firstly I think anything existing must be reasonable，so ignore option for tablestats must be a need for the user to use. at least I used it some time ； secondly in order to keep this as simple as possible ，I think left the option unchanged is enough ，because the original usage is simple enough. user can just print the specified table after set nodetool tablehistorgrams ks table ，and if there is ten tables in kesypace ，it is simple for him to type ten times with different table names which I think at first Only set with argument ks keyspace name is enough. When we just want to see eight tables in the ks ，the user should just type eight table name which ignore two table may be enough.
Bowen Song via dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org>于2023年3月23日 周四下午8:07写道： > I don't think the nodetool tablestats command's parameters should be used > as a reference implementation for the nodetool tablehistograms command. > Because: > > - the tablehistograms command can take the keyspace and table as two > separate parameters, but the tablestats command can't. > - the tablestats command can take keyspace (without table) as a > parameter, but the tablehistograms command can't. > > The introduction of the -ks and -tbs options are unnecessary for the > tablestats command, because it's parameters are: > > nodetool tablestats [<keyspace.table>|<keyspace> [<keyspace. > table>|<keyspace> [...]]] > > Which means any positional parameter without a dot is treated as a > keyspace name, otherwise it's treated as dot-separated keyspace and table > name. That, however, does not apply to the nodetool tablehistograms > command, which led to your workaround - the addition of the -ks and -tbs > options. > > But if you could just forget about the nodetool tablestats command for a > moment, and look at the nodetool tablehistograms command alone, you will > see that it's unnecessary to introduce the -ks and -tbs options, because > the command already takes keyspace name and table name, just in a different > format. > > In addition to that, I would be interested to know how often do people use > the -i option in the nodetool tablestats command. My best guess is, very > very rarely. > > If my guess is correct, we should keep the nodetool tablehistograms > command as simple as: > > nodetool tablehistograms [<keyspace> <table> [<table> [...]] | > <keyspace.table> [<keyspace.table> [...]]] > > It's good enough if the above can cover the majority of use cases. The > remaining use cases can be dealt with individually, by multiple invocations > of the same command or providing it with a script-generated list of tables > in the <keyspace.table> format. > > TL;DR: The KISS principle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle> > should apply here - keep it simple. > > > On 23/03/2023 03:05, guo Maxwell wrote: > > Maybe I didn't describe the usage of option "-i" clearly, The reason why > I think the command argument should be like this : > > > 1. nodetool tablehistograms ks.tb1 or ks tb1 ... //this is *one of the >> old way *of using tablehistogram. will print out the histograms of tabke >> ks.tb1 , we keep the old format to print out the table histograms,besides >> if more than two arguments is provied, suchu as nodetool tablehistograms >> system.local system_schema.columns system_schema.tables then all tables's >> histograms will be printed out (I think this is a bug that not as >> excepted in the document's decription, we should remind the user that this >> is an incorrenct usage) >> >> 2. nodetool tablehistograms -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 .... //print out list of >> tables' histograms with format keyspace.table >> 3.nodetool tablehistograms -ks ks1 ks2 ks3 ... //print out list of >> keyspaces histograms >> 4.nodetool tablehistograms -i -ks ks1 ks2 .... //print out list of table >> histograms except for the keyspaces list behind the option -i >> 5.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 // print out list >> tables' histograms except for table in ks.tb1 ks.tb2 >> 6.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 -ks ks1 // print out >> list tables' histograms except for table in ks.tb1 ks.tb2 and all tables >> in ks1 >> 6.none option specified ,then all tables histograms will be print out.