RE: Partition Loss Policy options
Oh, sure, you’re right. Turns out it only works this way for in-memory caches, need to fix it for persistence. Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9841 for this. Thanks for reporting this! Stan From: Roman Novichenok Sent: 9 октября 2018 г. 22:46 To: user@ignite.apache.org Subject: Re: Partition Loss Policy options Stan, thanks for looking into it. I agree with you that this is the observed behaviour, but it is not what I would expect. My expectation would be to get an exception when I attempt to query unavailable partitions. Ideally this behavior would be dependent on the PartitionLossPolicy. When READ_ONLY_SAFE or READ_WRITE_SAFE policy is selected, and the query condition does not explicitly specify which partitions it is interested in, then query should fail. Query could implicitly specify partitions by including indexed value in the where clause. Simpler implementation could just raise exceptions on queries when policy is ..._SAFE and some partitions are unavailable. Thanks again, Roman On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:54 PM Stanislav Lukyanov wrote: Hi, I’ve tried your test and it works as expected, with some partitions lost and the final size being ~850 (~150 less than on the start). Am I missing something? Thanks, Stan From: Roman Novichenok Sent: 2 октября 2018 г. 22:21 To: user@ignite.apache.org Subject: Re: Partition Loss Policy options Anton, thanks for quick response. Not sure if I'm setting wrong expectations. Just tried sql query and that exhibited the same behavior. Created a pull request with a test: https://github.com/novicr/ignite/pull/3. The test goes through the following steps: 1. creates a 4 node cluster with persistence enabled. 2. creates 2 caches - with setBackups(1) 3. populates caches with 1000 elements 4. runs a sql query and prints result size: 1000 5. stops 2 nodes 6. runs sql query from step 4 and prints result size: (something less than 1000). Thanks, Roman On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:07 PM Roman Novichenok wrote: I was looking at scan queries. cache.query(new ScanQuery()) returns partial results. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:37 PM akurbanov wrote: Hello Roman, Correct me if I'm mistaken, you are talking about SQL queries. That was fixed under https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8927, primary ticket is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8834, will be delivered in 2.7 release. Regards, Anton -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Re: Partition Loss Policy options
Stan, thanks for looking into it. I agree with you that this is the observed behaviour, but it is not what I would expect. My expectation would be to get an exception when I attempt to query unavailable partitions. Ideally this behavior would be dependent on the PartitionLossPolicy. When READ_ONLY_SAFE or READ_WRITE_SAFE policy is selected, and the query condition does not explicitly specify which partitions it is interested in, then query should fail. Query could implicitly specify partitions by including indexed value in the where clause. Simpler implementation could just raise exceptions on queries when policy is ..._SAFE and some partitions are unavailable. Thanks again, Roman On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:54 PM Stanislav Lukyanov wrote: > Hi, > > > > I’ve tried your test and it works as expected, with some partitions lost > and the final size being ~850 (~150 less than on the start). > > Am I missing something? > > > > Thanks, > > Stan > > > > *From: *Roman Novichenok > *Sent: *2 октября 2018 г. 22:21 > *To: *user@ignite.apache.org > *Subject: *Re: Partition Loss Policy options > > > > Anton, > > thanks for quick response. Not sure if I'm setting wrong expectations. > Just tried sql query and that exhibited the same behavior. Created a pull > request with a test: https://github.com/novicr/ignite/pull/3. > > > > The test goes through the following steps: > > 1. creates a 4 node cluster with persistence enabled. > > 2. creates 2 caches - with setBackups(1) > > 3. populates caches with 1000 elements > > 4. runs a sql query and prints result size: 1000 > > 5. stops 2 nodes > > 6. runs sql query from step 4 and prints result size: (something less than > 1000). > > > > Thanks, > > Roman > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:07 PM Roman Novichenok < > roman.noviche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was looking at scan queries. cache.query(new ScanQuery()) returns > partial results. > > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:37 PM akurbanov wrote: > > Hello Roman, > > Correct me if I'm mistaken, you are talking about SQL queries. That was > fixed under https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8927, primary > ticket is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8834, will be > delivered in 2.7 release. > > Regards, > Anton > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ > > >
RE: Partition Loss Policy options
Hi, I’ve tried your test and it works as expected, with some partitions lost and the final size being ~850 (~150 less than on the start). Am I missing something? Thanks, Stan From: Roman Novichenok Sent: 2 октября 2018 г. 22:21 To: user@ignite.apache.org Subject: Re: Partition Loss Policy options Anton, thanks for quick response. Not sure if I'm setting wrong expectations. Just tried sql query and that exhibited the same behavior. Created a pull request with a test: https://github.com/novicr/ignite/pull/3. The test goes through the following steps: 1. creates a 4 node cluster with persistence enabled. 2. creates 2 caches - with setBackups(1) 3. populates caches with 1000 elements 4. runs a sql query and prints result size: 1000 5. stops 2 nodes 6. runs sql query from step 4 and prints result size: (something less than 1000). Thanks, Roman On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:07 PM Roman Novichenok wrote: I was looking at scan queries. cache.query(new ScanQuery()) returns partial results. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:37 PM akurbanov wrote: Hello Roman, Correct me if I'm mistaken, you are talking about SQL queries. That was fixed under https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8927, primary ticket is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8834, will be delivered in 2.7 release. Regards, Anton -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Re: Partition Loss Policy options
Anton, thanks for quick response. Not sure if I'm setting wrong expectations. Just tried sql query and that exhibited the same behavior. Created a pull request with a test: https://github.com/novicr/ignite/pull/3. The test goes through the following steps: 1. creates a 4 node cluster with persistence enabled. 2. creates 2 caches - with setBackups(1) 3. populates caches with 1000 elements 4. runs a sql query and prints result size: 1000 5. stops 2 nodes 6. runs sql query from step 4 and prints result size: (something less than 1000). Thanks, Roman On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:07 PM Roman Novichenok wrote: > I was looking at scan queries. cache.query(new ScanQuery()) returns > partial results. > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:37 PM akurbanov wrote: > >> Hello Roman, >> >> Correct me if I'm mistaken, you are talking about SQL queries. That was >> fixed under https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8927, primary >> ticket is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8834, will be >> delivered in 2.7 release. >> >> Regards, >> Anton >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ >> >
Re: Partition Loss Policy options
I was looking at scan queries. cache.query(new ScanQuery()) returns partial results. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:37 PM akurbanov wrote: > Hello Roman, > > Correct me if I'm mistaken, you are talking about SQL queries. That was > fixed under https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8927, primary > ticket is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8834, will be > delivered in 2.7 release. > > Regards, > Anton > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ >
Re: Partition Loss Policy options
Hello Roman, Correct me if I'm mistaken, you are talking about SQL queries. That was fixed under https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8927, primary ticket is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8834, will be delivered in 2.7 release. Regards, Anton -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
