Re: [hibernate-dev] [OGM] Ogm mass indexer, how to convert Tuple/EntityKey to Entity/Id?

I'm planning on working on OGM-151. Fine with everyone? That will likely be my last before I move back to BVAL and close the final issues there. Emmanuel On Tue 2013-03-05 19:04, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > Nice! > n+1 is something Hibernate Search has to deal with too, that's why I > was interested in the fetch profiles and graph loading in JPA 2.1 > > On 5 March 2013 17:44, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > > I have implemented a solution that gives an entity based on a tuple. > > https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/OGM-273#comment-50082 > > > > Note that it does not currently works for MongoDB, but that's waiting > > for the dedicated GridDialect method as well as OGM-151. > > Also note that I have no idea how that will work for associations. I > > suspect some nasty n+1 is happening as best. Worse case, an exception :) > > > > Emmanuel > > > > On Tue 2013-03-05 10:30, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > >> We might hope for a stable enough contract on Hibernate Search and > >> hope that we won't break serializability between micro or minor > >> versions. That will need to be taken into account in the test suite and > >> design. > >> On the OGM side though, we are not at that level of maturity and we will > >> force homogenous Hibernate OGM version across all the cluster. The grid > >> will have to go down for upgrades or enforce that no mpa reduce job > >> using OGM is used while the version roll out is in process. > >> > >> Emmanuel > >> > >> On Mon 2013-03-04 18:30, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > >> > Found an example, this is all the code it needs to have a MassIndexer working > >> > on top of Infinispan's Map/Reduce: > >> > > >> > https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/query/src/main/java/... > >> > > >> > Note it's initialize method which injects needed components; the > >> > implementation is serialized across nodes. > >> > > >> > Sanne > >> > > >> > On 4 March 2013 18:26, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > >> > > We finished this discussion on IRC, in case someone else was interested: > >> > > > >> > > <sanne> hum I forgot the first step.. transformation from entry into entity > >> > > <sanne> updated > >> > > <sanne> emmanuel, the "hidrate" step is what DavideD is bashing is > >> > > head against, but let's assume he finds a workaround and we focus on > >> > > the pattern as first step? > >> > > <emmanuel> https://gist.github.com/emmanuelbernard/5084039 > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: ^ that's how I would do it if I had an Iterator from the tuple > >> > > <emmanuel> assuming pushToExecutor pushes to whatever concurrent work > >> > > mechanism you planned to use on consumes > >> > > <emmanuel> Plus I am not folloing exactly how you plan consumes(Entry) > >> > > to be executed concurrently > >> > > <emmanuel> is that the GridDialect responsibility? > >> > > <emmanuel> That looks like a lot of work on the dialect's side > >> > > <sanne> emmanuel, imagine the backend is Infinispan and has some large > >> > > amount of data per node, plus that each node has its own backend > >> > > IndexManager (like and ideal sharding) > >> > > <emmanuel> ie pool mgt and cap + queuing > >> > > <sanne> then with your approach the iterator needs to fetch data from > >> > > all remote nodes, and then enqueue in a local blocking queue which is > >> > > returning the data to the original owners > >> > > <sanne> but if you skip that step, you can just forward the statless > >> > > consumer to each node and have it run on data locality > >> > > <emmanuel> I was thinking that if you had the luncene index locally on > >> > > each node you would ahve a different impl of the MassIndexer anyways > >> > > <emmanuel> that would simply send a command to each local node > >> > > <sanne> To answer your question: that would be an optional GridDialect > >> > > responsibility. I would endorse a trivial first draft doing a > >> > > single-threaded loop. > >> > > <emmanuel> and have GridDialect.getDataFor() returnlocal data > >> > > <sanne> The "consumes" implementation can be either implemented with a > >> > > simple iterator - as in your design - so I don't think it pushes much > >> > > complexity to the GridDialect implementor? > >> > > <sanne> The benefit of the consumer is that *optionally* it can be > >> > > mapped on the Map phase, and that's trivial if your backend supports > >> > > Map/Reduce > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: I don't follow that soory > >> > > <emmanuel> how does that