Hi Guo, +1 for the CONSTRAINTS keyword to be added into the default behavior.
Bernardo > On Oct 21, 2024, at 12:01 AM, guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the CONSTRAINTS keyword keyword may be in the same situation as > datamask. > Maybe it is better to include constraints into the default behavior of > table copy together with column name, column data type and data mask. > > guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> > 于2024年10月21日周一 14:56写道： >> To yifan : >> I don't mind adding the ALL keyword, and it has been updated into CEP. >> >> As all you can see, our original intention was that the grammar would not be >> too complicated, which is what I described in cep >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE>. >> >> We gave up PG-related grammar, including INCLUDING/EXCLUDING and so on . >> >> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> >> 于2024年10月21日周一 14:52写道： >>> Hi , >>> To sefan : >>> I may want to explain that if there is no OPTION keyword in the CQL >>> statement, then the newly created table will only have the original table's >>> column name 、column type and data mask ,I think this is the most basic >>> choice when copying tables to users. >>> Then we do some addition, we can add original table's table options like >>> compaction strategy/compress strategy、index and so on. >>> >>> Recently, I have also thought about the situation of CONSTRAINTS keyword. I >>> think it is similar to data mask. Agree that it should be included in the >>> basic options of table copy (column name, column data type , column data >>> mask and constraints). >>> >>> Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com <mailto:he...@rhinosource.com>> >>> 于2024年10月19日周六 01:15写道： >>>> It seems like a natural extension of the CREATE TABLE statement. Looking >>>> forward to using it in the future. >>>> >>>> -Dave >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:11 PM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org >>>> <mailto:smikloso...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>> Right?! Reads like English, the impact on the existing CQL is minimal. >>>>> One LIKE which basically needs to be there and keywords of logical >>>>> "components" which seamlessly integrate with WITH. >>>>> >>>>> I would _not_ use WITH CONSTRAINTS because constraints will be inherently >>>>> part of a table schema. It is not an "option". We can not "opt-out" from >>>>> them. Remember we are copying a table here so if a base one has >>>>> constraints, its copy will have them too. A user can subsequently "ALTER" >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:31 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com >>>>> <mailto:he...@rhinosource.com>> wrote: >>>>>> Basing it on CREATE TABLE, the BNF definition of the simple >>>>>> implementation would look something like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> create_table_statement::= CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] table_name LIKE >>>>>> base_table_name >>>>>> [ WITH included_objects ] [ [ AND ] table_options ] >>>>>> table_options::= COMPACT STORAGE [ AND table_options ] >>>>>> | CLUSTERING ORDER BY '(' clustering_order ')' >>>>>> [ AND table_options ] | options >>>>>> clustering_order::= column_name (ASC | DESC) ( ',' column_name (ASC | >>>>>> DESC) )* >>>>>> included_objects::= dependent_objects [ AND dependent_objects ] >>>>>> dependent_objects:= INDEXES | TRIGGERS | CONSTRAINTS | VIEWS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] [<keyspace_name>.]<table_name> LIKE >>>>>> [<keyspace_name>.]<base_table_name> >>>>>> [ WITH [ <included_objects > ] >>>>>> [ [ AND ] [ <table_options> ] ] >>>>>> [ [ AND ] CLUSTERING ORDER BY [ <clustering_column_name> (ASC | DESC) >>>>>> ] ] >>>>>> ; >>>>>> >>>>>> Examples: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Create base table: >>>>>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name ( >>>>>> id UUID PRIMARY KEY, >>>>>> lastname text, >>>>>> firstname text >>>>>> ); >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Create an exact copy of the base table, but do not create any >>>>>> dependent objects: >>>>>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name2 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name; >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Create an exact copy with all dependent objects (constraints excluded >>>>>> for now): >>>>>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name3 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name >>>>>> WITH INDEXES AND TRIGGERS AND VIEWS; >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Create a copy with LCS compaction, a default TTL and all dependent >>>>>> objects except indexes: >>>>>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name4 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name >>>>>> WITH TRIGGERS AND VIEWS >>>>>> AND compaction = { 'class' : 'LeveledCompactionStrategy' } >>>>>> AND default_time_to_live = 86400; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems pretty clean & straightforward. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 4:05 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com >>>>>> <mailto:he...@rhinosource.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> This simple approach resonates with me. I think the Cassandra doc uses >>>>>>> "INDEXES" as the plural for index, i.e.: >>>>>>> https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/stable/cassandra/cql/indexes.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 2:39 PM Štefan Miklošovič >>>>>>> <smikloso...@apache.org <mailto:smikloso...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Well we could do something like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDICES AND TRIGGERS AND >>>>>>>> compaction = {'class': '.... } AND ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but I can admit it might be seen as an overreach and I am not sure at >>>>>>>> all how it would look like in the implementation because we would need >>>>>>>> to distinguish WITH INDICES from table options. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would >>>>>>>> +0 on ALL. - we don't need this. If we have just INDICES, TRIGGERS, >>>>>>>> VIEWS at this point, I don't think enumerating it all is too much to >>>>>>>> ask. This is just an implementation detail and if we find it necessary >>>>>>>> we can add it later. If you feel strongly about this then add that but >>>>>>>> it is not absolutely necessary. >>>>>>>> omit OPTIONS - aren't all options copied by default? That is the goal >>>>>>>> of the CEP, no? We might just use normal CQL while overriding from the >>>>>>>> base table >>>>>>>> mix keywords like TRIGGERS / INDICES / CONSTRAINTS into normal table >>>>>>>> creation statement >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 3:20 PM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:yc25c...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I would second Štefan's option for functionality simplicity. It seems >>>>>>>>> to be unnecessary to have the keywords for both inclusion and >>>>>>>>> exclusion in the CEP. If needed, the exclusion (WITHOUT) can be >>>>>>>>> introduced later. It would still be backward compatible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding "CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH compaction = >>>>>>>>> {'class': '.... } AND ... ", I think it only overrides the table >>>>>>>>> options. The CEP suggests the coarse-grained keyword for each >>>>>>>>> category like table options, indexes, etc. The functionality provided >>>>>>>>> is not identical. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I understand that the suggestions are to make operators' life easier >>>>>>>>> by achieving table creation in a single statement. What is being >>>>>>>>> proposed in the CEP seems to be at a good balance point. Operators >>>>>>>>> can alter the table options if needed in the follow-up ALTER table >>>>>>>>> statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Yifan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:41 PM Štefan Miklošovič >>>>>>>>> <smikloso...