. > > > > - Alex > > > > 2017-04-12 14:38 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>: > > > So basically in inherited class you are going co copy/paste base class > > > methods and tweak them? I don't like this approach. > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > > 2017-04-12 14:07 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > >> Sergi, > > >> > > >> As I've written in my previous post, it would be just inheriting > Parser > > on > > >> Ignite side and plugging its instance in SINGLE place. Just making > H2's > > >> Parser internal methods protected instead of private would let us do > the > > >> trick. > > >> > > >> — Alex > > >> > > >> среда, 12 апреля 2017 г. пользователь Sergi Vladykin написал: > > >> > > >> > I don't see how you make H2 Parser extendable, you will have to add > > >> plugin > > >> > call to every *potentially* extendable place in it. In general this > > does > > >> > not work. As H2 guy I would also reject patch like this. > > >> > > > >> > Sergi > > >> > > > >> > 2017-04-12 13:10 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > > >> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>: > > >> > > > >> > > Sergi, > > >> > > > > >> > > Please have a closer look at what I've written in my first post. I > > >> don't > > >> > > see why we have to cling to H2 and its parsing modes all the time > — > > >> after > > >> > > all, we're just talking string processing now, aren't we? (Yes, > > complex > > >> > and > > >> > > non trivial, but still.) > > >> > > > > >> > > What's wrong with idea of patching H2 to allow custom parsing? > (With > > >> the > > >> > > parsing itself living in Ignite code, obviously, not in H2.). > > >> > > > > >> > > What I propose is just to make H2's Parser class extendable and > > make H2 > > >> > > aware of its descendants via config params. And that's all with > > respect > > >> > to > > >> > > H2, nothing more. > > >> > > > > >> > > After that, on Ignite side we do all we want with our parser based > > on > > >> > > theirs. It resembles story with custom types — first we make H2 > > >> > extendable > > >> > > in the way we need, then we introduce exact features we need on > > Ignite > > >> > > side. > > >> > > > > >> > > — Alex > > >> > > > > >> > > среда, 12 апреля 2017 г. пользователь Sergi Vladykin написал: > > >> > > > > >> > > > It definitely makes sense to add a separate mode for Ignite in > H2. > > >> > Though > > >> > > > it is wrong to think that it will allow us to add any crazy > > syntax we > > >> > > want > > >> > > > (and it is actually a wrong idea imo), only the minor variations > > of > > >> the > > >> > > > existing syntax. But this must be enough. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I believe we should end up with something like > > >> > > > > > >> > > > CREATE TABLE person > > >> > > > ( > > >> > > > id INT PRIMARY KEY, > > >> > > > orgId INT AFFINITY KEY, > > >> > > > name VARCHAR > > >> > > > ) > > >> > > > WITH "cfg:my_config_template.xml" > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Sergi > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2017-04-12 7:54 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > >> > <javascript:;> > > >> > > > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Agree, the updated syntax looks better. One change though: KEY > > -> > > >> > > PRIMARY > > >> > > > > KEY. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Sergi, what do you think? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > D. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn < > > >> > ptupit...@apache.org <javascript:;> > > >> > > > <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 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 <javascript:;> > > <javascript:;>> > > >> > 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 <javascript:;> > > >> > > > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > > > > > > > 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 <javascript:;> > > >> > <javascript:;>> 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 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
