ignite-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SQL IN Operator
Date Wed, 05 Aug 2015 09:32:41 GMT
Added new section into docs:
http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/v1.3/docs/cache-queries#section-performance-and-usability-considerations

Feel free comment.

Sergi

2015-08-05 11:15 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vladykin@gmail.com>:

> Dmitriy,
>
> No problem, will do.
>
> Sergi
>
> 2015-08-04 21:56 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>
>> Sergey,
>>
>> Having array-based queries is a very nice "secret" feature :) I actually
>> was not aware of it.
>>
>> Do you mind updating the documentation? Basically, just put some
>> explanation and the example you have in this thread into the Sql Query
>> section here:
>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cache-queries#sql-queries
>>
>> D.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I know that it is a common misconception, but we use H2 database engine
>>> to process SQL queries, their position on the issue is that they don't want
>>> to support that until other databases do the same. Do you know any
>>> databases that support such a syntax?
>>>
>>> Also there is another more effective workaround which opposite to IN
>>> operator can use indexes and supports variable length arrays:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *select p._val from Person p, table(name varchar = ?) n where p.name
>>> <http://t.id> =  n.name <http://z.id>*
>>> and pass there array of names (String[]) as a parameter, but here you
>>> have to use SqlFieldsQuery.
>>>
>>> Sergi
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-08-04 17:44 GMT+03:00 Mirko Raner <mirko@raner.ws>:
>>>
>>>> Thank you, Sergi.
>>>> That's exactly what we did wrong!
>>>> I can see some issues with this solution when there is a large number
>>>> of set
>>>> elements. Also, as you mentioned that it's a common issue, I'm
>>>> wondering if
>>>> it would make sense for Ignite to support the "IN ?" syntax with an
>>>> array or
>>>> collection as argument (either by translating it to the correct syntax
>>>> under
>>>> the hood, or by providing a predefined SQL function for this case?).
>>>> Apparently, we are not the only ones who expected the "IN ?" syntax to
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/SQL-IN-Operator-tp779p812.html
>>>> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message