[teiid-users] removing system physical

[Steven Hawkins]

> wouldn't removing this cause us to supply same logic in code to
to extract data from index files and present in System model format?

We would still need to supply the System model tables (I would also like to add some columns and another table), but the processing logic will be different.  The change in the processing logic is completely under the covers and would not affect Designer/Users other than making System queries faster.

> Would it make sense if we just materialize or cache the system tables to
get the performance you are looking for?  You have mentioned this idea
before.

The internal processing would change to be based off of the object model form and not the index table form, which can be thought of as materializing the joins.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ramesh Reddy" <rareddy at redhat.com>
To: "Steven Hawkins" <shawkins at redhat.com>
Cc: "teiid-users" <teiid-users at lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2009 10:23:13 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [teiid-users] removing system physical

Given that the SystemPhysical.xmi is closely reflects the index file
format, wouldn't removing this cause us to supply same logic in code to
to extract data from index files and present in System model format? I
imagine this needs to change again when the DDL based metadata is the
metadata model. 

Would it make sense if we just materialize or cache the system tables to
get the performance you are looking for?  You have mentioned this idea
before.

Thanks

Ramesh..

On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 10:34 -0400, Steven Hawkins wrote:
> I am not suggesting removing System.vdb, just the SystemPhysical model.  For both Designer and Teiid the System model tables would still be visible and usable.  While removing System.vdb would be possible with Teiid (and just using code to initialize the table/proc definitions), without significant changes to the forked metadata code in Designer it would not be possible for them.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ramesh Reddy" <rareddy at redhat.com>
> To: "Steven Hawkins" <shawkins at redhat.com>
> Cc: "teiid-users" <teiid-users at lists.jboss.org>, teiid-designer-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2009 9:24:11 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [teiid-users] removing system physical
> 
> Designer also uses the System.vdb, are there implications there? I am
> not sure what is Designer's usage pattern. Seem though, Designer does
> not need to depend on it. Somebody please explain, how it is being used
> in the Designer?
> 
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:27 -0400, Steven Hawkins wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > I would like to float the idea of removing SystemPhysical from the 6.3 release and converting System to a physical model.  System as a virtual model needlessly introduces lookup tables and joins between the SystemPhysical tables.  Also SystemPhysical is filled with a lot of modeling and indexing concepts that would be best not to expose.  Since SystemPhysical is marked as non-visible, not documented for use (from within transformations), and has all of its relevant information exposed through System anyway the impact and potential workarounds for this removal are minimal.  Let me know if there are any concerns.
> > 
> > Steve 
> > _______________________________________________
> > teiid-users mailing list
> > teiid-users at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/teiid-users
>