On 5/30/2012 4:30 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:46 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: "Jacques Le Roux"<jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
From: "Adam Heath"<doo...@brainfood.com>
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: "Adam Heath"<doo...@brainfood.com>
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a
static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a
properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the "SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId)
FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId)", now
that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when
combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a
patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a
view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually
think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a
single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I
still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we
might want to implement in the branch.
Adam,
I commented on the commit, but you didn't reply, so I will try again
in this thread.
I saw, but didn't really think it needed a comment. I guess I should
have given an affirmative response, instead of no response. I assumed
that no response is not negative(yeah, that's a double negative).
If you don't mind, I would like to clean up the EntityConditionVisitor
interface so it looks more like a conventional visitor pattern.
I'm down to whatever other people for, within reason. Tbh, I'm
currently tweaking EntityFieldValue, which is used by
ModelViewEntity.ViewEntityCondition, in a hackish way; it means I'm
having to tweak the visitor pattern, which sucks.
I'm the one who added the visitor pattern all those ages ago(goes back
to svn.ofbiz.org timeframe); I'd be fine with ripping it completely
out, as we(brainfood) don't use it anywhere.
I need to reacquaint myself with the entity engine code. I was thinking
the visitor pattern could be used to construct the SQL string instead of
the complicated if-then-else code spread across a number of classes. We
could use different visitors for different databases.
From my perspective, the entity engine implementation seems a bit
tangled, and I was trying to come up with a strategy to simplify things.
Also, I was wondering if we could add some timing metrics to the
entity engine. Maybe keep an average query time per entity, and throw
an exception when the average exceeds a configurable threshold. This
would facilitate server overload management.
There is already code that does that, when a query takes a long time.
I don't see any code that does that.
If you do some stats(make it per-entity), make certain to use
AtomicInteger(or other AtomicFoo class). You don't need to use
ConcurrentMap, as the list of entities to gather stats against is
static. Just created the map at startup, or even store the stats in
ModelEntity.
Maybe the following will do what you want. It's non-blocking
concurrent, makes use of work-borrowing type stuff(the double loop
update of 2 variables).
class Statistics {
class Stat {
AtomicReference<Long[]> countDurationAvgRef;
Queue<Long> window;
void add(long nanos) {
window.add(nanos);
while (true) {
Long[] oldValues = countDurationAvgRef.get();
long newCount = oldValues[0] + 1;
Long[] newValues = new Long[] {
newCount,
oldValues[1] + nanos,
oldValues[2] + (nanos / newCount)
};
if (countDurationAvgRef.compareAndSet(oldValues, newValues)) {
break;
}
}
while (true) {
Long[] oldValues = countDurationAvgRef.get();
long oldCount = oldValues[0];
if (oldCount<= maxSize) {
break;
}
long oldNanos = window.remove(0);
Long[] newValues = new Long[] {
oldCount - 1,
oldValues[1] - oldNanos,
oldValues[2] - (oldNanos / oldCount)
};
if (countDurationAvgRef.compareAndSet(oldValues, newValues)) {
break;
}
window.add(0, oldNanos);
}
}
}
void addTiming(String name, long duration, TimeUnit unit) {
long nanos = TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS.convert(duration, unit);
if (duration@unit> name@warnLevel) {
Debug.logWarning();
}
Stat stat = stats.get(name);
if (stat == null) {
Stat newStat = new Stat();
stat = stats.putIfAbsent(name, newStat);
if (stat == null) stat = newStat;
}
stat.add(nanos);
}
}
