[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6588?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13873196#comment-13873196
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-6588:
---------------------------------------------
In terms of results returned, it's not. In terms of "how hard is it to
implement in the code today", it's a world of difference however (as in, I'be
put 2.1 as target for this because it's an improvement not a bug fix, but the
complexity of code needed to add a simple filter is really simple and pushing
it in 2.0 if we wanted wouldn't be crazy; while supporting the OR version
likely means a 3.0 target at best). Also, supporting OR and 'not null'
conditions for this feels a bit overkill. As in, I'm not sure it's such a good
idea to support both if we're only gonna support them in this very specific use
case. Plus, if you select 8 or 9 columns, the conditions with OR becomes a bit
of a pain to write when all you want to do is allow the engine to optimize the
query to not query the full CQL row.
Note that, if we have good reason later to add support for 'OR' and 'not null'
(i.e. we support it in a much more general way), then a 'NO EMPTY' filter could
then just extend to the OR query, at which point the 'NO EMPTY' will just be
syntactic sugar for convenience, but I don't think there will any harm in that.
> Add a 'NO EMPTY RESULTS' filter to SELECT
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6588
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6588
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.1
>
>
> It is the semantic of CQL that a (CQL) row exists as long as it has one
> non-null column (including the PK columns, which, given that no PK columns
> can be null, means that it's enough to have the PK set for a row to exist).
> This does means that the result to
> {noformat}
> CREATE TABLE test (k int PRIMARY KEY, v1 int, v2 int);
> INSERT INTO test(k, v1) VALUES (0, 4);
> SELECT v2 FROM test;
> {noformat}
> must be (and is)
> {noformat}
> v2
> ------
> null
> {noformat}
> That fact does mean however that when we only select a few columns of a row,
> we still need to find out rows that exist but have no values for the selected
> columns. Long story short, given how the storage engine works, this means we
> need to query full (CQL) rows even when only some of the columns are selected
> because that's the only way to distinguish between "the row exists but have
> no value for the selected columns" and "the row doesn't exist". I'll note in
> particular that, due to CASSANDRA-5762, we can't unfortunately rely on the
> row marker to optimize that out.
> Now, when you selects only a subsets of the columns of a row, there is many
> cases where you don't care about rows that exists but have no value for the
> columns you requested and are happy to filter those out. So, for those cases,
> we could provided a new SELECT filter. Outside the potential convenience (not
> having to filter empty results client side), one interesting part is that
> when this filter is provided, we could optimize a bit by only querying the
> columns selected, since we wouldn't need to return rows that exists but have
> no values for the selected columns.
> For the exact syntax, there is probably a bunch of options. For instance:
> * {{SELECT NON EMPTY(v2, v3) FROM test}}: the vague rational for putting it
> in the SELECT part is that such filter is kind of in the spirit to DISTINCT.
> Possibly a bit ugly outside of that.
> * {{SELECT v2, v3 FROM test NO EMPTY RESULTS}} or {{SELECT v2, v3 FROM test
> NO EMPTY ROWS}} or {{SELECT v2, v3 FROM test NO EMPTY}}: the last one is
> shorter but maybe a bit less explicit. As for {{RESULTS}} versus {{ROWS}},
> the only small object to {{NO EMPTY ROWS}} could be that it might suggest it
> is filtering non existing rows (I mean, the fact we never ever return non
> existing rows should hint that it's not what it does but well...) while we're
> just filtering empty "resultSet rows".
> Of course, if there is a pre-existing SQL syntax for that, it's even better,
> though a very quick search didn't turn anything. Other suggestions welcome
> too.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
