Matt, you rock!! thank you!! On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:16 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good, it makes the underlying code a bit more complicated but I see > from y’all’s points that a “separate” processor is a better user > experience. I’m knee deep in it as we speak, hope to have a PR up in a few > days. > > Thanks, > Matt > > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Grande <apere...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
