geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Galen M O'Sullivan" <gosulli...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] easy string based partitioning
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2017 20:56:49 GMT
I don't think it would be that much harder to add an option for a
user-specified delimiter than it would to hardcode ':' or '|'. I think the
utility of that would be much higher, and that it would be a much better
candidate for inclusion in geode-core. Otherwise, I think it should live in
an "examples" or "utilities" package or repo.

Galen

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io> wrote:

> In regard to sending the configuration state to the clients for the
> partition resolver maybe the config should be a domain object independent
> of the business object rather than the serialized form of the partition
> resolver itself. The rational for this would be that non-Java clients could
> get the config as PDX (or some other language neutral scheme) and
> initialize their native language version of the partition resolver with
> this config.
>
> -Jake
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Darrel Schneider <dschneider@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for all the feedback. Since this is such a simple resolver with a
> > fixed delimiter the following changes were made to the original proposal:
> > 1. The StringPrefixPartitionResolver will be in the
> > "org.apache.geode.cache.util" package.
> >    This was done to keep it from being viewed as part of the core API. It
> > is just a simple implementation
> >    of one of the core API interfaces that user can use if they find it
> > helpful.
> > 2. The fixed delimiter was changed from ":" to "|". The character still
> has
> > the visual appearance of
> >    delimiting two fields with the benefit of being used less often than
> > ":". Since the delimiter can not
> >    be configured that makes it more likely someone can use this resolver.
> >
> > I think the ideas about more complex resolvers are interesting and the
> > existence of this simple resolver does not prevent other resolver
> > implementations from also being added to the util package. For example
> one
> > that is regex based or spring expression based.
> >
> > One of the things discovered was that if a PartitionResolver has state
> (for
> > example a configured delimiter, or regex, or spring expression) then that
> > java clients will not be able to single hop to the server region with
> that
> > resolver. Our servers send the single hop java clients just the class
> name
> > of the PartitionResolver. The instance of the actual resolver is not
> > serialized to the client. The java client single hop code attempts to
> > create an instance of it by invoking a no-arg constructor. So any state
> > stored in the server's resolver instance will be lost. If the resolver
> > class does not have a no-arg constructor then the java client will be
> > unable to load an instance and just disable single hop. But if it had two
> > constructors, say one that has no-arg and configures a default delimiter
> > and another that take a delimiter as an arg, then in that case the single
> > hop client would lose the delimiter configured on the server and revert
> to
> > the default one from the no-arg constructor. It seems like this could
> cause
> > all kinds of bad things to happen. For example in the case of a
> > StringPrefixPartitionResolver that allows the delimiter to be configured
> > that one used on this client to route keys to the server would have the
> > wrong delimiter and complain that the key does not contain the
> delimiter. I
> > will file a geode ticket about this issue but wanted to have it on this
> > thread to help explain why this initial resolver is not configurable.
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have to agree. Something this trivial an limiting is better suited
> for a
> >> blog post or examples somewhere and not a part of the core codebase.
> >>
> >> -Jake
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:27 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> My concern with this approach is that we provide an implementation that
> >>> might be a white elephant and only used by a 1% user base. In addition
> >>> to that, it does really restrict the user on his keys.
> >>>
> >>> Whereas something a little more configurable, like a SPEL
> >>> implementation, would provide a lot more flexibility. Which means that
> >>> one could easily change the partition resolver expression upon region
> >>> creation/configuration.
> >>>
> >>> --Udo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/5/17 08:46, Jens Deppe wrote:
> >>>> I like the idea of keeping the configuration 'conventional' and thus
> >> not
> >>>> requiring any server configuration. As soon as you need to define a
> >> regex
> >>>> on the server you might as well be writing PartitionResolver code.
> >>>>
> >>>> As an aside I also think that using regexes to parse keys would also
> >>>> introduce a measurable performance hit.
> >>>>
> >>>> --Jens