// this >> is *another one of the old way* of using tablehistogram. >> > > is to make the command format to be consistent with the format of > nodetool tablestats, so for users, there will be a unified awareness of > using these two commands, rather than different commands requiring > different usage awareness , we can see the description of the tablestats > doc for option "-i " > > Ignore the list of tables and display the remaining tables >> > > that is to say if -i appears all the lists of tables and kespaces will be > ignored and will display the remaining tables. > >> For example, for this command: >> >> (1)nodetool tablehistograns -ks ks1 -i -tbs ks1.tb1 ks2.tb2 >> >> Which one of the following should it do? >> >> 1. all tables in the keyspace ks1, except the table tb1; or >> 2. all tables in all keyspaces, except any table in the keyspace ks1 >> and the table tb2 in the keyspace ks2 >> >> A more complex and possibly confusing option could be: >> >> (2)nodetool tablehistograms ks1 -i ks1.tb1 -i ks1.tb2 # all tables in >> the keyspace ks1, except the table tb1 and tb2 >> >> (3)nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1.tb1 -i ks1.tb2 ks1 # identical as >> above, as -i takes only one parameter >> >> > In my mind it is better to use -i option only once (though it is right to > use before every ks and tbs lists ) , so (1) means all tables in ks1 > (including ks1.tb1) and ks2.tb2 will be ignored and display the remaining > (2) will ignore all tables in ks1 (including ks1.tb1, ks1.tb2) and display > remaing (3) will show the same result with (2) > > the newly added options' behavior is same with nodetool tablestats , the > difference is I displayed parameters specifying option -ks and -tbs , but > tablestats don't. > > > > > Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> 于2023年3月22日周三 23:35写道： > >> Agree w/Bowen. I think the straight forward simplicity of "clear >> inclusion and exclusion semantics, default to include all in scope >> excepting things that are explicitly ignored" would be ideal. >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023, at 8:45 AM, Bowen Song via dev wrote: >> >> TBH, the syntax looks unnecessarily complex and confusing to me. >> >> For example, for this command: >> >> nodetool tablehistograns -ks ks1 -i -tbs ks1.tb1 ks2.tb2 >> >> Which one of the following should it do? >> >> 1. all tables in the keyspace ks1, except the table tb1; or >> 2. all tables in all keyspaces, except any table in the keyspace ks1 >> and the table tb2 in the keyspace ks2 >> >> >> I personally would prefer the simplicity of this approach: >> >> nodetool tablehistograms ks1 tb1 tb2 tb3 >> >> nodetool tablehistograms ks1.tb1 ks1.tb2 ks2.tb3 >> >> nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1 -i ks2 >> >> nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1.tb1 -i ks2.tb2 >> >> >> They are self-explanatory. You don't need to read comments to understand >> what do they do, as long as you know that "-i" means "exclude". >> >> A more complex and possibly confusing option could be: >> >> >> >> nodetool tablehistograms ks1 -i ks1.tb1 -i ks1.tb2 # all tables in the >> keyspace ks1, except the table tb1 and tb2 >> >> nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1.tb1 -i ks1.tb2 ks1 # identical as above, >> as -i takes only one parameter >> >> To avoid the above confusion, the command could enforce that the "-i" >> option may only be used after any positional options, thus makes the 2nd >> command a syntax error. >> >> >> Beyond that, I don't see why the user can't make multiple invocations of >> the nodetool tablehistograms command if they have more complex or >> specific need. >> >> For example, in this case: >> >> *> 6.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 -ks ks1 // print out >> list tables' histograms except for table in ks.tb1 ks.tb2 and all tables in >> ks1* >> >> The same result can be achieved by concatenating the outputs of the >> following two commands: >> >> nodetool tablehistograms -i ks -i ks1 >> >> nodetool tablehistograms ks -i ks.tb1 -i ks.tb2 >> >> >> On 22/03/2023 05:12, guo Maxwell wrote: >> >> Thanks everyone , So It seems that it is better to add new parameter >> options to meet our needs, while keeping the original parameter functions >> unaffected to achieve backward compatibility. >> So the new options are : >> 1. nodetool tablehistograms ks.tb1 or ks tb1 ... //this is *one of the >> old way *of using tablehistogram. will print out the histograms of tabke >> ks.tb1 , we keep the old format to print out the table histograms,besides >> if more than two arguments is provied, suchu as nodetool tablehistograms >> system.local system_schema.columns system_schema.tables then all tables's >> histograms will be printed out (I think this is a bug that not as >> excepted in the document's decription, we should remind the user that this >> is an incorrenct usage) >> >> 2. nodetool tablehistograms -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 .... //print out list of >> tables' histograms with format keyspace.table >> 3.nodetool tablehistograms -ks ks1 ks2 ks3 ... //print out list of >> keyspaces histograms >> 4.nodetool tablehistograms -i -ks ks1 ks2 .... //print out list of table >> histograms except for the keyspaces list behind the option -i >> 5.