@apache.org <mailto:smikloso...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I think we are starting to complicate it. For me the most important >>>>>>>>>> question is who is actually this feature for? If people want to just >>>>>>>>>> prototype something fast or they just want to have "the same table >>>>>>>>>> just under a different name", I think that is going to be used in >>>>>>>>>> 99% of cases. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My assumption of using WITH which I think I proposed first (4th post >>>>>>>>>> in this thread) was to just blindly copy the most important "parts" >>>>>>>>>> logically related to a table, be it indices, materialized views, or >>>>>>>>>> triggers and enable / disable them as we wish. If no "WITH" is used, >>>>>>>>>> then we just get a table with nothing else. "WITH" will opt-in into >>>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Seeing us contemplating using "INCLUDING" and "EXCLUDING" on >>>>>>>>>> individual options makes me sad a little bit. I think we are >>>>>>>>>> over-engineering this. I just don't see a reasonable use-case where >>>>>>>>>> users would need to cherry-pick what they want and what not. Isn't >>>>>>>>>> that just too complicated? If a table being copied drifts away too >>>>>>>>>> much from the original one then users would be better off with >>>>>>>>>> creating a brand new table with CQL as they are used to, not dealing >>>>>>>>>> with "copying" at all. More we drift from what the original table >>>>>>>>>> was like, the less useful this feature is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:03 PM Dave Herrington >>>>>>>>>> <he...@rhinosource.com <mailto:he...@rhinosource.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry that I overlooked the definition of the default in the CEP. >>>>>>>>>>> I did look for it but I didn’t see it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think the default behavior you explained makes perfect sense & >>>>>>>>>>> what one would expect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I like the flexibility of INCLUDING and EXCLUDING that you are >>>>>>>>>>> considering. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Would it make sense to use WITH for table options, which would make >>>>>>>>>>> it easy (and less confusing IMHO) to override the defaults from the >>>>>>>>>>> source table, then use INCLUDING/EXCLUDING for all non-table >>>>>>>>>>> options such as constraints and indices? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems this would be easier to document as well, as it could just >>>>>>>>>>> point to the CREATE TABLE doc for the options, rather than trying >>>>>>>>>>> to explain a bunch of keywords that map to table options. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>>>>>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>>>>>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> www.rhinosource.com <http://www.rhinosource.com/> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:57 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> To yifan : >>>>>>>>>>>> At the beginning of the period, I also thought about adding the >>>>>>>>>>>> keyword ALL, refer to pg >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html> , >>>>>>>>>>>> but I give up when writing cep as I find that there may be not so >>>>>>>>>>>> many properties (only three) to copy for C* and >>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible to decide what is needed and what is not in a very >>>>>>>>>>>> simple cql, as our ALL is only three properties here. I want to >>>>>>>>>>>> keep it as simple as possible (based on the advice given by >>>>>>>>>>>> Benjamin), So I grouped >>>>>>>>>>>> the properties of the table into one category and expressed it >>>>>>>>>>>> with OPTION keyword. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But if we are going to split the first keyword OPTION to >>>>>>>>>>>> COMPRESSION 、COMPACTION、COMMENT and so on. I am +1 on adding ALL >>>>>>>>>>>> back as the properties are so many and it is simple to use ALL >>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>> list all properties. Besides I may change my keyword WITH to >>>>>>>>>>>> INCLUDING and adding another keyword EXCLUDING to flexibly copy >>>>>>>>>>>> table properties through simple sql statements, like using 1 not >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE newTb like oldTb INCLUDING ALL EXCLUDING INDEXES AND >>>>>>>>>>>> COMMENTS. >>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE newTb like oldTb INCLUDING COMPRESSION CONSTRAINTS >>>>>>>>>>>> GENERATED IDENTITY STATISTICS STORAGE >>>>>>>>>>>> Conclusion: If there may be more keywords to consider in the >>>>>>>>>>>> future, such as more than 4 , I am +1 on adding ALL back . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To Dave : >>>>>>>>>>>> Default behavior is only copy column name, data type ,data mask >>>>>>>>>>>> , you can see more detail from CEP-43 >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE>. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com <mailto:pmcfa...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 于2024年10月17日周四 06:43写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 That makes much more sense in my experience. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:12 PM Dave Herrington >>>>>>>>>>>>> <he...@rhinosource.com <mailto:he...@rhinosource.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm coming at this with both a deep ANSI SQL background as well >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as CQL background. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Defining the default behavior is the starting point. What gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>> copied if we do "CREATE TABLE new_table LIKE original_table;" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without a WITH clause? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, you build on that with the specific WITH options. WITH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL catches everything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:16 AM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:yc25c...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "WITH ALL" seems to be a natural addition to the directives. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think about adding the fifth keyword ALL to retain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all fields of the table schema? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, CREATE TABLE new_table LIKE original_table WITH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL, it replicates options, indexes, triggers, constraints and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any applicable kinds that are introduced in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Yifan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:46 AM guo Maxwell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cclive1...@gmail.com <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disscussed with Bernardo on slack，and +1 with his advice on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding a fourth keyword. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The keyword would be CONSTRAINTS ， any more suggestion ？ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>>于2024年10月16日 周三上午9:55写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi yifan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up. The SELECT permission on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original table is needed. Mysql and PG all have mentioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, and I also specifically noticed this in my code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I probably missed this in the cep documentation. 😅 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com <mailto:yc25c...