Yes, this API is not ideal for "just getting the data". However,
Ildar’s
goal was to separate the data from the HTML and to build an API that can
be
the basis for the Web-interface - and I think that the API looks good
for
that :)
I'm wondering if an endpoint to get the data should be an option on this
one
or a different endpoint. The reason is, that all of the additional
request
metadata that we can ask for (plan, metrics, warnings, ..) cannot easily
be
returned with such an API. An API that play well with curl might even
put
the format into the URI, e.g.:
curl http://host:19100/query/csv?statment=select+element+1+as+one; >
one.csv
Thoughts? Trade-offs?
Cheers,
Till
On 15 Apr 2016, at 16:48, Cameron Samak wrote:
That hop is exactly what I think should be (optionally) avoidable
though
because
1. The user still needs to parse both JSON (to get the URL) along
with
the other format (i.e. CSV)
Consider curl {myquery} > myoutput.csv. That's harder with the
proposed
API.
2. It's an unnecessary round trip back to the server (which,
depending
on the environment, can be significant esp. with quick queries).
Understood for the result distribution + serialization.
Cameron
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Till Westmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
I had a misunderstanding that I think I clarified now. I believed
that we
don’t have the separation into tuples anymore after result
distribution and
that we only have bytes that we pass to the client. In that case
limiting
in
the HTTP server would have had to choose between
a) limiting based on the number of bytes or
b) re-establishing tuple boundaries.
However, even though result distribution has serialized the tuples to
whatever format (ADM, JSON, CSV), we still send frames and so we
should be
able to separate the tuples (and limit the number that we return).
So I think that it should be feasible to add that (feature creep is
coming
... :) )
Cheers,
Till
On 15 Apr 2016, at 14:55, Mike Carey wrote:
I read this much more simply: Can we enhance the API, in the case
where
you start with a handle and know that the results are ready now, to
fetch
the results in blocks instead of as one giant result? So still
computing
the giant result - just not pushing it all back at once - seems like
it
might help?
On 4/15/16 2:48 PM, Till Westmann wrote:
Hi Wail,
I’m not completely sure that I understand how to implement the
idea. If
we
do this only in the API, it might be tricky to get the boundaries
between
records right (e.g. if we do indentation on the server). However,
if we
want
to push this into the query engine, we need to understand enough of
the
query/statements to put the limit clause in.
Both approaches don't look great to me.
What did you have in mind?
Cheers,
Till
On 15 Apr 2016, at 13:19, Wail Alkowaileet wrote:
Hi Ildar,
I think if there's something I would love to have is getting
partial
result
instead of all result at once. This can be beneficial for result
pagination. When I use AsterixDB UI, 50% of the time my tab
crashes (I
forget to limit the result).
Thanks...
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Ildar Absalyamov <
[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Devs,
Recently there have been a number of conversations about the
future of
our
REST (aka HTTP) API. I summarized these discussions in an outline
of
the
new API design:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/New+HTTP+API+Design
<
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/New+HTTP+API+Design
.
The need to refactor existing API came from different directions
(and
from
different people), and is explained in motivation section. Thus I
believe
it’s about the time to take an effort and improve existing API,
so
that it
will not drag us down in the future. However during the
transition
step I
believe it would be better to keep exiting API endpoints, so that
we
would
not break people’s current experimental setup.
It would be good to know feedback from the folks, who have been
contributing to that part of the systems recently.
Best regards,
Ildar
--
*Regards,*
Wail Alkowaileet
