I was under the impression that adding SELECT functionality to DELETEs involves more than just parser changes, ie something like the MergeScanner logic to figure out which cells you need to insert delete records for.
-Sanjit On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Doug Judd <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sanjit, > > Comments inline ... > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Sanjit Jhala <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Doug, >> >> I am not too crazy about removing the DELETE command. In my mind, HQL >> syntax needs to be heavily biased towards existing SQL users as opposed to >> being the cleanest syntax for Hypertable power users (if you're a power >> user, you really shouldn't be using HQL for anything other than sanity >> checks and administrative tasks anyway :) ). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I >> think one of the main goals of HQL is to be similar to SQL. I would lean >> towards leaving the existing DELETE in place for now and overhauling it >> sometime in the future. >> > > Ok, you're the third person to respond with this feedback. We'll leave > the DELETE command in and plan to overhaul it later. > > >> I think it does make sense to augment the INSERT command. It sounds like >> your changes won't break the existing insert syntax, but add the ability >> insert delete records. This makes complete sense to and the curious user >> and look through the documentation to figure out that deletes are actually >> inserts. (On a side note, is there a clean way to add functionality to the >> new insert to delete the last 'n' versions (without knowing the timestamps) >> ?) >> > > Ok, sounds good. We currently don't have a way to delete the last 'n' > versions. I don't recall anyone asking for it, but might not be too > difficult to implement if we commandeer the unused value to hold a count. > > >> I'm also not sure if making the DELETE command support all the predicates >> that SELECT does is worth the effort at this point. SELECT is quite >> involved as it is, and I'm not sure its worth jumping through to all the >> hoops required to implement that. >> > > Well, if we're overhauling the parser anyway, it wouldn't be too difficult > to re-use the same sub-parser for the SELECT predicate as well as the > DELETE predicate. It seems like having one consistent syntax for > specifying cells of interest would be good. > > Thanks for your feedback! > > - Doug > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hypertable Development" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/hypertable-dev?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hypertable Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hypertable-dev?hl=en.