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 于2024年10月16日周三 07:46写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for creating the CEP! I think it is missing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bernardo's comment on "the need for read permissions on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source table". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CreateTableStatement does not check the permissions outside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the enclosing keyspace. Having the SELECT permission on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the original table is a requirement for CREATE TABLE LIKE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Yifan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 11:01 PM guo Maxwell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cclive1...@gmail.com <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, everyone , >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have finished the doc for CEP-43 for CREATE_TABLE_LIKE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as said before, looking forward to your suggestions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:smikloso...@apache.org>> 于2024年9月25日周三 03:51写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry I do not follow what you mean, maybe an example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would help. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 6:18 PM guo Maxwell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cclive1...@gmail.com <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there are multiple schema information changes in one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ddl statement, will there be schema conflicts in extreme >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, our statement contains both table creation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and index creation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>>于2024年9月24日 周二下午8:12写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on splitting this task and adding the ability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy tables through different keyspaces in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:smikloso...@apache.org>> 于2024年9月23日周一 22:05写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we have this table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb2 ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> id int PRIMARY KEY, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name text >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can either specify name of an index on my own like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE INDEX name_index ON ks.tb2 (name) ; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or I can let Cassandra to figure that name on its own: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE INDEX ON ks.tb2 (name) ; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that case it will name that index "tb2_name_idx". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence, I would expect that when we do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALTER TABLE ks.to_copy LIKE ks.tb2 WITH INDICES; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then ks.to_copy table will have an index which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called "to_copy_name_idx" without me doing anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For types, we do not need to do anything when we deal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same keyspace. For simplicity, I mentioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we might deal with the same keyspace scenario only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for now and iterate on that in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 8:53 AM guo Maxwell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cclive1...@gmail.com <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cep is being written, and I encountered some problems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the process. I would like to discuss them with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. If you read the description of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CASSANDRA-7662 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7662>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will find that initially the original creator of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this jira did not intend to implement structural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copying of indexes, views, and triggers only the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> column and its data type. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, after investigating some db related syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and function implementation, I found that it may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary for us to provide some rich syntax to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support the replication of indexes, views, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to support selective copy of the basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure of the table (columns and types), table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options, table-related indexes, views, triggers, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need some new syntax, it seems that the syntax of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pg is relatively comprehensive, it use the keyword >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCLUDING/EXCLUDING to flexibly control the removal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and retention of indexes, table information, etc. see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pg create table like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/sql-createtable.html> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , the new created index name is different from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original table's index name , seenewly copied index >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names are different from original >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml#L749> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , the name is based on some rule. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mysql is relatively simple and copies columns and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indexes by default. see mysql create table like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/create-table-like.html> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the newly created index name is the same with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original table's index name. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So for Casandra, I hope it can also support the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information copy of index and even view/trigger. And I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also hope to be able to flexibly decide which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is copied like pg. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, I think the copy can happen between different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyspaces. And UDT needs to be taken into account. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But as we know the index/view/trigger name are all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under keyspace level, so it seems that the newly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created index name (or view name/ trigger name) must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be different from the original tables' ,otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names would clash . