Matt, you are awesome! 15 files changes and 3k lines of code - man, do not tell me you did that in just a few days :)
since it has not been merged yet with the master, can I just use your personal branch to compile entire nifi? or is it better to cherry pick your commit into master? I would like to try it out Boris On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:55 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> wrote: > Boris et al, > > I put up a PR [1] to add ExecuteSQLRecord and QueryDatabaseTableRecord > under NIFI-4517, in case anyone wants to play around with it :) > > Regards, > Matt > > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2945 > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:30 PM Boris Tyukin <bo...@boristyukin.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >
