Andrew Wong has posted comments on this change. ( 
http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/17657 )

Change subject: WIP [client] KUDU-2671 flexible partitioning during table 
creation
......................................................................


Patch Set 1:

(5 comments)

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/client-test.cc
File src/kudu/client/client-test.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/client-test.cc@6895
PS1, Line 6895: This effectively
              :   // cancels the multi-level partitioning defined by the 
table-wide hash
              :   // partition schema, so the newly added range has no hash 
sub-partitioning.
Maybe I'm missing it, but isn't this equivalent to calling 
add_range_partition()? In both cases, wouldn't we add a KuduRangePartition that 
has an empty list of hash bucket schemas? In which case, wouldn't this be using 
the table-wide schema as well?


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/client.h
File src/kudu/client/client.h:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/client.h@1214
PS1, Line 1214: add_hash_partitioning
nit: maybe call it 'add_hash_partitions()' for consistency with the 
TableCreator API?


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/client.cc
File src/kudu/client/client.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/client.cc@869
PS1, Line 869: add_range_partition_custom_hash_buckets
nit: I wonder if it makes sense to call this add_custom_range_partition() or 
somesuch, removing the "hash partition" specification. I can imagine 
KuduRangePartition growing into something more widely used (e.g. to supply tags 
for a newly provisioned range).


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/table_creator-internal.cc
File src/kudu/client/table_creator-internal.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/table_creator-internal.cc@58
PS1, Line 58:   // TODO(aserbin): any restrictions on the value of the 'seed' 
parameter?
It's a good question -- my gut says no to be consistent with the table-wide 
add_hash_partitions(), but I'm not sure.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/17657/1/src/kudu/client/table_creator-internal.cc@60
PS1, Line 60: le
nit: typo



--
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/17657
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-Project: kudu
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: I98fd9754db850dcdd00a00738f470673f42ac5b4
Gerrit-Change-Number: 17657
Gerrit-PatchSet: 1
Gerrit-Owner: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Andrew Wong <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins (120)
Gerrit-Reviewer: Mahesh Reddy <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 20:01:40 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes

Reply via email to