ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: proposed realization KILL QUERY command
Date Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:10:45 GMT
Denis,

Space is bad candidate because it is a whitespace. Without whitespaces we
can have syntax without quotes at all. Any non-whitespace delimiter will
work, though:

KILL QUERY 45.1
KILL QUERY 45-1
KILL QUERY 45:1

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:06 PM Юрий <jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Let's consider parameter of KILL QUERY just a string with some query id,
> without any meaning for user. User just need to get the id and pass as
> parameter to KILL QUERY command.
>
> Even if query is distributed it have single query id from user perspective
> and will killed on all nodes. User just need to known one global query id.
>
> How it can works.
> 1)SELECT * from running_queries
> result is
>  query_id | node_id
>   | sql               | schema_name | connection_id | duration
> 123.33     | e0a69cb8-a1a8-45f6-b84d-ead367a00000   | SELECT ...  | ...
>                   |   22                 | 23456
> 333.31     | aaa6acb8-a4a5-42f6-f842-ead111b00020     | UPDATE...  | ...
>                   |  321                | 3467777
> 2) KILL QUERY '123.33'
>
> So, user need select query_id from running_queries view and use it for KILL
> QUERY command.
>
> I hope it became clearer.
>
>
>
> ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 02:11, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > The decimal syntax is really odd - KILL QUERY
> > '[node_order].[query_counter]'
> >
> > Confusing, let's use a space to separate parameters.
> >
> > Also, what if I want to halt a specific query with certain ID? Don't know
> > the node number, just know that the query is distributed and runs across
> > several machines. Sounds like the syntax still should consider
> > [node_order/id] as an optional parameter.
> >
> > Probably, if you explain to me how an end user will use this command from
> > the very beginning (how do I look for a query id and node id, etc) then
> the
> > things get clearer.
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:03 AM Юрий <jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Vladimir,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your suggestion to use MANAGEMENT_POOL for processing
> > > cancellation requests.
> > >
> > > About your questions.
> > > 1) I'm going to implements SQL view to provide list of running queries.
> > The
> > > SQL VIEW has been a little bit discussed earlier. Proposed name is
> > > *running_queries* with following columns: query_id, node_id, sql,
> > > schema_name, connection_id, duration. Currently most of the information
> > can
> > > be  retrieved through cache API, however it doesn't matter, any case we
> > > need to expose SQL VIEW. Seem's you are right - the part should be
> > > implemented firstly.
> > > 2) Fully agree that we need to support all kind of SQL queries
> > > (SLECT/DML/DDL, transactional, non transnational, local, distributed).
> I
> > > definitely sure that it will possible for all of above, however I'm not
> > > sure about DDL - need to investigate it deeper. Also need to understand
> > > that canceled DML operation can lead to partially updated data for non
> > > transational caches.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > пн, 19 нояб. 2018 г. в 19:17, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Yuriy,
> > > >
> > > > I think we can use MANAGEMENT_POOL for this. It is already used for
> > some
> > > > internal Ignite tasks, and it appears to be a good candidate to
> process
> > > > cancel requests.
> > > >
> > > > But there are several things which are not clear enough for me at the
> > > > moment:
> > > > 1) How user is going to get the list of running queries in the first
> > > place?
> > > > Do we already have any SQL commands/views to get this information?
> > > > 2) We need to ensure that KILL command will be processed properly by
> > all
> > > > kinds of SQL queries - SELECT/DML/DDL, non-transactional or
> > > transactional,
> > > > local queries and distributed queries. Will we be able to support all
> > > these
> > > > modes?
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:37 PM Юрий <jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > Earlier we agreed about syntax KILL QUERY
> > > '[node_order].[query_counter]',
> > > > > e.g. KILL QUERY '25.123' for single query  or KILL QUERY '25.*' for
> > all
> > > > > queries on the node. Which is part of IEP-29
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-29%3A+SQL+management+and+monitoring
> > > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I want to discuss internal realization of KILL query feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > My current vision is following:
> > > > > After parsing, Ignite create KILL query command with two
> parameters:
> > > > > nodeOrderId, nodeQryId. To determine that need to kill all queries
> > on a
> > > > > node we can use negative value of query id, due to qry id always
> have
> > > > > positive values.
> > > > > The command process at IgniteH2Indexing as native command.
> > > > > By nodeOrderId we find node which initial for the query and send
to
> > the
> > > > > node new GridQueryKillRequest with nodeQryId to TOPIC_QUERY with
> not
> > > > QUERY
> > > > > POOL executor.
> > > > > At GridReduceQueryExecutor we add support of processing new
> > > > > GridQueryKillRequest
> > > > > which just run already exists cancelQueries method with given qryId
> > or
> > > > with
> > > > > all qryIds which currently running at the node in case at initial
> > KILL
> > > > > QUERY parameters used star symbol.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a doubt which of thread pool we should use to process
> > > > > GridQueryKillRequest.
> > > > > My opinion it shouldn't be QUERY pool, due to the pool can be fully
> > > used
> > > > by
> > > > > executing queries, it such case we can't cancel query immediately.
> > May
> > > we
> > > > > use one of already existed pool or create new one? Or may be I'm
> > > mistaken
> > > > > and it should use QUERY pool.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think about proposed plan of implementation?
> > > > >
> > > > > And please give comments about which of thread pool will be better
> to
> > > use
> > > > > for kill query requests. It's small, but really important part of
> the
> > > > > realization.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Живи с улыбкой! :D
>

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