New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Drop sharding rule, add relation definitions to dataspace #416
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Consider deprecating sharding rules instead of dropping them |
sharding rules dropped from SQL api, however they still present in grpc API and in backend code |
router/qrouter/proxy_routing.go
Outdated
@@ -192,7 +189,8 @@ func (qr *ProxyQrouter) RouteKeyWithRanges(ctx context.Context, expr lyx.Node, m | |||
spqrlog.Zero.Debug().Str("key", string(meta.params[e.Number-1])).Str("hashed key", string(hashedKey)).Msg("applying hash function on key") | |||
|
|||
return qr.DeparseKeyWithRangesInternal(ctx, string(hashedKey), meta) | |||
case *lyx.AExprConst: | |||
case *lyx.AExprIConst: | |||
if |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Incorrect if
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yea...
just pushed a bunch of work
I would like to propose to use only one bound in key range (lower one). To check if given key lays within given keyrange we will only have to check that given key is greater (>=) then KR bound and no other (greater) key range satisfies the same. |
@reshke PR is obsolete, consider closing it |
In this pr we replace current routing logic based on sharding rules with new one, based on dataspaces.
refer
#431