make it mappable to the Map phase? > >> > > <sanne> "public void consume(Entry e) " is a degenerate (simplified) > >> > > form of map. > >> > > <sanne> mm infinispan IDE crashes at the right moment. > >> > > <emmanuel> I thought Map was about *filtering* > >> > > <emmanuel> not processing > >> > > <sanne> you can decide to accept 100% of values (without filtering), > >> > > but actually you might want to filter on the specified tables only. > >> > > <sanne> also, the return type doesn't have to match the input type: > >> > > hence you define a transformation function, which is inherently > >> > > applied in parallel on all matching entries. > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: but then you require the OGM code to be everywhere > >> > > (ie on each node of the targetNoSQL > >> > > <emmanuel> to eb able to do tuple -> entity > >> > > <emmanuel> that's not realistic > >> > > <emmanuel> assuming your transform phase is about tuple -> entity and > >> > > some HSearch ops > >> > > <sanne> yes right > >> > > <sanne> but isn;t it worth it? it's optional and much more efficient, > >> > > as you avoid transferring any data. > >> > > <sanne> btw we often assume all nodes in the grid are equally > >> > > configured, so having same apps & libraries deployed. > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: let me try and summarize what I understand > >> > > <emmanuel> it's more efficient if you store the Lucene index locally > >> > > with the data, and if the grid is written in Java or at least can run > >> > > code in Java including libraries and if you distribute the OGM > >> > > configuration across the whole grid > >> > > <emmanuel> Otherwise, it does not make any difference > >> > > <emmanuel> Also the GridDialect implementation need to know if you are > >> > > doing this trick to only return local data > >> > > <sanne> no there are other drawbacks which get defeated, but minor so > >> > > I didn't mention them > >> > > <emmanuel> am I right? > >> > > <sanne> mainly, you skip the need for the contentions point as there > >> > > is no push to a shared blocking queue > >> > > <sanne> no the GridDialect doesn't need to know. > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: sure if you can process the code on each node you > >> > > avoid the shared blocking queue, at lest until you reach the > >> > > IndexManager > >> > > <sanne> you'll just forward a simple (standard) M/R task, and it will > >> > > need to execute it as always. > >> > > <sanne> the IndexManager is parallel ;) > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: parallel on a single node > >> > > <sanne> yes, but no contentions points other than the internal > >> > > structure of the IW > >> > > <emmanuel> I mean updating the index for a given table is better done > >> > > on a singlle node > >> > > <sanne> IndexWriter > >> > > <emmanuel> sorry I meant IndexWriter > >> > > <emmanuel> ah but ou mention perfect sharding > >> > > <emmanuel> you need cosmological alignment for this shit to happen > >> > > <sanne> not if we plan for it :) > >> > > <sanne> you might remember the changes to Segments in the ISPN code, > >> > > to accomodate index storage consistent with the data locality > >> > > <sanne> that's expected in 6.0 > >> > > <emmanuel> So gridDialect.getData(Consumer consumer, String.. tables) is wrong > >> > > <emmanuel> it's more gridDialect.getData(ConsumerImpl.class, String... tables) > >> > > <emmanuel> as you ened to send the Comsumer impl > >> > > <emmanuel> not simply use it > >> > > <sanne> hu, it needs a reference to the current SearchFactory at very least > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: but you're telling me you send the M/R task > >> > > <emmanuel> so you need to send the M/R code as well > >> > > <sanne> yes but here we enter Infinspan specific implementation > >> > > <sanne> I would register the needed components in Infinispan and use > >> > > the ServiceRegistry to look them up remotely > >> > > <sanne> not to mention Infinispan could accomodate a custom command for it > >> > > <emmanuel> What I am saying is that you don't pass the Consumer > >> > > *instance* tot he grid dialect but rather the impl, no? > >> > > <sanne> the impl class definition? > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: you tell me. How do I send M/R code today? > >> > > <emmanuel> certainly not an impl instance > >> > > <sanne> yes you do > >> > > <sanne> JBMar will take care of it, including state. > >> > > <sanne> but in this case that would be wrong of course as I don't want > >> > > to serialize the whole SearchFactory so I'd use injection and lookup, > >> > > but that's a detail of Infinispan. > >> > > <sanne> But this shouldn't