The xml config was only for example. We can put in this configuration string cache config parameters directly like this:
CREATE SCHEMA "MyCacheName" WITH "cacheMode=REPLICATED;atomicityMode=ATOMIC" Sergi 2017-01-12 20:21 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > Sergi, Alexey G., > > I see your point and am rather inclined to agree that we should let > current notion of "single schema - multiple tables" live. > > Still, if we create schema with cache config file, what's the whole > point of SQL then if the user anyway has to write XML? This probably > could be useful to propagate configuration to all cluster nodes tho. > > And if we skip CREATE TABLE now, it means that we leave user facing > the need to write XML configuration, no other options. Is this what we > want? > > Still I must admit that leaving user with his familiar XML stuff looks > attractive - no messing with bunch of unknown new params, just write > your XML and go. Also it's portable and allows to re-use > configurations easily, so undoubtedly is a good approach from some > point. > > - Alex > > 2017-01-12 23:51 GMT+08:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>: > > Hi, > > > > 1. For now I'm against inventing any custom SQL syntax and implementing > > parsing. > > Currently H2 supports the following syntax: > > > > CREATE TABLE test(...) WITH "myCustomParamString" > > > > This is enough for us to pass the needed parameters. > > > > 2. Agree with AG, we have to separate cache creation from table creation. > > Cache == SQL schema for us. We just have to add the same WITH syntax in > H2 > > for schema creation like this: > > > > CREATE SCHEMA "MyCacheName" WITH "cacheConfig=myCache.xml" > > > > 3. If we want to create tables then I suggest to put this functionality > to > > 2.0+PageMemory right away and think where and how we are going to store > all > > the related metadata.This is especially important for persistent > storages. > > > > Sergi > > > > > > 2017-01-12 16:56 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > >> I am afraid in this case user will have to define too much schemes - > >> boilerplate. > >> Does it make sense at all to pack multiple tuples into a single cache > from > >> user perspective? > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Alexander, > >> > > >> > Will we keep the old option to have multiple tables in one cache? If > so, > >> > how will create table statement know which cache to choose? > >> > > >> > It seems to me that to be consistent with the current DML > implementation > >> we > >> > should have a CREATE SCHEMA statement which will define the cache and > >> cache > >> > configuration, and CREATE TABLE should specify the schema name. > >> > > >> > Otherwise, we should enforce the single type per cache rule at the > >> > configuration level and in runtime. > >> > > >> > As for affinity and primary key - agree with Vladimir. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > AG > >> > > >> > 2017-01-12 11:41 GMT+03:00 Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com>: > >> > > >> > > As first stage of DDL we can implement following CREATE TABLE > statement > >> > > support: > >> > > - CREATE TABLE without cache properties (use default cache > properties > >> or > >> > > cache properties defined in SQL Schema) > >> > > - CREATE TABLE .. LIKE where we can create a cache based on an > another > >> > > existing cache. > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> > dsetrak...@apache.org> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Agree with Sergey. We should be able to specify cache properties > >> inside > >> > > of > >> > > > SQL statements. Does H2 have any support to process SQL hints? > Can we > >> > > > change it? > >> > > > > >> > > > Having said that, while we finalize the above, I think we should > >> start > >> > > > working on DDL implementation to use the default settings, as > >> specified > >> > > in > >> > > > Alexander's email. > >> > > > > >> > > > Also agree with the stop-the-world on the cache for index > creation. > >> We > >> > > can > >> > > > always improve on it in future. > >> > > > > >> > > > D. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Sergey Kozlov < > >> skoz...@gridgain.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I suppose we should put any ignite cache properties as > additional > >> > > > > non-standard attributes after CREATE TABLE () clause as it does > >> > > > Postgress, > >> > > > > MySQL and other RDBMS. > >> > > > > Take a look on CREATE TABLE with using TABLESPACE (Postgess) or > for > >> > > > CREATE > >> > > > > TABLE with using PARTITIONS (MySQL). > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > >> > > voze...@gridgain.com> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I believe custom synthax and parsing is a *must* for us, as > well > >> as > >> > > for > >> > > > > any > >> > > > > > distributed database. At the very least we need to specify > >> affinity > >> > > key > >> > > > > > column somehow. Any cache property can be specified at the > very > >> end > >> > > of > >> > > > > > table definition. Key columns can be determined as the ones > with > >> > > > PRIMARY > >> > > > > > KEY constraint (Alex K. idea) + affinity column(s): > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > CREATE TABLE employee ( > >> > > > > > id BIGINT PRIMARY KEY, > >> > > > > > dept_id BIGINT AFFINITY KEY, > >> > > > > > name VARCHAR(128), > >> > > > > > address VARCHAR(256) > >> > > > > > BACKUPS 2, > >> > > > > > ATOMICITY_MODE ATOMIC, > >> > > > > > ); > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > "id" and "dept_id" form key type, "name" and "address" form > value > >> > > type. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Vladimir. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov < > >> > > > akuznet...@apache.org > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi, Alex! > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As far as I know most RDBMS allow something like: create > table > >> t1 > >> > > (id > >> > > > > > > integer primary key, ....) > >> > > > > > > How about to take as key field that marked as "primary key"? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As of atomicity and replication - I think it is a cache > >> > properties > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > with > >> > > > > > > create table we will create "types" in cache. No? > >> > > > > > > I thought that cache it is a kind of "schema" in RDBMS. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Could you describe what will be created with CREATE TABLE? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Alexander Paschenko < > >> > > > > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello Igniters, > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I would like to start discussion about implementation of > SQL > >> > DDL > >> > > > > > > commands. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > At the first stage, the most important ones seem to be > CREATE > >> > > TABLE > >> > > > > > > > (that will obviously correspond to creation of a cache) > and > >> > > CREATE > >> > > > > > > > INDEX. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regarding first one: SQL command for CREATE TABLE does not > >> > > contain > >> > > > > any > >> > > > > > > > hints about cache settings (atomicity, replication, > etc.), so > >> > > these > >> > > > > > > > will probably be defined by some configuration properties > >> (like > >> > > > > > > > ignite.ddl.default_cache_atomiticity, etc). > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Also it does not allow to distinguish between key and > value > >> > > > columns - > >> > > > > > > > currently it is handled by keyFields property of > QueryEntity, > >> > but > >> > > > it > >> > > > > > > > is unclear how to declare key fields via CREATE TABLE. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > So at a first glance it seems like we should either > implement > >> > > some > >> > > > > > > > sort of custom parsing (I believe Sergi will be against > it) > >> or > >> > > > > > > > introduce some kind of name prefix that would tell SQL > engine > >> > > that > >> > > > > > > > certain column is a key field column. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Of course, this problem disappears is key is of SQL type. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regarding CREATE INDEX: probably at first we will have to > >> > > implement > >> > > > > > > > this in "stop-the-world" manner, i.e. all cache will be > >> blocked > >> > > > > during > >> > > > > > > > the index's initial buildup. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Currently I'm working on parsing of those commands as that > >> will > >> > > be > >> > > > > > > > needed anyway and does not affect further implementation. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - Alex > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Sergey Kozlov > >> > > > > GridGain Systems > >> > > > > www.gridgain.com > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Sergey Kozlov > >> > > GridGain Systems > >> > > www.gridgain.com > >> > > > >> > > >> >
