I have not forgotten, I'm just in a middle of a Bean Validation crisis that delayed my look into this issue. Could it be BTW that the mass indexer does not ask for these objects to be loaded using Hibernate.initialize ? It coudl also be a bug in OGM but not necessarily. In particular is the association lazy or eager?
Emmanuel On Mon 2013-03-11 11:00, Davide D'Alto wrote: > I have created a branch for OGM-228 (OGM MassIndexer) that includes > OGM-151 (Metamodel) and OGM-273 (load entities from tuple): > https://github.com/DavideD/hibernate-ogm/tree/OGM-228 > > A test I've added fails though (AssociationMassIndexerTest): > https://github.com/DavideD/hibernate-ogm/blob/74549a4d264af30fa88960c30e2a872da6afd596/hibernate-ogm-core/src/test/java/org/hibernate/ogm/test/massindex/AssociationMassIndexerTest.java > > The test uses two entitties IndexedNews and IndexedLabel, with a > relationship one to many from news to label. > The mass indexing works fine but when I retrieve the list of indexed > labels with the query "FROM IndexedLabel", the result contains a list > of proxy and the equals fails because the class of the objects in the > list is not IndexedLabel. > > If I first get the list of news and than for each of them I called the > method news.getLabels(), everything works fine. > > Any thoughts > > Thanks > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Emmanuel Bernard > <emman...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > I have no more coin for this one so I have dumped what I have so far > > https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-ogm/pull/175 > > > > Emmanuel > > > > On Wed 2013-03-06 19:18, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > >> I've successfully implemented OGM-151 for EntityKey which is the one we > >> need to move OGM-273 forward for now. > >> I am trying to implement it for AssociationKey but caching here is > >> significantly harder as data is cross reference across associations. > >> > >> Sanne, when you worked on the profiling of OGM, do you remember > >> AssociationKey putting a pressure in build time or memory wise? Because > >> caching them per persister means some rather complex race conditions and > >> more memory used permanently (as opposed to on demand). > >> > >> So I'm wondering if that's worth it. As an intermediary step, I could > >> introduce AssociationKeyMetadata but build it on-demand - that one is > >> easier to achieve. > >> > >> Emmanuel > >> > >> On Wed 2013-03-06 15:32, Davide D'Alto wrote: > >> > it's ok for me > >> > > >> > Davide > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Emmanuel Bernard > >> > <emman...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >> > > I'm planning on working on OGM-151. Fine with everyone? > >> > > That will likely be my last before I move back to BVAL and close the > >> > > final issues there. > >> > > > >> > > Emmanuel > >> > > > >> > > On Tue 2013-03-05 19:04, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > >> > >> Nice! > >> > >> n+1 is something Hibernate Search has to deal with too, that's why I > >> > >> was interested in the fetch profiles and graph loading in JPA 2.1 > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5 March 2013 17:44, Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I have implemented a solution that gives an entity based on a tuple. > >> > >> > https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/OGM-273#comment-50082 > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Note that it does not currently works for MongoDB, but that's > >> > >> > waiting > >> > >> > for the dedicated GridDialect method as well as OGM-151. > >> > >> > Also note that I have no idea how that will work for associations. I > >> > >> > suspect some nasty n+1 is happening as best. Worse case, an > >> > >> > exception :) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Emmanuel > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Tue 2013-03-05 10:30, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > >> > >> >> We might hope for a stable enough contract on Hibernate Search and > >> > >> >> hope that we won't break serializability between micro or minor > >> > >> >> versions. That will need to be taken into account in the test > >> > >> >> suite and > >> > >> >> design. > >> > >> >> On the OGM side though, we are not at that level of maturity and > >> > >> >> we will > >> > >> >> force homogenous Hibernate OGM version across all the cluster. The > >> > >> >> grid > >> > >> >> will have to go down for upgrades or enforce that no mpa reduce job > >> > >> >> using OGM is used while the version roll out is in process. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Emmanuel > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> On Mon 2013-03-04 18:30, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > >> > >> >> > Found an example, this is all the code it needs to have a > >> > >> >> > MassIndexer working > >> > >> >> > on top of Infinispan's Map/Reduce: > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/query/src/main/java/org/infinispan/query/impl/massindex/IndexingMapper.java#L40 > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > Note it's initialize method which injects needed components; the > >> > >> >> > implementation is serialized across nodes. > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > Sanne > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > On 4 March 2013 18:26, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> > >> > >> >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> > > We finished this discussion on IRC, in case someone else was > >> > >> >> > > interested: > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> hum I forgot the first step.. transformation