Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[guo Maxwell]

According to the conclusion, I think we can fix the bug when the argument
number is bigger than  2 first.

Thanks everyone.

Bowen Song via dev  于2023年3月23日周四 22:17写道：

> In that case, I would recommend fix the bug that prints everything when an
> arbitrary number of arguments is given.
> On 23/03/2023 13:40, guo Maxwell wrote:
>
> 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 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 [| [> table>| [...]]]
>>
>> 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 [  [ [...]] |
>>  [ [...]]]
>>
>> 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  format.
>>
>> TL;DR: The 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
>>>
>>
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[Bowen Song via dev]

In that case, I would recommend fix the bug that prints everything when 
an arbitrary number of arguments is given.


On 23/03/2023 13:40, guo Maxwell wrote:
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 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 [|
[|[...]]]

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 [  [ [...]] |
 [[...]]]

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  format.

TL;DR: The 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 

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[guo Maxwell]

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 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 [| [ table>| [...]]]
>
> 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 [  [ [...]] |
>  [ [...]]]
>
> 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  format.
>
> TL;DR: The 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 

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[Bowen Song via dev]

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 [|
   [|[...]]]

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 [  [ [...]] |
[[...]]]

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  format.


TL;DR: The 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 

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[guo Maxwell]

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  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
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[Josh McKenzie]

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  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  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 [  | ]
>> 
> 
> 
> 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 [  [ [...]] | 
>>  

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[Bowen Song via dev]

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  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 
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 [  | ]



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 [  [
[...]] |  [[...]]]

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[guo Maxwell]

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  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  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 [  | ]
>
>
>
> 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 [  [ [...]] |
>  [ [...]]]
>
> 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  
> 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 !

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[Jeremiah D Jordan]

-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  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 [  | ]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 [  [ [...]] | 
>>  [ [...]]]
>> 
>> 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  
>>> 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~~~

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[Josh McKenzie]

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 [  | ]
>> 
> 
> 
> 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 [  [ [...]] | 
>>  [ [...]]]
>> 
> 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  
>> 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~~~
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the useage of nodetool tablehistograms

[Bowen Song via dev]

The documented command options are:

   nodetool tablehistograms [  | ]


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 [  [ [...]] |
[ [...]]]

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 
 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~~~