Mailing-List: contact commits-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:48:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Tyler Hobbs (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: commits@cassandra.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12752792.1415125985000.415028.1415137715932@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12752792.1415125985000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12752792.1415125985000@Atlassian.JIRA>
 <JIRA.12752792.1415125985627@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Comment Edited] (CASSANDRA-8254) Query parameters (and
 more) are limited to 65,536 entries
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14196887#comment-14196887 ] 

Tyler Hobbs edited comment on CASSANDRA-8254 at 11/4/14 9:47 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

bq. It feels to me that to cope with such situation it would be more elegant to allow for a single parameter that would be something like a List<Tuple<?>>. Going beyond 65k parameters feels odd to me, even in this relevant situation.

We do currently accept a single query parameter of type list<tuple<...>> for this.  I would suggest using that instead of changing the protocol to support more than 65k query parameters.

_Edit:_ To clarify, all of these are supported:
{noformat}
SELECT ... WHERE (b, c, d) IN ?
{noformat}

{noformat}
SELECT ... WHERE (b, c, d) IN (?, ?, ?, ?, ?)
{noformat}

{noformat}
SELECT ... WHERE (b, c, d) IN ((?, ?, ?), (?, ?, ?), ...)
{noformat}


was (Author: thobbs):
bq. It feels to me that to cope with such situation it would be more elegant to allow for a single parameter that would be something like a List<Tuple<?>>. Going beyond 65k parameters feels odd to me, even in this relevant situation.

We do currently accept a single query parameter of type list<tuple<...>> for this.  I would suggest using that instead of changing the protocol to support more than 65k query parameters.

> Query parameters (and more) are limited to 65,536 entries
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-8254
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8254
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: API
>            Reporter: Nicolas Favre-Felix
>
> Parameterized queries are sent over the wire as a string followed by a list of arguments. This list is decoded in QueryOptions.Codec by CBUtil.readValueList(body), which in turn reads a 16-bit short value from the wire as the number of values to deserialize.
> Sending more values leads to a silent overflow, sometimes reported by the driver as a protocol error as other values are deserialized incorrectly.
> 64k sounds like a lot, but tables with a large number of clustering dimensions can hit this limit when fetching a few thousand CQL rows only with an IN query, e.g.
> {code}
> SELECT * FROM sensor_data WHERE a=? and (b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i) IN ((?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?), (?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?), (?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?), (?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?) ... )
> {code}
> Here, having 8 dimensions in the clustering key plus 1 in the partitioning key restricts the read to 8,191 CQL rows.
> Some other parts of Cassandra still use 16-bit sizes, for example preventing users to fetch all elements of a large collection (CASSANDRA-6428). The suggestion at the time was "we'll fix it in the next iteration of the binary protocol", so I'd like to suggest switching to variable-length integers as this would solve such issues while keeping messages short.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)