 |
 |
Hi Andy, Right now, I have to provide twice time to the data-loader the column list for a partitionted table, once in the cfg file and once in the schema file, isn't it? Could we deduce the cfg from the schema in the data-loader? It would produce more maintainable configuration. Thanks Fabrice On 12/18/2014 01:14 PM, Daniel L. Wang wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I think what I will do is have qserv-admin just read it in as-is and > pass it to qservAdmin. It will differ from what the loader is doing, > but that wont matter until there is code that actually using it. If we > need the schema to look a certain way, we will put that processing > code somewhere so that the loader and css can both use it. > > -Daniel > > > On 12/18/2014 01:09 PM, Salnikov, Andrei A. wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> right, in dataLoader I prepare schema myself before passing it to >> qservAdmin. I'm not sure that you can read schema reliably from a >> file, the files that we have contain lots of comments which you >> probably want to strip away. What I do in dataLoader is first to >> create table in mysql and then run "SHOW CREATE TABLE ..." and >> dump its output to CSS (stripping "CREATE TABLE TableName" part). >> I do not really know if something like it can be done inside >> qserv-admin.py. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> Daniel L. Wang wrote on 2014-12-17: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'm taking a look at validating the arguments for qserv-admin.py, >>> and in >>> particular, I've noticed that it ignores the "schemaFile" parameter, >>> which means that it doesn't bother loading the schema file, which means >>> that all the example *.params files that we have that say "schemaFile: >>> ....../something.sql" are including that line as a placeholder. >>> >>> I think this is the reason why dataLoader.py stuffs the "schema" option >>> manually when invoking qservAdmin, rather than passing a schema file. >>> >>> Is this correct? I think this means that I need to add logic for >>> loading >>> the schema file in qserv-admin.py . >>> >>> DM-370 was supposed to improve handling of default values for >>> parameters, but in order to do that, it seems to need a solid base of >>> validating parameters in order to do the right thing for defaulting. >>> So, >>> the scope is bigger than I thought. I will try to complete it in Dec, >>> but not positive anymore. >>> >>> -Daniel >>> >>> ######################################################################## >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > ######################################################################## > 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 ######################################################################## 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