An upsert would be fine, I would think; perhaps we didn't have it back
when that was done.
(Note that depending on which layer you are talking about, upsert is
synonymous with a
delete and then a (re)insert - though you are probably many layers below
my world at the
user level where that's the case. :-))
On 2/14/16 2:47 PM, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:
A number of metadata-related changes, like creating a new index involves
several stages:
1) Create an index with PENDING_ADD_OP
2) Bulkload the index
3) Delete the index with PENDING_ADD_OP and reinsert it with PENDING_NO_OP
The last operation causes the issue with stats collection for particular index:
sometimes the stats are already persisted before 3) starts executing, so they
are become a subject to cascade delete, hence are lost.
I was wondering why an upset is not an option for step 3 instead of
insert-delete? Are there any complications from transaction logging perspective?
Best regards,
Ildar
