LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for QSERV-L Archives


QSERV-L Archives

QSERV-L Archives


QSERV-L@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

QSERV-L Home

QSERV-L Home

QSERV-L  October 2013

QSERV-L October 2013

Subject:

Re: notes from qserv mtg (Oct 15)

From:

Kian-Tat Lim <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

General discussion for qserv (LSST prototype baseline catalog)

Date:

Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:51:57 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (53 lines)

Some random comments (not saying anything about the things not commented
on):

> >   - automated testing is working, but many queries broken
> Some of those tests will be broken for quite some time. Hence, let's
> make sure the test report shows which tests passed and failed,
> because collapsing lots of passed test plus one failure into a
> single red "FAILED" report is not useful. Maybe this is already
> fixed?

	If they're not going to be fixed, the typical action is to skip
the test and print a warning (or, with a better test harness, print the
number of skipped tests).

> >     - how smart/dumb a worker should be?
> >        - perhaps a little smarter?
> The worker should know as little as possible, but it should know a
> lot about what it owns. This is more than it knows now.
> It should not know about the state of other workers. I would like
> the worker to do zero parsing. If it needs to derive
> characteristics/stats from the query, the master should pass those
> annotations down.

	Sounds good to me.

> >        - What are cons of having smarter worker?
> Coordination in maintaining a consistent state.
> More decisions made by the worker means a more complex system, but
> possibly one that scales better. More decisions by the worker mean
> that worker behavior is more complex to understand. Dumb workers are
> easy to understand and lead to a simpler system.

	The latter is not necessarily true, if the interface to the
worker and the division of responsibilities is clear and logical.

> >     - chunk mapping
> I sort of tried to do this, but the chunking concept needs some
> design. I think K-T finds that all possible qserv partitioning
> schemes will have chunk (and subChunk), but the allocation of
> chunkId would differ.

	Not necessarily subchunk; I can think of ways (but not simple
ones) of doing the self-joins that wouldn't require them.

-- 
Kian-Tat Lim, LSST Data Management, [log in to unmask]

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
August 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use