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 // print out list >> tables' histograms except for table in ks.tb1 ks.tb2 >> 6.nodetool tablehistograns -i -tbs ks.tb1 ks.tb2 -ks ks1 // print out >> list tables' histograms except for table in ks.tb1 ks.tb2 and all tables >> in ks1 >> 6.none option specified ,then all tables histograms will be print out.// this >> is *another one of the old way* of using tablehistogram. >> >> So we add some more options like "-i", "-ks", "-tbs" , we can combine >> these options and we can also use any of them individually, besides, we >> can also use the tool through old way if a table with format ks.tb is >> provied. >> >> >> Jeremiah D Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月16日周四 23:14写道： >> >> -1 on any change which breaks the previously documented usage. >> +1 any additions to what the tool can do without breaking previously >> documented behavior. >> >> On Mar 16, 2023, at 7:42 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> We could also consider augmenting the tool with new named arguments with >> the functionality you described and leave the positional usage intact. >> >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, at 6:43 AM, Bowen Song via dev wrote: >> >> The documented command options are: >> >> nodetool tablehistograms [<keyspace> <table> | <keyspace.table>] >> >> >> >> That means one parameter will be treated as dot separated keyspace and >> table. Alternatively, two parameters will be treated as the keyspace and >> table respectively. >> >> To remain compatible with the documented behaviour, my suggestion is to >> change the command options to: >> >> nodetool tablehistograms [<keyspace> <table> [<table2> [...]] | >> <keyspace.table> [<keyspace2.table2> [...]]] >> >> Feel free to add the "all except ..." feature to the above. >> >> This doesn't break backward compatibility in documented ways. It only >> changes the undocumented behaviour. If someone is using the undocumented >> behaviour, they must know things may break when the software is upgraded. >> We can just add a line to the NEWS.txt and let them update their scripts. >> >> >> On 16/03/2023 08:53, guo Maxwell wrote: >> >> Hello everyone : >> The nodetool tablehistograms have one argument which you can fill with >> only one table name with the format "keyspace_name.table_name >> /keyspace_name table_name", so that you can get the table histograms of the >> specied table. >> >> And if none arguments is set, all the tables' histograms will be print >> out.And if more than 2 arguments (nomatter the format is right or wrong) are >> set , all the tables' histograms will also be print out too(Which is a bug >> In my mind). >> >> So the usage of nodetool tablehistograms has some usage restrictions, >> That is either output one , or all informations. >> >> As CASSANDRA-18296 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18296> described , I >> will change the usage of nodetool tablehistograms, which support the >> feature below: >> 1. nodetool tablehistograms ks.tb1 ks.tb2 .... //print out list of >> tables' histograms with format keyspace.table >> 2.nodetool tablehistograms ks1 ks2 ks3 ... //print out list of keyspaces >> histograms >> 3.nodetool tablehistograms -i ks1 ks2 .... //print out list of table >> histograms except for the keyspaces list behind the option -i >> 4.nodetool tablehistograns -i ks ks.tb // print out list tables' >> histograms except for table in keyspace ks and ks.tb table. >> 5.none option specified ,then all tables histograms will be print out. >> >> The usage will breaks compatibility with how it was done previously, and >> as this is a user facing tool. >> >> So, What do you think? >> >> Thanks~~~ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> you are the apple of my eye ! >> >> >> > > -- > you are the apple of my eye ! > > -- you are the apple of my eye !
