[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12575067#action_12575067
]
Bryan Duxbury commented on HBASE-487:
-------------------------------------
@Edward - I don't think that a custom-written parser will ever give us the
flexibility to do crazy debugging and tinkering like a JRuby shell would.
As far as the point that it requires some ruby/python knowledge to use, I don't
think that's true. At least in ruby, we could make the syntax very simple,
while still allowing access to the deeper pure-ruby stuff for those who know
it's there.
For instance, we could make a get method like so:
{code}
> get "row name", "fam:col", "fam2:col2"
{code}
It doesn't look like SQL, but it has the same functionality, and you don't
really have to know ruby to use it.
> Replace hql w/ a hbase-friendly jirb or jython shell
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-487
> Project: Hadoop HBase
> Issue Type: Wish
> Reporter: stack
> Priority: Minor
>
> The hbase shell is a useful admin and debugging tool but it has a couple of
> downsides. To extend, a fragile parser definition needs tinkering-with and
> new java classes must be added. The current test suite for hql is lacking
> coverage and the current code could do with a rewrite having evolved
> piecemeal. Another downside is that the presence of an HQL interpreter gives
> the mis-impression that hbase is like a SQL database.
> This 'wish' issue suggests that we jettison HQL and instead offer users a
> jirb or jython command line. We'd ship with some scripts and jruby/jython
> classes that we'd source on startup to do things like import base client
> classes -- so folks wouldn't have to remember all the packages stuff sat in
> -- and added a pretty-print for scanners and getters outputting text, xhtml
> or binary. They would also make it easy to do HQL-things in jruby/python
> script.
> Advantages: Already-written parser with no need of extension probing deeper
> into hbase: i.e. better for debugging than HQL could ever be. Easy extension
> adding scripts/modules rather than java code. Less likely hbase could be
> confused for a SQL db.
> Downsides: Probably more verbose. Requires ruby or python knowledge
> ("Everyone knows some sql"). Big? (jruby lib is 24M).
> I was going to write security as downside but HQL suffers this at the moment
> too -- though it has been possible to sort the updates from the selects in
> the UI to prevent modification of the db from the UI, something that would be
> hard to do in a jruby/jython parser.
> What do others think?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
