drizzle-discuss team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Improvements to Storage Engine API
Paul McCullagh wrote:
On Jan 4, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Stewart Smith wrote:
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 12:19:13PM +0100, Paul McCullagh wrote:
It is all or nothing, but this done _not_ exclude "partial"
solutions such as condition push-down and sub-select execution.
Would this better be served by stackable parsers? An engine could just
attach a parser and do all the work itself.. as otherwise you're
parsing things twice, so it'll never perform well.
Yes, performance is something I have also been thinking about.
In general, while it would be great to have a GPB representation of DML,
I am wondering about the performance cost of building this in addition
to everything else (AST, query plan, etc).
In the long run, I don't think we should be passing anything that is not
a GPB in the storage engine API except possibly a reference to the
current Session object. GPB messages can be constructed from anything
that is now a struct or class (LEX, JOIN, etc...) The advantage to a
GPB message is clearly in documentation, versioning and serialization of
In the case of DDL, this is already required for replication, so this is
no additional cost.
But, since Drizzle uses RBR a GPB representation of DML is not required.
Well, SELECT is also DML...