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Whilst I like the idea to make something (and yes,
> >>>>> DelimitedStringPartitionResolver is the simplest), I feel that we
> >> might
> >>>>> be able to do one better.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> */Could/* one possibly have an /*SPEL*/ <
> >> https://docs.spring.io/spring
> >>>>>
> >>> -framework/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/
> >> html/expressions.html>-based
> >>>>> PartitionResolver for this? At least this way, we don't have to
rely
> >> on
> >>>>> delimiters or a strong knowledge of REGEX.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO, this would provide the greatest bang for buck implementation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --Udo
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/2/17 19:15, Jacob Barrett wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you implement as regular expression the user doesn't have
to
> >>> reformat
> >>>>>> their key to a specific format (akin to making them implement
a
> >>> class). I
> >>>>>> would concat the matching groups for generate the routing key.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Consider RegEx: .*\bcorrelation=(\d+).*\bmaybe-something-else=(\w)
> >>>>>> With Keys:
> >>>>>> A: my,key;with:any-chars;unique=12345;correlation=678/and,maybe
> >>>>>> -something-else=a
> >>>>>> B: my,key;unique=876324;correlation=678;and,maybe-
> >> something-else=a,foo
> >>>>>> C:
> >>> somthing;different=988975;correlation=678;then,maybe-something-else=ba
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Keys A and B would have routing key '678a'. Key C would have
routing
> >>> key
> >>>>>> '678b'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Jake
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Consider
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:02 PM Darrel Schneider <
> >> dschneider@pivotal.io
> >>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Geode partitioned regions usually partition the data based on
the
> >> key's
> >>>>>>> hashcode.
> >>>>>>> You can do your own partitioning by implementing the
> >> PartitionResolver
> >>>>>>> interface and configuring it on the partitioned region.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In some use cases needing to deploy your class that implements
> >>>>>>> PartitionResolver can be problematic so we would like to
find a way
> >> to
> >>>>>>> offer partitioning based on a portion of the key (instead
of the
> >>> default
> >>>>>>> which uses the entire key) that does not require you to
implement
> >> your
> >>>>>>> own
> >>>>>>> PartitionResolver and does not require you to deploy your
own code
> >> to
> >>> do
> >>>>>>> the custom partitioning.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Another group of users that do not want to implement
> >> PartitionResolver
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>> non-java clients. So the solution is required to be usable
by
> >> non-java
> >>>>>>> geode clients without needing to reimplement the client
to support
> a
> >>> new
> >>>>>>> feature.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Another constraint on the solution is for it to be both
easy to use
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> easy to implement.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The proposed solution is to provide a class named:
> >>>>>>>      org.apache.geode.cache.StringPrefixPartitionResolver
> >>>>>>> This class will implement PartitionResolver and have a default
> >>>>>>> constructor.
> >>>>>>> To use it you need to configure a partitioned region's
> >>> PartitionResolver
> >>>>>>> using the already existing mechanism for this (api, gfsh,
or xml).
> >>>>>>> The StringPrefixPartitionResolver will require all keys
on its
> >> region
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> of type String.
> >>>>>>> It also requires that the string key contains at least one
':'
> >>> character.
> >>>>>>> The substring of the key that precedes the first ':' is
the prefix
> >>> that
> >>>>>>> will be returned from "getRoutingObject".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> An example of doing this in gfsh is:
> >>>>>>>      create region --name=r1 --type=PARTITION
> >>>>>>> --partition-resolver=org.apache.geode.cache.StringPrefixPart
> >>>>>>> itionResolver
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note that attempting to use a key that is not a String or
does not
> >>>>>>> contain
> >>>>>>> a ':' will throw an exception. This is to help developers
realize
> >> they
> >>>>>>> made
> >>>>>>> a mistake.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note that the delimiter is always a ':'. It would be easy
to made
> >> the
> >>>>>>> delimiter configurable when using apis or xml but currently
gfsh
> >> does
> >>> not
> >>>>>>> provide a way to pass parameters to the --partition-resolver
create
> >>>>>>> region
> >>>>>>> option.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The only public api change this proposal makes is the new
> >>>>>>> StringPrefixPartitionResolver class.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message