I wonder if "SELECT" clause should *touch *an entry? For instance,
cache.contains() doesn't *touch*.
вт, 18 апр. 2017 г. в 12:21, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> Yeah. I've already run the test with two caches. Definately, the bug
> hidden in cache.query() method. cache.query() calls
> IgniteH2Indexing#queryLocalSql(), which calls executeSqlQueryWithTimer,
> and then it sinks into JdbcPreparedStatement.executeQuery(). There is no
> key-value operations subsequent
>
> пн, 17 апр. 2017 г. в 21:15, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
>
>> It doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong unless someone gets to
>> the bottom of the issue debugging it.
>>
>> I would suggest to create a simple unit test with two caches and trying
>> to reproduce the following without computations and other redundant stuff.
>> Would you like to work on this?
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>> > On Apr 17, 2017, at 12:44 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Why do u think so.
>> > First of all, the output above is not correct. After 3 iteration
>> key-value
>> > API strats to return empty value.
>> >
>> > Every 5 seconds(iteration sleep time)
>> repository.getAttributes("1").size()
>> > is got called. Which makes an entry "touch" and the entry wont be
>> expired
>> > for as long as 10 seconds.
>> >
>> > Expiry policy says:
>> >
>> > An {@link ExpiryPolicy} that defines the expiry {@link Duration}
>> > * of a Cache Entry based on when it was last touched. A touch includes
>> > ** creation, update or **access**.*
>> >
>> >
>> > пт, 14 апр. 2017 г. в 18:42, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> >> The iteration happens multiple time which means that the key-value API
>> had
>> >> to return an empty result set on second or third iteration. But this
>> never
>> >> happens.
>> >>
>> >> In any case, do you want to find a root of the issue and fix it?
>> >> Otherwise, we can update the description and wait while someone else
>> fixes
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> —
>> >> Denis
>> >>
>> >>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 1:33 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Because expiry time is 10 seconds, while loop iterates every 5 seconds
>> >>>
>> >>> пт, 14 апр. 2017 г. в 11:32, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
>> >>> :
>> >>>
>> >>>> No, the bug is in SQL query, not key-value storage.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> пт, 14 апр. 2017 г. в 11:11, Vladislav Pyatkov <vldpyat...@gmail.com
>> >:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Denis, Aleksey,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It is correct, remember I have already said something like[1].
>> >>>>> I have no idea, why this happened in this case with SQL.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [1]:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/TouchedExpiryPolicy-works-incorrect-in-some-cases-IGNITE-4401-td16349.html#a16356
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I could reproduce the issue and this should be what Denis K. meant
>> by
>> >>>>>> saying “expiration policy works incorrectly”.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If you remove the expiration policy from the caches' configuration
>> >> then
>> >>>>>> the issue disappears. In general, SQL engine processes an
>> expiration
>> >>>>> event
>> >>>>>> properly because the SQL queries return an empty result set as
>> >> expected
>> >>>>> but
>> >>>>>> something doesn’t work well with key-value operations.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> *Denis K*, *Vlad P.*, as creators of the ticket please confirm that
>> >> this
>> >>>>>> is the case.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please keep debugging this and switch to the latest Ignite version.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> —
>> >>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 4:22 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> >>>>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> any feedback?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> чт, 13 апр. 2017 г. в 11:51, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> >>>>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> You should run ExpiryPolicyTest. The output should contain
>> strings
>> >>>>> like
>> >>>>>>>> contains? new AffinityKey("1", "1"): and contains?2 new
>> >>>>>> AffinityKey("1", "
>> >>>>>>>> 1"): and empty cursor? =
>> >>>>>>>> If you look at them you will see, that cache contains affinity
>> key
>> >>>>> new
>> >>>>>>>> AffinityKey("1", "1") whereas cursor is empty(on second
>> iteration).
>> >>>>> From
>> >>>>>>>> this output you can conclude SQL query returns icorrect
>> data(empty
>> >>>>>> value)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> чт, 13 апр. 2017 г. в 3:42, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Bluntly speaking I have no idea where to look and what to
>> expect.
>> >>>>> This
>> >>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>> output of the test execution of my machine:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> SQL res: [[1], [d]]
>> >>>>>>>>> 2
>> >>>>>>>>> Op consume: 303
>> >>>>>>>>> Value: org.ignite.test.EDU@22db8f4
>> >>>>>>>>> SQL res: []
>> >>>>>>>>> 0
>> >>>>>>>>> Op consume: 9
>> >>>>>>>>> Value: org.ignite.test.EDU@29caf222
>> >>>>>>>>> SQL res: []
>> >>>>>>>>> 0
>> >>>>>>>>> Op consume: 15
>> >>>>>>>>> Value: org.ignite.test.EDU@7cd1ac19
>> >>>>>>>>> SQL res: []
>> >>>>>>>>> 0
>> >>>>>>>>> Op consume: 5
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Please be more specific, there are too many files in the code.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> —
>> >>>>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 2017, at 4:50 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> >>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> So what do u think about the issue ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> ср, 12 апр. 2017 г. в 10:42, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> >>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have already attached simlified version. Shall i simplify it
>> >>>>> more ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> вт, 11 апр. 2017 г. в 19:28, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you attach the simplified version? Just want to avoid any
>> >> side
>> >>>>>>>>> effects.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> —
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 9:14 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> >>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I took it from
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4401
>> >>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4401> and
>> >>>>> simplified .
>> >>>>>>>>> See
>> >>>>>>>>>>> in attached
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 11 апр. 2017 г. в 19:03, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org
>> >>>>>> <mailto:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> dma...@apache.org>>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have sample code?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> —
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 2:45 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> >>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com <mailto:alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, igniters!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> While doing
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4401
>> >> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4401> ticket i
>> came
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> across the fact that cache querying returns null , while
>> cache
>> >>>>>> still
>> >>>>>>>>>>> has
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> got entry.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cache query : SELECT nameProp FROM EDUProp WHERE EDUId = 1
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cache get operation : ignite().cache("eduPropCache").get(new
>> >>>>>>>>>>> AffinityKey("1",
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "1")) non-null
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot even imagine what could be wrong with it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Best Regards,*
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kuznetsov Aleksey
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Best Regards,*
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> *Best Regards,*
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> *Best Regards,*
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> *Best Regards,*
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Vladislav Pyatkov
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> *Best Regards,*
>> >>>>
>> >>>> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >>>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> *Best Regards,*
>> >>>
>> >>> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >
>> > *Best Regards,*
>> >
>> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>>
>> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>
--
*Best Regards,*
*Kuznetsov Aleksey*
