Comments on: Drizzle Storage Engine Dev: Determining Query Type http://torum.net/2009/11/drizzle-engine-query-type/ Hackaholic and a Web Addict based in Tokyo Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:05:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Toru Maesaka http://torum.net/2009/11/drizzle-engine-query-type/comment-page-1/#comment-5248 Toru Maesaka Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:44:55 +0000 http://torum.net/?p=2310#comment-5248 Hi Stewart, Awesome. Right now, I'm happy as long as there's a way for me to get statement information so I'm glad to hear that it might be possible to pull this off. It would be even better if this could be done before Brian deletes store_lock() from the API. Guess I should take a look at how to pull this off in drizzled's code too :) I'd love to get BlitzDB merged with the trunk but it's not quite there yet. I'm nearly done rewriting the base of it with a new design and locking mechanism so we could talk about it once that's done... Ideally I want you guys to test it when I support at least one secondary index. Hi Stewart,

Awesome. Right now, I’m happy as long as there’s a way for me to get statement information so I’m glad to hear that it might be possible to pull this off. It would be even better if this could be done before Brian deletes store_lock() from the API. Guess I should take a look at how to pull this off in drizzled’s code too :)

I’d love to get BlitzDB merged with the trunk but it’s not quite there yet. I’m nearly done rewriting the base of it with a new design and locking mechanism so we could talk about it once that’s done… Ideally I want you guys to test it when I support at least one secondary index.

]]> By: Stewart Smith http://torum.net/2009/11/drizzle-engine-query-type/comment-page-1/#comment-5202 Stewart Smith Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:00:48 +0000 http://torum.net/?p=2310#comment-5202 (also, this is another good example on why we should merge plugins... then we'd immediately see the BlitzDB usage and have to think about it on a global scale, not just leave it for Toru to find and fix the world :) (also, this is another good example on why we should merge plugins… then we’d immediately see the BlitzDB usage and have to think about it on a global scale, not just leave it for Toru to find and fix the world :)

]]> By: Stewart Smith http://torum.net/2009/11/drizzle-engine-query-type/comment-page-1/#comment-5201 Stewart Smith Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:59:42 +0000 http://torum.net/?p=2310#comment-5201 I'd prefer not to use a protobuf message here... they're very much for data serialisation, not for passing things around inside a program (especially in performance critical parts). As we improve optimizer and execution engine parts of code, we should end up with a much nicer interface for engines to look at. However, as a short term solution, it should be possible for engines to look at the Statement while running Cursor methods. I’d prefer not to use a protobuf message here… they’re very much for data serialisation, not for passing things around inside a program (especially in performance critical parts).

As we improve optimizer and execution engine parts of code, we should end up with a much nicer interface for engines to look at.

However, as a short term solution, it should be possible for engines to look at the Statement while running Cursor methods.

]]> By: Toru Maesaka http://torum.net/2009/11/drizzle-engine-query-type/comment-page-1/#comment-5178 Toru Maesaka Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:15:36 +0000 http://torum.net/?p=2310#comment-5178 Hi Jay, I think using protobuf would be fantastic. It would allow us to keep adding attributes to it as Drizzle matures without screwing up storage engines. Right now, I can only think of "command_type" for attributes but I think that would be enough to start with since we can keep adding what we want to the .proto definition as we come up with useful attributes. I think existing and upcoming new engines would benefit quite a bit from this model of providing query attributes via protobuf. Definitely helps as a "hint" for engines to optimize the task. Opposite of what engines do for the optimizer in info(). Hi Jay,

I think using protobuf would be fantastic. It would allow us to keep adding attributes to it as Drizzle matures without screwing up storage engines.

Right now, I can only think of “command_type” for attributes but I think that would be enough to start with since we can keep adding what we want to the .proto definition as we come up with useful attributes.

I think existing and upcoming new engines would benefit quite a bit from this model of providing query attributes via protobuf. Definitely helps as a “hint” for engines to optimize the task. Opposite of what engines do for the optimizer in info().

]]> By: Toru Maesaka http://torum.net/2009/11/drizzle-engine-query-type/comment-page-1/#comment-5177 Toru Maesaka Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:08:39 +0000 http://torum.net/?p=2310#comment-5177 Hi Brian, Glad to hear store_lock() is going away soon! Goes well with my philosophy that engines should have full responsibility for concurrency control. As for info(), I don't think this will work since the session object needs to be accessible to get meaningful information. The reason I did what I did in store_lock() is: (1) Session object is accessible through the argument. (2) It is guaranteed to run before any other calls. I think Jay's suggestion is spot-on. Hi Brian,

Glad to hear store_lock() is going away soon! Goes well with my philosophy that engines should have full responsibility for concurrency control.

As for info(), I don’t think this will work since the session object needs to be accessible to get meaningful information. The reason I did what I did in store_lock() is:

(1) Session object is accessible through the argument.
(2) It is guaranteed to run before any other calls.

I think Jay’s suggestion is spot-on.

]]> By: Jay Pipes http://torum.net/2009/11/drizzle-engine-query-type/comment-page-1/#comment-5159 Jay Pipes Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:47:03 +0000 http://torum.net/?p=2310#comment-5159 How would you like the API to be? What about having a GPB message that is returned to the engine which described the query in question? Before I code something up, though, I need to know the information that you would most like to see in the message sent form the kernel. The command type and what other attributes? Cheers! Jay How would you like the API to be? What about having a GPB message that is returned to the engine which described the query in question? Before I code something up, though, I need to know the information that you would most like to see in the message sent form the kernel. The command type and what other attributes?

Cheers!

Jay

]]> By: Brian Aker http://torum.net/2009/11/drizzle-engine-query-type/comment-page-1/#comment-5158 Brian Aker Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:37:31 +0000 http://torum.net/?p=2310#comment-5158 Hi! Why not use the info call? store_lock() is no longer called for anything but non-temp engines in certain cases. It will be going away completely sometime in the next few weeks. Cheers, -Brian Hi!

Why not use the info call?

store_lock() is no longer called for anything but non-temp engines in certain cases. It will be going away completely sometime in the next few weeks.

Cheers,
-Brian

]]>