Folks, The decimal syntax is really odd - KILL QUERY '[node_order].[query_counter]'
Confusing, let's use a space to separate parameters. Also, what if I want to halt a specific query with certain ID? Don't know the node number, just know that the query is distributed and runs across several machines. Sounds like the syntax still should consider [node_order/id] as an optional parameter. Probably, if you explain to me how an end user will use this command from the very beginning (how do I look for a query id and node id, etc) then the things get clearer. -- Denis On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:03 AM Юрий <jury.gerzhedow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > Thanks for your suggestion to use MANAGEMENT_POOL for processing > cancellation requests. > > About your questions. > 1) I'm going to implements SQL view to provide list of running queries. The > SQL VIEW has been a little bit discussed earlier. Proposed name is > *running_queries* with following columns: query_id, node_id, sql, > schema_name, connection_id, duration. Currently most of the information can > be retrieved through cache API, however it doesn't matter, any case we > need to expose SQL VIEW. Seem's you are right - the part should be > implemented firstly. > 2) Fully agree that we need to support all kind of SQL queries > (SLECT/DML/DDL, transactional, non transnational, local, distributed). I > definitely sure that it will possible for all of above, however I'm not > sure about DDL - need to investigate it deeper. Also need to understand > that canceled DML operation can lead to partially updated data for non > transational caches. > > > > пн, 19 нояб. 2018 г. в 19:17, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > Hi Yuriy, > > > > I think we can use MANAGEMENT_POOL for this. It is already used for some > > internal Ignite tasks, and it appears to be a good candidate to process > > cancel requests. > > > > But there are several things which are not clear enough for me at the > > moment: > > 1) How user is going to get the list of running queries in the first > place? > > Do we already have any SQL commands/views to get this information? > > 2) We need to ensure that KILL command will be processed properly by all > > kinds of SQL queries - SELECT/DML/DDL, non-transactional or > transactional, > > local queries and distributed queries. Will we be able to support all > these > > modes? > > > > Vladimir. > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:37 PM Юрий <jury.gerzhedow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > Earlier we agreed about syntax KILL QUERY > '[node_order].[query_counter]', > > > e.g. KILL QUERY '25.123' for single query or KILL QUERY '25.*' for all > > > queries on the node. Which is part of IEP-29 > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-29%3A+SQL+management+and+monitoring > > > > > > > . > > > > > > Now I want to discuss internal realization of KILL query feature. > > > > > > My current vision is following: > > > After parsing, Ignite create KILL query command with two parameters: > > > nodeOrderId, nodeQryId. To determine that need to kill all queries on a > > > node we can use negative value of query id, due to qry id always have > > > positive values. > > > The command process at IgniteH2Indexing as native command. > > > By nodeOrderId we find node which initial for the query and send to the > > > node new GridQueryKillRequest with nodeQryId to TOPIC_QUERY with not > > QUERY > > > POOL executor. > > > At GridReduceQueryExecutor we add support of processing new > > > GridQueryKillRequest > > > which just run already exists cancelQueries method with given qryId or > > with > > > all qryIds which currently running at the node in case at initial KILL > > > QUERY parameters used star symbol. > > > > > > I have a doubt which of thread pool we should use to process > > > GridQueryKillRequest. > > > My opinion it shouldn't be QUERY pool, due to the pool can be fully > used > > by > > > executing queries, it such case we can't cancel query immediately. May > we > > > use one of already existed pool or create new one? Or may be I'm > mistaken > > > and it should use QUERY pool. > > > > > > What do you think about proposed plan of implementation? > > > > > > And please give comments about which of thread pool will be better to > use > > > for kill query requests. It's small, but really important part of the > > > realization. > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D > > > > > > > > -- > Живи с улыбкой! :D >
