Fwd: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using JDBC thin driver

[dsetrakyan]

Cross-sending to dev@

Why do we need to append SQL_PUBLIC_ to all table names?

D.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using JDBC
thin driver
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>


Hi Austin,

Yes, it will be possible to pass a cache name you like into CREATE TABLE
command in 2.3. The release should be available in a couple of weeks.
Follow our announcements.

Denis


On Saturday, October 7, 2017, austin solomon <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am using Ignite version 2.2.0, and I have created a table using
> IgniteJdbcThinDriver.
>
> When I checked the cache in Ignite Visor I'm seeing SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE-NAME}
> is appended.
> Is their a way to get rid of this.
>
> I want to remove the SQL_PUBLIC from the cache name.
>
> Thanks,
> Austin
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Hi Dima,

To maintain unique cache names across the cluster.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Cross-sending to dev@
>
> Why do we need to append SQL_PUBLIC_ to all table names?
>
> D.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using JDBC
> thin driver
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>
>
> Hi Austin,
>
> Yes, it will be possible to pass a cache name you like into CREATE TABLE
> command in 2.3. The release should be available in a couple of weeks.
> Follow our announcements.
>
> Denis
>
>
> On Saturday, October 7, 2017, austin solomon <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using Ignite version 2.2.0, and I have created a table using
> > IgniteJdbcThinDriver.
> >
> > When I checked the cache in Ignite Visor I'm seeing
> SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE-NAME}
> > is appended.
> > Is their a way to get rid of this.
> >
> > I want to remove the SQL_PUBLIC from the cache name.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Austin
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
> >
>

[dsetrakyan]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Dima,
>
> To maintain unique cache names across the cluster.
>

Why not simply check for uniqueness at creation time? Why introduce some
automatic prefix?

>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Cross-sending to dev@
> >
> > Why do we need to append SQL_PUBLIC_ to all table names?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM
> > Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using JDBC
> > thin driver
> > To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> > Hi Austin,
> >
> > Yes, it will be possible to pass a cache name you like into CREATE TABLE
> > command in 2.3. The release should be available in a couple of weeks.
> > Follow our announcements.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, October 7, 2017, austin solomon <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am using Ignite version 2.2.0, and I have created a table using
> > > IgniteJdbcThinDriver.
> > >
> > > When I checked the cache in Ignite Visor I'm seeing
> > SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE-NAME}
> > > is appended.
> > > Is their a way to get rid of this.
> > >
> > > I want to remove the SQL_PUBLIC from the cache name.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Austin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
> > >
> >
>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Because it should be possible to have two tables with the same name in
different schemas.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dima,
> >
> > To maintain unique cache names across the cluster.
> >
>
> Why not simply check for uniqueness at creation time? Why introduce some
> automatic prefix?
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Cross-sending to dev@
> > >
> > > Why do we need to append SQL_PUBLIC_ to all table names?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > > Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using JDBC
> > > thin driver
> > > To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Austin,
> > >
> > > Yes, it will be possible to pass a cache name you like into CREATE
> TABLE
> > > command in 2.3. The release should be available in a couple of weeks.
> > > Follow our announcements.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 7, 2017, austin solomon <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am using Ignite version 2.2.0, and I have created a table using
> > > > IgniteJdbcThinDriver.
> > > >
> > > > When I checked the cache in Ignite Visor I'm seeing
> > > SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE-NAME}
> > > > is appended.
> > > > Is their a way to get rid of this.
> > > >
> > > > I want to remove the SQL_PUBLIC from the cache name.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Austin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[dsetrakyan]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Because it should be possible to have two tables with the same name in
> different schemas.
>

Still confused. If we have multiple schemas with the same table/cache name,
the schema name should be enough to identify a table. Currently, using your
words, the solution looks like a "hack". Why not just remove the prefix and
check for uniqueness within a schema?

D.

>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dima,
> > >
> > > To maintain unique cache names across the cluster.
> > >
> >
> > Why not simply check for uniqueness at creation time? Why introduce some
> > automatic prefix?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cross-sending to dev@
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need to append SQL_PUBLIC_ to all table names?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > > > Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using
> JDBC
> > > > thin driver
> > > > To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Austin,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it will be possible to pass a cache name you like into CREATE
> > TABLE
> > > > command in 2.3. The release should be available in a couple of weeks.
> > > > Follow our announcements.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, October 7, 2017, austin solomon <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am using Ignite version 2.2.0, and I have created a table using
> > > > > IgniteJdbcThinDriver.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I checked the cache in Ignite Visor I'm seeing
> > > > SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE-NAME}
> > > > > is appended.
> > > > > Is their a way to get rid of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to remove the SQL_PUBLIC from the cache name.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Austin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Valentin Kulichenko]

I would let Vladimir confirm this, but I believe he talks about cache name,
not table name. Cache name obviously has to be unique across all schemas,
and attaching schema name to it makes sense to me.

-Val

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Because it should be possible to have two tables with the same name in
> > different schemas.
> >
>
> Still confused. If we have multiple schemas with the same table/cache name,
> the schema name should be enough to identify a table. Currently, using your
> words, the solution looks like a "hack". Why not just remove the prefix and
> check for uniqueness within a schema?
>
> D.
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Dima,
> > > >
> > > > To maintain unique cache names across the cluster.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why not simply check for uniqueness at creation time? Why introduce
> some
> > > automatic prefix?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Cross-sending to dev@
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do we need to append SQL_PUBLIC_ to all table names?
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > From: Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > > > > Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using
> > JDBC
> > > > > thin driver
> > > > > To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Austin,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it will be possible to pass a cache name you like into CREATE
> > > TABLE
> > > > > command in 2.3. The release should be available in a couple of
> weeks.
> > > > > Follow our announcements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, October 7, 2017, austin solomon <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am using Ignite version 2.2.0, and I have created a table using
> > > > > > IgniteJdbcThinDriver.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I checked the cache in Ignite Visor I'm seeing
> > > > > SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE-NAME}
> > > > > > is appended.
> > > > > > Is their a way to get rid of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to remove the SQL_PUBLIC from the cache name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Austin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Val,

You are right. Two tables with equal names in different schemas should
refer to two caches with unique names.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would let Vladimir confirm this, but I believe he talks about cache name,
> not table name. Cache name obviously has to be unique across all schemas,
> and attaching schema name to it makes sense to me.
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Because it should be possible to have two tables with the same name in
> > > different schemas.
> > >
> >
> > Still confused. If we have multiple schemas with the same table/cache
> name,
> > the schema name should be enough to identify a table. Currently, using
> your
> > words, the solution looks like a "hack". Why not just remove the prefix
> and
> > check for uniqueness within a schema?
> >
> > D.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Dima,
> > > > >
> > > > > To maintain unique cache names across the cluster.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why not simply check for uniqueness at creation time? Why introduce
> > some
> > > > automatic prefix?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Cross-sending to dev@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do we need to append SQL_PUBLIC_ to all table names?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > > From: Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while
> using
> > > JDBC
> > > > > > thin driver
> > > > > > To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Austin,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it will be possible to pass a cache name you like into
> CREATE
> > > > TABLE
> > > > > > command in 2.3. The release should be available in a couple of
> > weeks.
> > > > > > Follow our announcements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 7, 2017, austin solomon <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am using Ignite version 2.2.0, and I have created a table
> using
> > > > > > > IgniteJdbcThinDriver.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I checked the cache in Ignite Visor I'm seeing
> > > > > > SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE-NAME}
> > > > > > > is appended.
> > > > > > > Is their a way to get rid of this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I want to remove the SQL_PUBLIC from the cache name.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>