Thanks James - Will do on Mon. On Aug 15, 2014 8:26 PM, "James Taylor" <jamestay...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Jody, > Thanks for reporting this. These are bugs, as the client should detect > and retry automatically in these cases when necessary. What version of > Phoenix are you using? Would you mind giving it a shot in 3.1/4.1. > We'll have an RC out on Monday at the latest. > Thanks, > James > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jody Landreneau > <jodylandren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > hello phoenix devs, > > > > Let me explain an issue I would like to solve. We have multiple phoenix > > clients running, which could be on several physical machines(diff vms) > > which act as storage/retreival endpoints. If I change the schema of a > > table, by adding or removing a field, I get errors in the clients that > > didn't issue the alter. This is due to an internal client cache that is > not > > refreshed. I note that the connections get their cache from this shared > > client cache so creating/closing connections does not help. > > > > I would like to add a timed expiration cache also limited by size to > > address this issue. I see that there is a guava cache for server side > and > > think that doing something similar on the client side makes sense. It > could > > make things much simpler than having to deal with a pruner and other > code. > > I was wondering if the community would accept an approach like this. > Also, > > we could reduce all the cloning of the cache, potentially just sharing > one > > for connections that belong to a client. I see that there is some work > to > > try and manage the capacity of the number of bytes that the cache has. > > Would it be reasonable to just make the capacity based off the number of > > tables the cache holds instead of byte detail? It seems that the objects > > should be fairly light weight and if you go to an approach of sharing the > > same cache across connection then it should use even less resources. > > > > I would like to know if there are some reasons for not taking this > approach? > > > > thanks in advance -- >
