[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15356842#comment-15356842
]
Taras Ledkov commented on IGNITE-2310:
--------------------------------------
The patch is available at the branch
[ignite-2310|https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite/tree/ignite-2310].
Please pay you attention to:
* the IgniteCacheLockPartitionOnAffinityRunTest test.
The test testLockPartitionOnAffinityRunByDhtPartition is stable passed but the
test testLockPartitionOnAffinityRunByLocalSql fails with stable
reproducibility. Look like there are some issues at the local SQL query.
* changes at the IgniteCompute public interface. Should we do any change in
methods affinityRun/Call with specified partitions to reserve?
> Lock cache partition for affinityRun/affinityCall execution
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-2310
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2310
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: cache
> Reporter: Valentin Kulichenko
> Assignee: Taras Ledkov
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: community
> Fix For: 1.7
>
>
> Partition of a key passed to {{affinityRun}} must be located on the affinity
> node when a compute job is being sent to the node. The partition has to be
> locked on the cache until the compute job is being executed. This will let to
> execute queries safely (Scan or local SQL) over the data that is located
> locally in the locked partition.
> In addition Ignite Compute API has to be extended by adding {{affinityCall}}
> and {{affinityRun}} methods that accept list of caches which partitions have
> to be locked at the time a compute task is being executed.
> Test cases to validate the functionality:
> 1) local SQL query over data located in a concrete partition in multple
> caches.
> - create cache Organisation cache and create Persons cache.
> - collocate Persons by 'organisationID';
> - send {{affinityRun}} using 'organisationID' as an affinity key and passing
> Organisation and Persons caches' names to the method to be sure that the
> partition will be locked on caches;
> - execute local SQL query "SELECT * FROM Persons as p, Organisation as o
> WHERE p.orgId=o.id' on a changing topology. The result set must be complete,
> the partition over which the query will be executed mustn't be moved to the
> other node. Due to affinity collocation the partition number will be the same
> for all Persons that belong to particular 'organisationID'
> 2) Scan Query over particular partition that is locked when {{affinityCall}}
> is executed.
> UPD (YZ May, 31)
> # If closure arrives to node but partition is not there it should be silently
> failed over to current owner.
> # I don't think user should provide list of caches. How about reserving only
> one partition, but evict partitions after all partitions in all caches (with
> same affinity function) on this node are locked for eviction. [~sboikov], can
> you please comment? It seems this should work faster for closures and will
> hardly affect rebalancing stuff.
> # I would add method {{affinityCall(int partId, String cacheName,
> IgniteCallable)}} and same for Runnable. This will allow me not to mess with
> affinity key in case I know partition before.
> UPD (SB, June, 01)
> Yakov, I think it is possible to implement this 'locking for evictions'
> approach, but personally I better like partitions reservation:
> - approach with reservation already implemented and works fine in sql queries
> - partition reservation is just CAS operation, if we need do ~10 reservation
> I think this will be negligible comparing to job execution time
> - now caches are rebalanced completely independently and changing this be
> complicated refactoring
> - I see some difficulties how to understand that caches have same affinity.
> If user uses custom function should he implement 'equals'? For standard
> affinity functions user can set backup filter, what do in this case? should
> user implement 'equals' for filter? Even if affinity functions are the same
> cache configuration can have node filter, so affinity mapping will be
> different.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