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So regarding the above problem, one idea I have is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that for newly created types, indexes and views under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different keyspaces and the same keyspace, we first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate random names for them, and then we can add >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ability of modifying the names(for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types/indexes/views/triggers) so that users can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually change the names. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> 于2024年9月20日周五 08:06写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No，I think still need some discuss on grammar detail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after I finish the first version >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pmcfa...@gmail.com>>于2024年9月20日 周五上午2:24写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this CEP ready for a VOTE thread? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 8:56 PM guo Maxwell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cclive1...@gmail.com <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your replies, I will prepare a CEP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pmcfa...@gmail.com>> 于2024年8月20日周二 02:11写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 This is a CEP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:50 AM Jon Haddad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <j...@jonhaddad.com <mailto:j...@jonhaddad.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given the fairly large surface area for this, i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it should be a CEP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Haddad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rustyrazorblade Consulting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rustyrazorblade.com <http://rustyrazorblade.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:44 AM Bernardo Botella >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <conta...@bernardobotella.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:conta...@bernardobotella.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely a nice addition to CQL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking for inspiration at how Postgres and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mysql do that may also help with the final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design (I like the WITH proposed by Stefan, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would definitely take a look at the INCLUDING >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword proposed by Postgres). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/create-table-like.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On top of that, and as part of the interesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, I would like to add the permissions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the mix. Both the question about copying them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over (with a WITH keyword probably), and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need for read permissions on the source table as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bernardo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 19, 2024, at 10:01 AM, Štefan Miklošovič >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smikloso...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:smikloso...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW this would be cool to do as well: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALTER TABLE ks.to_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDICES; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean that if we create a copy of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, later we can decide that we need indices >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too, so we might "enrich" that table with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indices from the old one without necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly re-creating them on that new table. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:55 PM Štefan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:smikloso...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is an interesting idea worth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exploring. I definitely agree with Benjamin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who raised important questions which needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be answered first. Also, what about triggers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be rather "easy" to come up with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something simple but it should be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehensive solution with predictable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior we all agree on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a keyspace of a new table does not exist we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would need to create that one too before. For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simplicity, I would just make it a must to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create it on same keyspace. We might iterate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UDTs are created per keyspace so there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to re-create. We just need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference it from a new table, right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indexes and MVs are interesting but in theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they might be re-created too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be appropriate to use something like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INDEXES AND VIEWS AND TRIGGERS .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without "WITH" it would just copy a table with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:10 PM guo Maxwell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cclive1...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:cclive1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello， everyone： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Jira CASSANDRA-7662 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7662> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has described , we would like to introduce a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new grammer " CREATE TABLE LIKE " ,which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplifies creating new tables duplicating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing ones . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The format may be like : CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <new_table> LIKE <old_table> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before I implement this function, do you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any suggestions on this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your reply！ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>>>>>>>>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.rhinosource.com <http://www.rhinosource.com/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.rhinosource.com <http://www.rhinosource.com/> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics. >>>>>> >>>>>> www.rhinosource.com <http://www.rhinosource.com/> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -Dave >>>> >>>> David A. Herrington II >>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>> >>>> Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics. >>>> >>>> www.rhinosource.com <http://www.rhinosource.com/>
