[JBoss JIRA] Updated: (TEIID-188) Improve resolution of parameter references used in compare criteria
by Ramesh Reddy (JIRA)
[ https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/TEIID-188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug... ]
Ramesh Reddy updated TEIID-188:
-------------------------------
Component/s: Query Engine
Fix Version/s: 6.x
Affects Version/s: 6.x
> Improve resolution of parameter references used in compare criteria
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TEIID-188
> URL: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/TEIID-188
> Project: Teiid
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Components: Query Engine
> Affects Versions: 6.x
> Reporter: Mark Drilling
> Assignee: Steven Hawkins
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 6.x
>
> Attachments: GregComments.txt
>
> Original Estimate: 1 day
> Remaining Estimate: 1 day
>
> Entering this JIRA from Issue 185605 in issue tracker. Greg Haber reports problem using Penrose off the shelf application. Example query as follows
> select distinct petOwnersFromMM.owner, petOwnersFromMM.name from petVirtualDB.gregtest_virtual.gregtest.pet petOwnersFromMM where lower(petOwnersFromMM.owner) = lower(?) order by petOwnersFromMM.owner
> He is getting "com.metamatrix.jdbc.MMSQLException: The function 'lower(?)' has more than one possible signature." since the lower function is ambiguous.
> Workaround is to use "lower(convert(?, string))" in the sql. There is a statement in the release notes for a future enhancement that we could use the type info from the other side of the compare criteria to determine what the type should be.
> I will attach Gregs further comments for reference.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
15 years, 10 months
[JBoss JIRA] Updated: (TEIID-181) Allow connectors to request replanning of source query by throwing an exception
by Ramesh Reddy (JIRA)
[ https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/TEIID-181?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug... ]
Ramesh Reddy updated TEIID-181:
-------------------------------
Component/s: Connector API
Query Engine
> Allow connectors to request replanning of source query by throwing an exception
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TEIID-181
> URL: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/TEIID-181
> Project: Teiid
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Components: Connector API, Query Engine
> Reporter: Greg Haber
> Assignee: Steven Hawkins
> Priority: Minor
>
> In FEDERATE-126 more granular connector capabilities were requested, for supporting sources that don't follow traditional relational capability patterns (especially SFDC).
> The level of effort for such a request is presumably fairly high for the DQP component, since it needs to have additional logic added to understand the new capability and to modify the planning process to take them into account.
> It occurred to me that a general purpose backup mechanism would be for connectors to have the ability after getting a query they couldn't handle, to throw a new type of exception (perhaps ReplanRequestException), which would contain information about what connector capabilities should be excluded from the replanning process. Then the planner would come up with a new plan, and make new source query/queries based off that new plan.
> For example take the case of SFDC, which handles outer joins (left or right, but not full) but not inner joins (and for the sake of argument say that FEDERATE-126 and FEDERATE-114 were not implemented). The SFDC connector gets sent a query with an inner join. It then throws an exception requesting a replan, this time with no join pushdown. Then the planner replans this as without join pushdown, and resubmits the query (or in many cases multiple queries).
> Now, one big question here is, does replanning mean replanning the entire federated query, or just redoing that one source query? The former would give a more efficient overall plan, but it may be too late to do this (other connectors may already be at work). For the former to work, I would think we would need to have an additional step in the connector framework to run the proposed query plan by all the connectors before actually executing anything, which would be additional overhead on all queries, not the small subset for which this problem exists. So maybe the latter (redoing that one source query) is the only reasonable alternative.
> A workaround with similar results is FEDERATE-114 style stuff (tell the consumer what was wrong, and ask them to override connector capabilities in a new query. But that has the same general inefficiency of an automatic replanning of the entire federated query. So it would not be as nice as replanning just one source query.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
15 years, 10 months