[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4449?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Sylvain Lebresne updated CASSANDRA-4449:
----------------------------------------
Attachment: 4449-v3.txt
bq. Can we update the Prepared query with ID %s not found IRE to explain that
the problem is a client bug?
Very good point. Attaching v3 that not only explain that in the error message
but for the binary protocol creates a separate exception for that case. That
way, smart client libraries can easily catch that case and act on it (i.e.
prepare the statement).
> Make prepared statement global rather than connection based
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-4449
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4449
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
> Labels: binary_protocol
> Fix For: 1.2.0 beta 2
>
> Attachments: 4449.txt, 4449-v2.txt, 4449-v3.txt
>
>
> Currently, prepared statements are connection based. A client can only use a
> prepared statement on the connection it prepared it on, and if you prepare
> the same prepared statement on multiple connections, we'll keep multiple
> times the same prepared statement. This is potentially inefficient but can
> also be fairly painful for client libraries with pool of connections (a.k.a
> all reasonable client library ever) as this means you need to make sure you
> prepare statement on every connection of the pool, including the connection
> that don't exist yet but might be created later.
> This ticket suggests making prepared statement global (at least for CQL3),
> i.e. move them out of ClientState. This will likely reduce the number of
> stored statement on a given node quite a bit, since it's very likely that all
> clients to a given node will prepare the same statements (and potentially on
> all of their connection with the node). And given that prepared statement
> identifiers are the hashCode() of the string, this should be fairly trivial.
> I will note that while I think using a hash of the string as identifier is a
> very good idea, I don't know if the default java hashCode() is good enough.
> If that's a concern, maybe we should use a safer (bug longer) hash like md5
> or sha1. But we'd better do that now.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
