I'd really like to see the Record suffix on the processor for discoverability, as already mentioned.
Andrew On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 2:16 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> wrote: > Yeah that's definitely doable, most of the logic for writing a > ResultSet to a Flow File is localized (currently to JdbcCommon but > also in ResultSetRecordSet), so I wouldn't think it would be too much > refactor. What are folks thoughts on whether to add a Record Writer > property to the existing ExecuteSQL or subclass it to a new processor > called ExecuteSQLRecord? The former is more consistent with how the > SiteToSite reporting tasks work, but this is a processor. The latter > is more consistent with the way we've done other record processors, > and the benefit there is that we don't have to add a bunch of > documentation to fields that will be ignored (such as the Use Avro > Logical Types property which we wouldn't need in a ExecuteSQLRecord). > Having said that, we will want to offer the same options in the Avro > Reader/Writer, but Peter is working on that under NIFI-5405 [1]. > > Thanks, > Matt > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5405 > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:06 PM Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Matt, > > > > Would extending the core ExecuteSQL processor with an ExecuteSQLRecord > processor also work? I wonder about discoverability if only one processor > is present and in other places we explicitly name the processors which > handle records as such. If the ExecuteSQL processor handled all the SQL > logic, and the ExecuteSQLRecord processor just delegated most of the > processing in its #onTrigger() method to super, do you foresee any > substantial difficulties? It might require some refactoring of the parent > #onTrigger() to service methods. > > > > > > Andy LoPresto > > alopre...@apache.org > > alopresto.apa...@gmail.com > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > > > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Andrew Grande <apere...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > As a side note, one has to ha e a serious justification _not_ to use > record-based processors. The benefits, including performance, are too > numerous to call out here. > > > > Andrew > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 1:15 PM Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Boris, > >> > >> Using a Record-based processor does not mean that you need to define a > schema upfront. This is > >> necessary if the source itself cannot provide a schema. However, since > it is pulling structured data > >> and the schema can be inferred from the database, you wouldn't need to. > As Matt was saying, your > >> Record Writer can simply be configured to Inherit Record Schema. It can > then write the schema to > >> the "avro.schema" attribute or you can choose "Do Not Write Schema". > This would still allow the data > >> to be written in JSON, CSV, etc. > >> > >> You could also have the Record Writer choose to write the schema using > the "avro.schema" attribute, > >> as mentioned above, and then have any down-stream processors read the > schema from this attribute. > >> This would allow you to use any record-oriented processors you'd like > without having to define the > >> schema yourself, if you don't want to. > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Mark > >> > >> > >> > >> On Aug 7, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Boris Tyukin <bo...@boristyukin.com> > wrote: > >> > >> thanks for all the responses! it means I am not the only one interested > in this topic. > >> > >> Record-aware version would be really nice, but a lot of times I do not > want to use record-based processors since I need to define a schema for > input/output upfront and just want to run SQL query and get whatever > results back. It just adds an extra step that will be subject to > break/support. > >> > >> Similar to Kafka processors, it is nice to have an option of > record-based processor vs. message oriented processor. But if one processor > can do it all, it is even better :) > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:28 AM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm definitely interested in supporting a record-aware version as well > >>> (I wrote the Jira up last year [1] but haven't gotten around to > >>> implementing it), however I agree with Peter's comment on the Jira. > >>> Since ExecuteSQL is an oft-touched processor, if we had two processors > >>> that only differed in how the output is formatted, it could be harder > >>> to maintain (bugs to be fixed in two places, e.g.). I think we should > >>> add an optional RecordWriter property to ExecuteSQL, and the > >>> documentation would reflect that if it is not set, the output will be > >>> Avro with embedded schema as it has always been. If the RecordWriter > >>> is set, either the schema can be hardcoded, or they can use "Inherit > >>> Record Schema" even though there's no reader, and that would mimic the > >>> current behavior where the schema is inferred from the database > >>> columns and used for the writer. There is precedence for this pattern > >>> in the SiteToSite reporting tasks. > >>> > >>> To Bryan's point about history, Avro at the time was the most > >>> descriptive of the solutions because it maintains the schema and > >>> datatypes with the data, unlike JSON, CSV, etc. Also before the record > >>> readers/writers, as Bryan said, you pretty much had to split, > >>> transform, merge. We just need to make that processor (and others with > >>> specific input/output formats) "record-aware" for better performance. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Matt > >>> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4517 > >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:20 AM Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > I would also add that the pattern of splitting to 1 record per flow > >>> > file was common before the record processors existed, and generally > >>> > this can/should be avoided now in favor of processing/manipulating > >>> > records in place, and keeping them together in large batches. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Andrew Grande <apere...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > Careful, that makes too much sense, Joe ;) > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 8:45 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> i think we just need to make an ExecuteSqlRecord processor. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> thanks > >>> > >> > >>> > >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 8:41 AM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My guess is that it is due to the fact that Avro is the only > record type > >>> > >>> that can match sql pretty closely feature to feature on data > types. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:33 AM Boris Tyukin < > bo...@boristyukin.com> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> I've been wondering since I started learning NiFi why ExecuteSQL > >>> > >>>> processor only returns AVRO formatted data. All community > examples I've seen > >>> > >>>> then convert AVRO to json and pretty much all of them then > split json to > >>> > >>>> multiple flows. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> I found myself doing the same thing over and over and over > again. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Since everyone is doing it, is there a strong reason why AVRO > is liked > >>> > >>>> so much? And why everyone continues doing this 3 step pattern > rather than > >>> > >>>> providing users with an option to output json instead and > another option to > >>> > >>>> output one flowfile or multiple (one per record). > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> thanks > >>> > >>>> Boris > >> > >> > > >
