Hello! Unfortunately, that's true. But the user can restart cluster after tables creation and create secondary indexes (CREATE INDEX) after restart. My workaround has a lot of limitations: it doesn't work with in-memory clusters, it's unuseful.
вт, 28 апр. 2020 г. в 14:01, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > Hello! > > Unfortunately and embarrassingly, we still do not support passing > INLINE_SIZE to CREATE TABLE, at least in 2.8.0. > This means IGNITE_MAX_INDEX_PAYLOAD_SIZE is the only option to create an > implicit primary key index with specified inline size. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > вт, 28 апр. 2020 г. в 02:31, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > Hi Sergey, > > > > Your changes look useful from the application developer perspective. > > However, I'm curious why would the one change some low-level > > IGNITE_MAX_INDEX_PAYLOAD_SIZE parameter when it's advised to pass > > INLINE_SIZE to CREATE TABLE to change the index size cluster-wide. > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:38 AM Sergey Antonov < > antonovserge...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, Igniters! > > > > > > I'd like to share a new small feature in AI [1]. > > > > > > For different reasons, the cluster could have a different SQL index > > inline > > > size [2] on cluster nodes. For example due to > > > different IGNITE_MAX_INDEX_PAYLOAD_SIZE [3] value on cluster nodes. > > > > > > The difference in index inline size may lead to performance > degradation. > > > I think we must compare inline sizes on node join and warn if > difference > > > found. Also, We should have the ability to check inline sizes on > demand. > > > > > > I've implemented this check on node join and new command in control.sh > > > > > > Look at warning message and utility command output: > > > > > > Warn message on a node in the cluster during new node join: > > > > > > [2020-04-27 15:36:21,185][WARN ][tcp-disco-msg-worker-[6ba0b823 > > > 127.0.0.1:47502 > > > crd]-#17%cache.CheckIndexesInlineSizeOnNodeJoinMultiJvmTest0%][root] > > Inline > > > sizes on local node and node 5bf6ca48-34a0-4aff-8db2-c0b6df303d3f are > > > different. Please drop and create again these indexes to avoid > > performance > > > problems with SQL queries. Problem indexes: > > > > > > > > > PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#L_IDX(1,2),PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#S1_IDX(1,2),PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#I_IDX(1,2) > > > > > > Warn messages on a joining node, if difference found: > > > [2020-04-27 15:35:17,326][WARN ][tcp-disco-msg-worker-[a86e9cea > > > 127.0.0.1:47501 > > > ]-#11%cache.CheckIndexesInlineSizeOnNodeJoinMultiJvmTest0%][root] > > > Inline sizes on local node and node > a86e9cea-63e8-42af-a897-cec4be500001 > > > are different. Please drop and create again these indexes to avoid > > > performance problems with SQL queries. Problem indexes: > > > > > > > > > PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#L_IDX(1,2),PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#S1_IDX(1,2),PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#I_IDX(1,2) > > > [2020-04-27 15:35:17,326][WARN ][tcp-disco-msg-worker-[a86e9cea > > > 127.0.0.1:47501 > > > ]-#11%cache.CheckIndexesInlineSizeOnNodeJoinMultiJvmTest0%][root] > > > Inline sizes on local node and node > a08de16d-df05-48af-a0b9-5596d9c00002 > > > are different. Please drop and create again these indexes to avoid > > > performance problems with SQL queries. Problem indexes: > > > > > > > > > PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#L_IDX(1,3),PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#S1_IDX(1,3),PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#I_IDX(1,3) > > > > > > > > > Utility output, if a difference in inline sizes was found: > > > > > > Control utility [ver. 2.9.0-SNAPSHOT#20200427-sha1:DEV] > > > 2020 Copyright(C) Apache Software Foundation > > > User: santonov > > > Time: 2020-04-27T15:32:25.759 > > > Command [CACHE] started > > > Arguments: --cache check_index_inline_sizes --yes > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Found 4 secondary indexes. > > > 3 index(es) have different effective inline size on nodes. It can lead > to > > > performance degradation in SQL queries. > > > Index(es): > > > Full index name: PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#L_IDX nodes: > > > [ca1d2bae-89d4-4e8d-ae11-6c68f3900000] inline size: 1, nodes: > > > [8327abd1-df08-4b97-8720-de95e363e745] inline size: 2 > > > Full index name: PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#S1_IDX nodes: > > > [ca1d2bae-89d4-4e8d-ae11-6c68f3900000] inline size: 1, nodes: > > > [8327abd1-df08-4b97-8720-de95e363e745] inline size: 2 > > > Full index name: PUBLIC#TEST_TABLE#I_IDX nodes: > > > [ca1d2bae-89d4-4e8d-ae11-6c68f3900000] inline size: 1, nodes: > > > [8327abd1-df08-4b97-8720-de95e363e745] inline size: 2 > > > > > > Recommendations: > > > Check that value of property IGNITE_MAX_INDEX_PAYLOAD_SIZE are the > same > > > on all nodes. > > > Recreate indexes (execute DROP INDEX, CREATE INDEX commands) with > > > different inline size. > > > Command [CACHE] finished with code: 0 > > > Control utility has completed execution at: 2020-04-27T15:32:28.025 > > > Execution time: 2266 ms > > > > > > Utility output, if all indexes have the same inline size: > > > > > > Control utility [ver. 2.9.0-SNAPSHOT#20200427-sha1:DEV] > > > 2020 Copyright(C) Apache Software Foundation > > > User: santonov > > > Time: 2020-04-27T15:30:20.950 > > > Command [CACHE] started > > > Arguments: --cache check_index_inline_sizes --yes > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Found 2 secondary indexes. > > > All secondary indexes have the same effective inline size on all > cluster > > > nodes. > > > Command [CACHE] finished with code: 0 > > > Control utility has completed execution at: 2020-04-27T15:30:23.428 > > > Execution time: 2478 ms > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12942 > > > [2] https://apacheignite-sql.readme.io/docs/create-index > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/IgniteSystemProperties.html#IGNITE_MAX_INDEX_PAYLOAD_SIZE > > > > > > -- > > > BR, Sergey Antonov > > > > > > -- BR, Sergey Antonov
