---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/64632/#review201724
---
Hi Sasha,
I have a few questions:
- Is this changing the table definition? Do we need alter scripts to upgrade
old tables to the new one?
- I have read this on the datanucleus site:
-- "This generation strategy should only be used if there is a single "root"
table for the inheritance tree. If you have more than 1 root table (e.g using
subclass-table inheritance) then you should choose a different generation
strategy" - I do not think we are affected
-- "Please note that if using optimistic transactions, this strategy will mean
that the value is only set when the object is actually persisted (i.e at
flush() or commit())" - this might be more interesting - is there a way to
check if we are affected, or we just hope the tests are covering all the
scenarios?
- Does this have a measurable performance impact?
- Do you know a good way to test this kind of changes on multiple backend
databases?
Thanks,
Peter
- Peter Vary
On Dec. 15, 2017, 8:33 a.m., Alexander Kolbasov wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/64632/
> ---
>
> (Updated Dec. 15, 2017, 8:33 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for hive, Aihua Xu, Andrew Sherman, Janaki Lahorani, Sergio
> Pena, and Sahil Takiar.
>
>
> Bugs: HIVE-18247
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18247
>
>
> Repository: hive-git
>
>
> Description
> ---
>
> HIVE-18247: Use DB auto-increment for indexes
>
>
> Diffs
> -
>
> standalone-metastore/src/main/resources/package.jdo
> 57e75f890dbbd2d5105614aaeac04ef37131e8cd
>
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/64632/diff/1/
>
>
> Testing
> ---
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander Kolbasov
>
>