from > >> > >> >> > > entry into entity > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> updated > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> emmanuel, the "hidrate" step is what DavideD is > >> > >> >> > > bashing is > >> > >> >> > > head against, but let's assume he finds a workaround and we > >> > >> >> > > focus on > >> > >> >> > > the pattern as first step? > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> https://gist.github.com/emmanuelbernard/5084039 > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: ^ that's how I would do it if I had an > >> > >> >> > > Iterator from the tuple > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> assuming pushToExecutor pushes to whatever > >> > >> >> > > concurrent work > >> > >> >> > > mechanism you planned to use on consumes > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> Plus I am not folloing exactly how you plan > >> > >> >> > > consumes(Entry) > >> > >> >> > > to be executed concurrently > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> is that the GridDialect responsibility? > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> That looks like a lot of work on the dialect's side > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> emmanuel, imagine the backend is Infinispan and has > >> > >> >> > > some large > >> > >> >> > > amount of data per node, plus that each node has its own > >> > >> >> > > backend > >> > >> >> > > IndexManager (like and ideal sharding) > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> ie pool mgt and cap + queuing > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> then with your approach the iterator needs to fetch > >> > >> >> > > data from > >> > >> >> > > all remote nodes, and then enqueue in a local blocking queue > >> > >> >> > > which is > >> > >> >> > > returning the data to the original owners > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> but if you skip that step, you can just forward the > >> > >> >> > > statless > >> > >> >> > > consumer to each node and have it run on data locality > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> I was thinking that if you had the luncene index > >> > >> >> > > locally on > >> > >> >> > > each node you would ahve a different impl of the MassIndexer > >> > >> >> > > anyways > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> that would simply send a command to each local node > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> To answer your question: that would be an optional > >> > >> >> > > GridDialect > >> > >> >> > > responsibility. I would endorse a trivial first draft doing a > >> > >> >> > > single-threaded loop. > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> and have GridDialect.getDataFor() returnlocal data > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> The "consumes" implementation can be either > >> > >> >> > > implemented with a > >> > >> >> > > simple iterator - as in your design - so I don't think it > >> > >> >> > > pushes much > >> > >> >> > > complexity to the GridDialect implementor? > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> The benefit of the consumer is that *optionally* it > >> > >> >> > > can be > >> > >> >> > > mapped on the Map phase, and that's trivial if your backend > >> > >> >> > > supports > >> > >> >> > > Map/Reduce > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: I don't follow that soory > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> how does that make it mappable to the Map phase? > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> "public void consume(Entry e) " is a degenerate > >> > >> >> > > (simplified) > >> > >> >> > > form of map. > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> mm infinispan IDE crashes at the right moment. > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> I thought Map was about *filtering* > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> not processing > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> you can decide to accept 100% of values (without > >> > >> >> > > filtering), > >> > >> >> > > but actually you might want to filter on the specified tables > >> > >> >> > > only. > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> also, the return type doesn't have to match the input > >> > >> >> > > type: > >> > >> >> > > hence you define a transformation function, which is inherently > >> > >> >> > > applied in parallel on all matching entries. > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: but then you require the OGM code to be > >> > >> >> > > everywhere > >> > >> >> > > (ie on each node of the targetNoSQL > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> to eb able to do tuple -> entity > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> that's not realistic > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> assuming your transform phase is about tuple -> > >> > >> >> > > entity and > >> > >> >> > > some HSearch ops > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> yes right > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> but isn;t it worth it? it's optional and much more > >> > >> >> > > efficient, > >> > >> >> > > as you avoid transferring any data. > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> btw we often assume all nodes in the grid are equally > >> > >> >> > > configured, so having same apps & libraries deployed. > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: let me try and summarize what I understand > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> it's more efficient if you store the Lucene index > >> > >> >> > > locally > >> > >> >> > > with the data, and if the grid is written in Java or at least > >> > >> >> > > can run > >> > >> >> > > code in Java including libraries and if you distribute the OGM > >> > >> >> > > configuration across the whole grid > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> Otherwise, it does not make any difference > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> Also the GridDialect implementation need to know if > >> > >> >> > > you are > >> > >> >> > > doing this trick to only return local data > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> no there are other drawbacks which get defeated, but > >> > >> >> > > minor so > >> > >> >> > > I didn't mention them > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> am I right? > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> mainly, you skip the need for the contentions point as > >> > >> >> > > there > >> > >> >> > > is no push to a shared blocking queue > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> no the GridDialect doesn't need to know. > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: sure if you can process the code on each > >> > >> >> > > node you > >> > >> >> > > avoid the shared blocking queue, at lest until you reach the > >> > >> >> > > IndexManager > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> you'll just forward a simple (standard) M/R task, and > >> > >> >> > > it will > >> > >> >> > > need to execute it as always. > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> the IndexManager is parallel ;) > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: parallel on a single node > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> yes, but no contentions points other than the internal > >> > >> >> > > structure of the IW > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> I mean updating the index for a given table is > >> > >> >> > > better done > >> > >> >> > > on a singlle node > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> IndexWriter > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sorry I meant IndexWriter > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> ah but ou mention perfect sharding > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> you need cosmological alignment for this shit to > >> > >> >> > > happen > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> not if we plan for it :) > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> you might remember the changes to Segments in the ISPN > >> > >> >> > > code, > >> > >> >> > > to accomodate index storage consistent with the data locality > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> that's expected in 6.0 > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> So gridDialect.getData(Consumer consumer, String.. > >> > >> >> > > tables) is wrong > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> it's more gridDialect.getData(ConsumerImpl.class, > >> > >> >> > > String... tables) > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> as you ened to send the Comsumer impl > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> not simply use it > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> hu, it needs a reference to the current SearchFactory > >> > >> >> > > at very least > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: but you're telling me you send the M/R task > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> so you need to send the M/R code as well > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> yes but here we enter Infinspan specific implementation > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> I would register the needed components in Infinispan > >> > >> >> > > and use > >> > >> >> > > the ServiceRegistry to look them up remotely > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> not to mention Infinispan could accomodate a custom > >> > >> >> > > command for it > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> What I am saying is that you don't pass the Consumer > >> > >> >> > > *instance* tot he grid dialect but rather the impl, no? > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> the impl class definition? > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: you tell me. How do I send M/R code today? > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> certainly not an impl instance > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> yes you do > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> JBMar will take care of it, including state. > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> but in this case that would be wrong of course as I > >> > >> >> > > don't want > >> > >> >> > > to serialize the whole SearchFactory so I'd use injection and > >> > >> >> > > lookup, > >> > >> >> > > but that's a detail of Infinispan. > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> But this shouldn't be MassIndexer specific right? it's > >> > >> >> > > good to > >> > >> >> > > expose a general "execute on all" method, and I think accepting > >> > >> >> > > instances would make life easier for most - even though we > >> > >> >> > > might need > >> > >> >> > > to document some limitations. > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> alright, I guess 'll have to live with a visitor > >> > >> >> > > pattern > >> > >> >> > > for a feature that has 5% chance of happening :) > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> I'm going to punch Davide > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> as he's yelling "it's not a visitor" but doesn't have > >> > >> >> > > the guts > >> > >> >> > > to write it down :) > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: DavideD 's would have nothing to do about > >> > >> >> > > it, that's > >> > >> >> > > requires a lot of config and Infinispan machinery I'm not sure > >> > >> >> > > is here > >> > >> >> > > today > >> > >> >> > > <DavideD> :) > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> ah > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> I don't care how it's called, it's one of those > >> > >> >> > > patterns > >> > >> >> > > that make the code harder to follow > >> > >> >> > > <DavideD> I was actually trying to remember the name of the > >> > >> >> > > pattern > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> ok now we agree :) > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> Obfuscator pattern family > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> very popular among consultants, I don't understand why > >> > >> >> > > you complain :P > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> Anyway, let's wrap up and broaden the horizon: > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> ok so we are left with findin to to load a entity > >> > >> >> > > from a tuple > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> you don't think it's useful as a general purpose > >> > >> >> > > method? > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: wil be for queries > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> It's just that it's non obvious > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> Exactly. Also I think lambda methods are getting > >> > >> >> > > widely better known. > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> syntactically yes > >> > >> >> > > <emmanuel> VM wise, perf improvements will come later > >> > >> >> > > <sanne> what I mean is that by defining the SPI this way, I > >> > >> >> > > don't > >> > >> >> > > expect it to be more complex for the GridDialect implementors, > >> > >> >> > > while > >> > >> >> > > we can reuse it for a wider scope of needs. > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > --Sanne > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > On 4 March 2013 17:02, Emmanuel Bernard > >> > >> >> > > <emman...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> On 4 mars 2013, at 17:39, Sanne Grinovero > >> > >> >> > >> <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >>> On 4 March 2013 16:20, Emmanuel Bernard > >> > >> >> > >>> <emman...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >>>> I already gave what I knew on how to load an entity from a > >> > >> >> > >>>> tuple (which > >> > >> >> > >>>> isn't much) but we can try and dig together. Something I > >> > >> >> > >>>> thought about > >> > >> >> > >>>> is that ORM probably has a mechanism to load an entity from > >> > >> >> > >>>> a resultset > >> > >> >> > >>>> via the query parser. And that probably looks also like the > >> > >> >> > >>>> second half > >> > >> >> > >>>> of OgmLoader.load. We could look at this part and see if we > >> > >> >> > >>>> can make an > >> > >> >> > >>>> OGM version of it. We never had the need before as we never > >> > >> >> > >>>> had query > >> > >> >> > >>>> support (the way SQL does it). > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>> I would also need to study the ORM code, but to add a high > >> > >> >> > >>> level observation, > >> > >> >> > >>> the methods currently defined by the GridDialect are > >> > >> >> > >>> focusing on > >> > >> >> > >>> loading from well known key instances, > >> > >> >> > >>> there is nothing to makes us able to scan/inspect for all > >> > >> >> > >>> values. > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>> In other words: even if we wanted to load keys first, we > >> > >> >> > >>> don't have definitions > >> > >> >> > >>> of functions from raw->primary key instances either. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> I understand that. I'm not denying the need for the method. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>>> On the visitor vs Iterator approach, I still don't see how > >> > >> >> > >>>> implementing > >> > >> >> > >>>> an Iterator on a map / reduce backend would be harder than > >> > >> >> > >>>> the visitor > >> > >> >> > >>>> but maybe I'm missing something. > >> > >> >> > >>>> > >> > >> >> > >>>> class IteratorAsStream { > >> > >> >> > >>>> final Query someMapReduceQuery = ...; > >> > >> >> > >>>> > >> > >> >> > >>>> public Object next() { > >> > >> >> > >>>> if (!someMapReduceQuery.started()) { > >> > >> >> > >>>> // execute and collect results in parallel > >> > >> >> > >>>> someMapReduceQuery.execute(); > >> > >> >> > >>>> } > >> > >> >> > >>>> Object result = someMapReduce.getNextOrBlock(); > >> > >> >> > >>>> return result; > >> > >> >> > >>>> } > >> > >> >> > >>>> } > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >>> That could work to *load* all entities in parallel, but I'd > >> > >> >> > >>> like to > >> > >> >> > >>> process the entities in parallel as well. > >> > >> >> > >>> And I'd rather not force the GridDialect implementors to > >> > >> >> > >>> write some > >> > >> >> > >>> Hibernate Search specific code, > >> > >> >> > >>> so to break out we need some form of "Execute X on each": a > >> > >> >> > >>> closure or a lambda. > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> I can't see how the visitor model helps in your processing of > >> > >> >> > >> entities in parallel. To me both approaches are strictly > >> > >> >> > >> equivalent. Care to show some pseudo-code? > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> >> hibernate-dev mailing list > >> > >> >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > >> > >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > hibernate-dev mailing list > >> > > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > >> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hibernate-dev mailing list > >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