be MassIndexer specific right? it's good to > >> > > expose a general "execute on all" method, and I think accepting > >> > > instances would make life easier for most - even though we might need > >> > > to document some limitations. > >> > > <emmanuel> alright, I guess 'll have to live with a visitor pattern > >> > > for a feature that has 5% chance of happening :) > >> > > <sanne> I'm going to punch Davide > >> > > <sanne> as he's yelling "it's not a visitor" but doesn't have the guts > >> > > to write it down :) > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: DavideD 's would have nothing to do about it, that's > >> > > requires a lot of config and Infinispan machinery I'm not sure is here > >> > > today > >> > > <DavideD> :) > >> > > <emmanuel> ah > >> > > <emmanuel> I don't care how it's called, it's one of those patterns > >> > > that make the code harder to follow > >> > > <DavideD> I was actually trying to remember the name of the pattern > >> > > <sanne> ok now we agree :) > >> > > <emmanuel> Obfuscator pattern family > >> > > <sanne> very popular among consultants, I don't understand why you complain :P > >> > > <sanne> Anyway, let's wrap up and broaden the horizon: > >> > > <emmanuel> ok so we are left with findin to to load a entity from a tuple > >> > > <sanne> you don't think it's useful as a general purpose method? > >> > > <emmanuel> sanne: wil be for queries > >> > > <emmanuel> It's just that it's non obvious > >> > > <sanne> Exactly. Also I think lambda methods are getting widely better known. > >> > > <emmanuel> syntactically yes > >> > > <emmanuel> VM wise, perf improvements will come later > >> > > <sanne> what I mean is that by defining the SPI this way, I don't > >> > > expect it to be more complex for the GridDialect implementors, while > >> > > we can reuse it for a wider scope of needs. > >> > > > >> > > --Sanne > >> > > > >> > > On 4 March 2013 17:02, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 4 mars 2013, at 17:39, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 4 March 2013 16:20, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > >> > >>>> I already gave what I knew on how to load an entity from a tuple (which > >> > >>>> isn't much) but we can try and dig together. Something I thought about > >> > >>>> is that ORM probably has a mechanism to load an entity from a resultset > >> > >>>> via the query parser. And that probably looks also like the second half > >> > >>>> of OgmLoader.load. We could look at this part and see if we can make an > >> > >>>> OGM version of it. We never had the need before as we never had query > >> > >>>> support (the way SQL does it). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I would also need to study the ORM code, but to add a high level observation, > >> > >>> the methods currently defined by the GridDialect are focusing on > >> > >>> loading from well known key instances, > >> > >>> there is nothing to makes us able to scan/inspect for all values. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> In other words: even if we wanted to load keys first, we don't have definitions > >> > >>> of functions from raw->primary key instances either. > >> > >> > >> > >> I understand that. I'm not denying the need for the method. > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> On the visitor vs Iterator approach, I still don't see how implementing > >> > >>>> an Iterator on a map / reduce backend would be harder than the visitor > >> > >>>> but maybe I'm missing something. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> class IteratorAsStream { > >> > >>>> final Query someMapReduceQuery = ...; > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> public Object next() { > >> > >>>> if (!someMapReduceQuery.started()) { > >> > >>>> // execute and collect results in parallel > >> > >>>> someMapReduceQuery.execute(); > >> > >>>> } > >> > >>>> Object result = someMapReduce.getNextOrBlock(); > >> > >>>> return result; > >> > >>>> } > >> > >>>> } > >> > >>> > >> > >>> That could work to *load* all entities in parallel, but I'd like to > >> > >>> process the entities in parallel as well. > >> > >>> And I'd rather not force the GridDialect implementors to write some > >> > >>> Hibernate Search specific code, > >> > >>> so to break out we need some form of "Execute X on each": a closure or a lambda. > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> I can't see how the visitor model helps in your processing of entities in parallel. To me both approaches are strictly equivalent. Care to show some pseudo-code? > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hibernate-dev mailing list > >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev