Default key size
Locked
 
|
HI Mike, all,
Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? Following JIRA issue may be of interest: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two items: > > 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail group. > Requires tweaking: > > framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml > /etc/mysql/my.cnf > > 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The > default is an absurd 20 characters: > > framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml > > <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" java-type="String"/> > <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" > java-type="String"/> > <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" > java-type="String"/> > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > Thanks so much Deepak! > > > > Best regards, > > > > Pranay Pandey > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > com > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > Here are some more videos from Pranay > > > > > > - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk > > > <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> > > > - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pranay for your effort. > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > -- > > > Deepak Dixit > > > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain <[hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Nice videos, thanks Pranay! > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > -- > > > > Akash Jain > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit > > <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > > > com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published > on > > > our > > > > > OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: > > > > > 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ > > > > > watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> > > > > > 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 > > > > > <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > > > -- > > > > > Deepak Dixit > > > > > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
Pierre, here is an example from the demo data:
accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly spell "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I would be so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first build a database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed from trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), which allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what postgres says about type "TEXT".. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, apart from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a few extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a length-constrained column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its additional storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be used instead. Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: > HI Mike, all, > > Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size > Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? > Following JIRA issue may be of interest: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > OFBiz based solutions & services > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two > items: > > > > 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail > group. > > Requires tweaking: > > > > framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml > > /etc/mysql/my.cnf > > > > 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The > > default is an absurd 20 characters: > > > > framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml > > > > <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" java-type="String"/> > > <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" > > java-type="String"/> > > <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" > > java-type="String"/> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks so much Deepak! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Pranay Pandey > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit > <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > > com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > > > Here are some more videos from Pranay > > > > > > > > - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk > > > > <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> > > > > - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pranay for your effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > > -- > > > > Deepak Dixit > > > > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain <[hidden email]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nice videos, thanks Pranay! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > -- > > > > > Akash Jain > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit > > > <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > > > > com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published > > on > > > > our > > > > > > OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: > > > > > > 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ > > > > > > watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> > > > > > > 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 > > > > > > <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Deepak Dixit > > > > > > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
Thanks you for the clarification, Mike.
Best regards, Pierre On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: > > accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" > roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> > > The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly spell > "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I would be > so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. > > The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first build a > database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. > > Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed from > trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), which > allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. > > <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> > <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> > <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> > > If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what > postgres says about type "TEXT".. > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html > > *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, apart > from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a few > extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a length-constrained > column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other > database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact > character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its additional > storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be used > instead. > > Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email] > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > HI Mike, all, > > > > Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size > > Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? > > Following JIRA issue may be of interest: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 > > > > Best regards, > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > > OFBiz based solutions & services > > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two > > items: > > > > > > 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail > > group. > > > Requires tweaking: > > > > > > framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml > > > /etc/mysql/my.cnf > > > > > > 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The > > > default is an absurd 20 characters: > > > > > > framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml > > > > > > <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" > java-type="String"/> > > > <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" > > > java-type="String"/> > > > <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" > > > java-type="String"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < > > > [hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks so much Deepak! > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Pranay Pandey > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit > > <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > > > com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > > > > > Here are some more videos from Pranay > > > > > > > > > > - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk > > > > > <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> > > > > > - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pranay for your effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > > > -- > > > > > Deepak Dixit > > > > > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < > [hidden email] <javascript:;>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nice videos, thanks Pranay! > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Akash Jain > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit > > > > <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > > > > > com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been > published > > > on > > > > > our > > > > > > > OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: > > > > > > > 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ > > > > > > > watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> > > > > > > > 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 > > > > > > > <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Deepak Dixit > > > > > > > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Mike Z
For history sake: I committed localpostnew.
After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg to revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as suggested Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid confusion Jacques Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : > Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: > > accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" > roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> > > The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly spell > "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I would be > so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. > > The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first build a > database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. > > Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed from > trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), which > allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. > > <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> > <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> > <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> > > If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what > postgres says about type "TEXT".. > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html > > *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, apart > from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a few > extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a length-constrained > column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other > database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact > character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its additional > storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be used > instead. > > Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> HI Mike, all, >> >> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >> >> Best regards, >> >> Pierre Smits >> >> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >> OFBiz based solutions & services >> >> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >> items: >>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >> group. >>> Requires tweaking: >>> >>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>> >>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The >>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>> >>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>> >>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" java-type="String"/> >>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>> java-type="String"/> >>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>> java-type="String"/> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Pranay Pandey >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>> com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Team, >>>>> >>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>> >>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>> -- >>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>> com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published >>> on >>>>> our >>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>> |
|
|
Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8
compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the performance is fast. One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe to 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < [hidden email]> wrote: > For history sake: I committed localpostnew. > > After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't > find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in > localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. > > Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg to > revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres > > Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as suggested > Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid confusion > > Jacques > > > Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : > >> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >> >> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >> >> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly spell >> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I would be >> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >> >> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first build a >> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >> >> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed >> from >> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >> which >> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >> >> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >> java-type="String"/> >> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> >> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" java-type="String"/> >> >> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >> >> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, apart >> >> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a few >> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >> length-constrained >> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its additional >> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be used >> instead. >> >> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> HI Mike, all, >>> >>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Pierre Smits >>> >>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>> >>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>> >>> items: >>> >>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>> >>> group. >>> >>>> Requires tweaking: >>>> >>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>> >>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The >>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>> >>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>> >>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>> java-type="String"/> >>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>> java-type="String"/> >>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>> java-type="String"/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>> >>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>> >>>> com >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>> >>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>> >>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>> >>>>>> com >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> on >>>> >>>>> our >>>>>> >>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > |
|
|
Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration?
A few things come to mind: - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. Regards Scott On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 > compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the > performance is fast. > > One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe to > 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are > physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > For history sake: I committed localpostnew. > > > > After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't > > find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in > > localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. > > > > Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg > to > > revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres > > > > Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as suggested > > Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid > confusion > > > > Jacques > > > > > > Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : > > > >> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: > >> > >> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" > >> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> > >> > >> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly > spell > >> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I would > be > >> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. > >> > >> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first build a > >> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. > >> > >> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed > >> from > >> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), > >> which > >> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. > >> > >> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" > >> java-type="String"/> > >> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" > java-type="String"/> > >> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" > java-type="String"/> > >> > >> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what > >> postgres says about type "TEXT".. > >> > >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html > >> > >> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, apart > >> > >> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a few > >> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a > >> length-constrained > >> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other > >> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact > >> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its > additional > >> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be > used > >> instead. > >> > >> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> HI Mike, all, > >>> > >>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size > >>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? > >>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Pierre Smits > >>> > >>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > >>> OFBiz based solutions & services > >>> > >>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > >>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two > >>>> > >>> items: > >>> > >>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail > >>>> > >>> group. > >>> > >>>> Requires tweaking: > >>>> > >>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml > >>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf > >>>> > >>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The > >>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: > >>>> > >>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml > >>>> > >>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" > >>>> java-type="String"/> > >>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" > >>>> java-type="String"/> > >>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" > >>>> java-type="String"/> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < > >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks so much Deepak! > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Pranay Pandey > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit > >>>>> > >>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > >>> > >>>> com > >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Team, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk > >>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> > >>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks & Regards > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Deepak Dixit > >>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain <[hidden email] > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks and Regards > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Akash Jain > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > >>>>> > >>>>>> com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> on > >>>> > >>>>> our > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: > >>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ > >>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> > >>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 > >>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit > >>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > > |
|
|
Apologies for the absurd reference. Certainly the screen real estate is
the biggest issue. Sure, it is nice to display primary keys within 20 characters... But let me give you a working example. In fact, this was a real issue with me, considering the import of products. Sure, I could have assigned a non-meaningful sequential number, but I like real reference, like a part number or UPC code. In my case, multiple suppliers may carry the same UPC, so I elected to create the primary key as "SUPPLIER_CODE-UPC". This way I can always work on a set of P/Ns from a given supplier. So, the primary key becomes: "10000-798936836182", already 18 characters. <Product productId="10000-798936836182" ... CHR=18 <ProductCategoryMember productId="10000-798936836182" productCategoryId="10002"... <ProductPrice productId="10000-798936836182"... <SupplierProduct productId="10000-798936836182"... <GoodIdentification productId="10000-798936836182" idValue="798936836182"... <ProductFacility productId="10000-798936836182"... <DataResource dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den" ... <ProductContent productId="10000-798936836182" contentId="10000-798936836182Den" ... <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Den" contentIdTo="10000-798936836182Den"/> ... <DataResource dataResourceTypeId="ELECTRONIC_TEXT" dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... ...etc... And this is a relatively short part number sequence. If I WANT to pad extra info into the primary key.. for MY convenience, I don't have to worry about the import failing due to a 20 character limit somewhere. In addition, setting up the data import as above allows me to quickly blow away the product, because all primary keys on all affected tables were created using a consistent pattern. That is all that I am saying. Once you set up a database, you have to to live with it. On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: > Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? > > A few things come to mind: > - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed > - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client > - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever > > Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing > uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for > nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything > bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, > not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". > > Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. > Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong > language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is > unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. > > Regards > Scott > > > > On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 > > compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the > > performance is fast. > > > > One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe > to > > 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are > > physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > For history sake: I committed localpostnew. > > > > > > After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't > > > find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in > > > localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. > > > > > > Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg > > to > > > revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres > > > > > > Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as > suggested > > > Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid > > confusion > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : > > > > > >> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: > > >> > > >> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" > > >> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> > > >> > > >> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly > > spell > > >> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I > would > > be > > >> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. > > >> > > >> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first > build a > > >> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. > > >> > > >> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed > > >> from > > >> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), > > >> which > > >> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. > > >> > > >> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" > > >> java-type="String"/> > > >> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" > > java-type="String"/> > > >> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" > > java-type="String"/> > > >> > > >> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what > > >> postgres says about type "TEXT".. > > >> > > >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html > > >> > > >> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, > apart > > >> > > >> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a > few > > >> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a > > >> length-constrained > > >> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other > > >> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact > > >> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its > > additional > > >> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be > > used > > >> instead. > > >> > > >> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email] > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> HI Mike, all, > > >>> > > >>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size > > >>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? > > >>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> > > >>> Pierre Smits > > >>> > > >>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > > >>> OFBiz based solutions & services > > >>> > > >>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > > >>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two > > >>>> > > >>> items: > > >>> > > >>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail > > >>>> > > >>> group. > > >>> > > >>>> Requires tweaking: > > >>>> > > >>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml > > >>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf > > >>>> > > >>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The > > >>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: > > >>>> > > >>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml > > >>>> > > >>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" > > >>>> java-type="String"/> > > >>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" > > >>>> java-type="String"/> > > >>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" > > >>>> java-type="String"/> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < > > >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks so much Deepak! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Pranay Pandey > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit > > >>>>> > > >>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > >>> > > >>>> com > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> Hi Team, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk > > >>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> > > >>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks & Regards > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Deepak Dixit > > >>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < > [hidden email] > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks and Regards > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> Akash Jain > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> com > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been > published > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> on > > >>>> > > >>>>> our > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: > > >>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ > > >>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> > > >>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 > > >>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit > > >>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > |
|
Administrator
|
Mike,
OK then use the big gun. I have also crossed something similar in a project. I implemented a way to extend PKs w/o changing OOTB lengths, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5648 The idea is you want to extend only some PKs lengths (not all as when forcing in field types files) and you don't want to change anything in OOTB code, for easier maintenance reason. Most of the time it's easy, but beware of PKs dependencies in the data model, anyway OFBiz will tell you... HTH Jacques Le 06/04/2017 à 07:34, Mike a écrit : > Apologies for the absurd reference. Certainly the screen real estate is > the biggest issue. Sure, it is nice to display primary keys within 20 > characters... > > But let me give you a working example. In fact, this was a real issue with > me, considering the import of products. Sure, I could have assigned a > non-meaningful sequential number, but I like real reference, like a part > number or UPC code. In my case, multiple suppliers may carry the same UPC, > so I elected to create the primary key as "SUPPLIER_CODE-UPC". This way I > can always work on a set of P/Ns from a given supplier. So, the primary > key becomes: "10000-798936836182", already 18 characters. > > <Product productId="10000-798936836182" ... CHR=18 > <ProductCategoryMember productId="10000-798936836182" > productCategoryId="10002"... > <ProductPrice productId="10000-798936836182"... > <SupplierProduct productId="10000-798936836182"... > <GoodIdentification productId="10000-798936836182" idValue="798936836182"... > <ProductFacility productId="10000-798936836182"... > <DataResource dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** > <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** > <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den" ... > <ProductContent productId="10000-798936836182" > contentId="10000-798936836182Den" ... > <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Den" > contentIdTo="10000-798936836182Den"/> ... > <DataResource dataResourceTypeId="ELECTRONIC_TEXT" > dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" > contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > ...etc... > > And this is a relatively short part number sequence. If I WANT to pad > extra info into the primary key.. for MY convenience, I don't have to worry > about the import failing due to a 20 character limit somewhere. > > In addition, setting up the data import as above allows me to quickly blow > away the product, because all primary keys on all affected tables were > created using a consistent pattern. > > That is all that I am saying. Once you set up a database, you have to to > live with it. > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? >> >> A few things come to mind: >> - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed >> - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client >> - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever >> >> Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing >> uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for >> nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything >> bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, >> not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". >> >> Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. >> Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong >> language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is >> unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> >> >> On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 >>> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the >>> performance is fast. >>> >>> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe >> to >>> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are >>> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. >>>> >>>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't >>>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in >>>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. >>>> >>>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg >>> to >>>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres >>>> >>>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as >> suggested >>>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid >>> confusion >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >>>>> >>>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >>>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >>>>> >>>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly >>> spell >>>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I >> would >>> be >>>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >>>>> >>>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first >> build a >>>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed >>>>> from >>>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >>>>> which >>>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >>>>> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" >>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" >>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >>>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >>>>> >>>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, >> apart >>>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a >> few >>>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >>>>> length-constrained >>>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >>>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >>>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its >>> additional >>>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be >>> used >>>>> instead. >>>>> >>>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email] >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> HI Mike, all, >>>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>> >>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>>>>> >>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>>>> items: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>>>>> >>>>>> group. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Requires tweaking: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The >>>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < >> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been >> published >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Scott Gray-3
Hi Scott;
I crossed that in a project. They wanted extended PK lengths. It's somehow explained here https://blog.techottis.ch/2016/10/03/the-quest-for-the-id/ I created OFBIZ-5648 for that Jaqcues Le 06/04/2017 à 00:12, Scott Gray a écrit : > Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? > > A few things come to mind: > - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed > - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client > - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever > > Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing > uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for > nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything > bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, > not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". > > Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. > Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong > language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is > unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. > > Regards > Scott > > > > On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 >> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the >> performance is fast. >> >> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe to >> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are >> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. >> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. >>> >>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't >>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in >>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. >>> >>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg >> to >>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres >>> >>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as suggested >>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid >> confusion >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : >>> >>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >>>> >>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >>>> >>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly >> spell >>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I would >> be >>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >>>> >>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first build a >>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >>>> >>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed >>>> from >>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >>>> which >>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >>>> >>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >>>> java-type="String"/> >>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" >> java-type="String"/> >>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" >> java-type="String"/> >>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >>>> >>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >>>> >>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, apart >>>> >>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a few >>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >>>> length-constrained >>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its >> additional >>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be >> used >>>> instead. >>>> >>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> HI Mike, all, >>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>> >>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>>>> >>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>>> items: >>>>> >>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>>>> >>>>> group. >>>>> >>>>>> Requires tweaking: >>>>>> >>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The >>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>>>> >>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>>>> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>> >>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>> com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> |
|
|
Thanks Jacques. The Jira and article are good examples of why you
shouldn't paint yourself in a corner when it comes to defining the database structure. Eventually, it will come back to haunt you when you need to do special stuff, like using GIUDs, if that is your new requirement. In my opinion (only), this is the beauty of localpostnew.. All variable length fields throughout the DB structure. On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux < [hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Scott; > > I crossed that in a project. They wanted extended PK lengths. It's somehow > explained here https://blog.techottis.ch/2016/10/03/the-quest-for-the-id/ > > I created OFBIZ-5648 for that > > Jaqcues > > > > Le 06/04/2017 à 00:12, Scott Gray a écrit : > >> Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? >> >> A few things come to mind: >> - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed >> - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client >> - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever >> >> Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing >> uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for >> nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything >> bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, >> not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". >> >> Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. >> Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong >> language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is >> unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> >> >> On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 >>> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the >>> performance is fast. >>> >>> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe >>> to >>> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are >>> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. >>>> >>>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't >>>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in >>>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. >>>> >>>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg >>>> >>> to >>> >>>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres >>>> >>>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as >>>> suggested >>>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid >>>> >>> confusion >>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : >>>> >>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >>>>> >>>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >>>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >>>>> >>>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly >>>>> >>>> spell >>> >>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I would >>>>> >>>> be >>> >>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >>>>> >>>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first build >>>>> a >>>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed >>>>> from >>>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >>>>> which >>>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >>>>> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>> >>>> java-type="String"/> >>> >>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>> >>>> java-type="String"/> >>> >>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >>>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >>>>> >>>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, >>>>> apart >>>>> >>>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a >>>>> few >>>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >>>>> length-constrained >>>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >>>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >>>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its >>>>> >>>> additional >>> >>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be >>>>> >>>> used >>> >>>> instead. >>>>> >>>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> HI Mike, all, >>>>> >>>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>> >>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>>>>> >>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>>>> items: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>>>>> >>>>>>> group. >>>>>> >>>>>> Requires tweaking: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The >>>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>> com >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Z
While I don’t know the details of your application, sounds like you are trying to hardcode a join into the ProductID primary key which is just going to lead you to a world of pain down the road.
OFbiz supports composite/compound primary keys which in many cases eliminates the need for an arbitrary unique identifier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_key <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_key> OFbiz uses these extensively in sub entities. Look in the entity reference (/webtools/control/entityref) you’ll see the primary keys in red. The supplierProduct entity is already setup with a composite primary key OOTB. Product.ProductID-PartyID-MOQ-Currency guarantees uniqueness within the entity. Why crap up your Product entity with redundant information that should be kept in the supplier table? Products should be things that are, to an end-user, unique. A hardware store, for example, sells framing 2x4’s from thousands of suppliers, but the same end-user Product number is applied to them. Under your proposed data import integration, you’ll have to maintain descriptions, titles, content, pricing, associations, variants, etc FOR EVERY SUPPLIER. You’ll go insane. Need to select, delete, etc all your products from a supplier? Just do the simple joined query: SELECT FROM supplierProduct WHERE supplierProduct.productId=10000 AND supplier.productManufacturerCode=798936836182. That’s the same. supplier.productManufacturerCode is currently not part of the SupplierProduct composite key but you could make it one if you’d like. The 20 character limit is there for a reason - IDs (such as productId) are used in MANY areas of Ofbiz, including forms like invoices, sales orders, purchase orders, barcodes, receipts, etc, so having a known sane limit there enables consistency throughout the business processes. I wouldn’t mess with it. You gotta remember that Ofbiz is far from “finished”, In many areas, human-readable values are “encoded” into ID fields as a shortcut to avoid creating lookup entities for that information and to simplify programming for things that only ever have a handful of values in the entity like with the roleTypeId=“INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO” that was mentioned originally, As a general rule, if you find yourself trying to change the framework for your convenience, take a real good hard look as to why you’re doing that. Every time I try to take shortcuts with the data model because I’m too lazy to get my data cleaned up to fit it, I ALWAYS regret it,100% of the time, often years later. Hope that helps! —P > On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Apologies for the absurd reference. Certainly the screen real estate is > the biggest issue. Sure, it is nice to display primary keys within 20 > characters... > > But let me give you a working example. In fact, this was a real issue with > me, considering the import of products. Sure, I could have assigned a > non-meaningful sequential number, but I like real reference, like a part > number or UPC code. In my case, multiple suppliers may carry the same UPC, > so I elected to create the primary key as "SUPPLIER_CODE-UPC". This way I > can always work on a set of P/Ns from a given supplier. So, the primary > key becomes: "10000-798936836182", already 18 characters. > > <Product productId="10000-798936836182" ... CHR=18 > <ProductCategoryMember productId="10000-798936836182" > productCategoryId="10002"... > <ProductPrice productId="10000-798936836182"... > <SupplierProduct productId="10000-798936836182"... > <GoodIdentification productId="10000-798936836182" idValue="798936836182"... > <ProductFacility productId="10000-798936836182"... > <DataResource dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** > <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** > <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den" ... > <ProductContent productId="10000-798936836182" > contentId="10000-798936836182Den" ... > <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Den" > contentIdTo="10000-798936836182Den"/> ... > <DataResource dataResourceTypeId="ELECTRONIC_TEXT" > dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" > contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > ...etc... > > And this is a relatively short part number sequence. If I WANT to pad > extra info into the primary key.. for MY convenience, I don't have to worry > about the import failing due to a 20 character limit somewhere. > > In addition, setting up the data import as above allows me to quickly blow > away the product, because all primary keys on all affected tables were > created using a consistent pattern. > > That is all that I am saying. Once you set up a database, you have to to > live with it. > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? >> >> A few things come to mind: >> - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed >> - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client >> - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever >> >> Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing >> uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for >> nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything >> bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, >> not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". >> >> Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. >> Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong >> language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is >> unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> >> >> On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 >>> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the >>> performance is fast. >>> >>> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe >> to >>> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are >>> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. >>>> >>>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't >>>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in >>>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. >>>> >>>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg >>> to >>>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres >>>> >>>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as >> suggested >>>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid >>> confusion >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >>>>> >>>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >>>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >>>>> >>>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly >>> spell >>>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I >> would >>> be >>>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >>>>> >>>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first >> build a >>>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed >>>>> from >>>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >>>>> which >>>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >>>>> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" >>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" >>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> >>>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >>>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >>>>> >>>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, >> apart >>>>> >>>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a >> few >>>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >>>>> length-constrained >>>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >>>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >>>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its >>> additional >>>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be >>> used >>>>> instead. >>>>> >>>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email] >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> HI Mike, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>> >>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>>>>> >>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>>>>> >>>>>> items: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>>>>> >>>>>> group. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Requires tweaking: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The >>>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>> >>>>>>> com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < >> [hidden email] >>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been >> published >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> |
|
|
+1
Thanks Paul, Michael > Am 06.04.2017 um 19:59 schrieb Paul Mandeltort <[hidden email]>: > > While I don’t know the details of your application, sounds like you are trying to hardcode a join into the ProductID primary key which is just going to lead you to a world of pain down the road. > > OFbiz supports composite/compound primary keys which in many cases eliminates the need for an arbitrary unique identifier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_key <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_key> OFbiz uses these extensively in sub entities. Look in the entity reference (/webtools/control/entityref) you’ll see the primary keys in red. > > The supplierProduct entity is already setup with a composite primary key OOTB. > Product.ProductID-PartyID-MOQ-Currency guarantees uniqueness within the entity. > > Why crap up your Product entity with redundant information that should be kept in the supplier table? Products should be things that are, to an end-user, unique. A hardware store, for example, sells framing 2x4’s from thousands of suppliers, but the same end-user Product number is applied to them. Under your proposed data import integration, you’ll have to maintain descriptions, titles, content, pricing, associations, variants, etc FOR EVERY SUPPLIER. You’ll go insane. > > Need to select, delete, etc all your products from a supplier? Just do the simple joined query: > > SELECT FROM supplierProduct WHERE > supplierProduct.productId=10000 AND > supplier.productManufacturerCode=798936836182. > > That’s the same. > > supplier.productManufacturerCode is currently not part of the SupplierProduct composite key but you could make it one if you’d like. > > The 20 character limit is there for a reason - IDs (such as productId) are used in MANY areas of Ofbiz, including forms like invoices, sales orders, purchase orders, barcodes, receipts, etc, so having a known sane limit there enables consistency throughout the business processes. I wouldn’t mess with it. > > You gotta remember that Ofbiz is far from “finished”, In many areas, human-readable values are “encoded” into ID fields as a shortcut to avoid creating lookup entities for that information and to simplify programming for things that only ever have a handful of values in the entity like with the roleTypeId=“INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO” that was mentioned originally, > > As a general rule, if you find yourself trying to change the framework for your convenience, take a real good hard look as to why you’re doing that. Every time I try to take shortcuts with the data model because I’m too lazy to get my data cleaned up to fit it, I ALWAYS regret it,100% of the time, often years later. > > Hope that helps! > —P > > > >> On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Apologies for the absurd reference. Certainly the screen real estate is >> the biggest issue. Sure, it is nice to display primary keys within 20 >> characters... >> >> But let me give you a working example. In fact, this was a real issue with >> me, considering the import of products. Sure, I could have assigned a >> non-meaningful sequential number, but I like real reference, like a part >> number or UPC code. In my case, multiple suppliers may carry the same UPC, >> so I elected to create the primary key as "SUPPLIER_CODE-UPC". This way I >> can always work on a set of P/Ns from a given supplier. So, the primary >> key becomes: "10000-798936836182", already 18 characters. >> >> <Product productId="10000-798936836182" ... CHR=18 >> <ProductCategoryMember productId="10000-798936836182" >> productCategoryId="10002"... >> <ProductPrice productId="10000-798936836182"... >> <SupplierProduct productId="10000-798936836182"... >> <GoodIdentification productId="10000-798936836182" idValue="798936836182"... >> <ProductFacility productId="10000-798936836182"... >> <DataResource dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** >> <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** >> <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den" ... >> <ProductContent productId="10000-798936836182" >> contentId="10000-798936836182Den" ... >> <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Den" >> contentIdTo="10000-798936836182Den"/> ... >> <DataResource dataResourceTypeId="ELECTRONIC_TEXT" >> dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... >> <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... >> <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" >> contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... >> <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... >> ...etc... >> >> And this is a relatively short part number sequence. If I WANT to pad >> extra info into the primary key.. for MY convenience, I don't have to worry >> about the import failing due to a 20 character limit somewhere. >> >> In addition, setting up the data import as above allows me to quickly blow >> away the product, because all primary keys on all affected tables were >> created using a consistent pattern. >> >> That is all that I am saying. Once you set up a database, you have to to >> live with it. >> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? >>> >>> A few things come to mind: >>> - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed >>> - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client >>> - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever >>> >>> Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing >>> uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for >>> nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything >>> bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, >>> not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". >>> >>> Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. >>> Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong >>> language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is >>> unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 >>>> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the >>>> performance is fast. >>>> >>>> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe >>> to >>>> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are >>>> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. >>>>> >>>>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't >>>>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in >>>>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. >>>>> >>>>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg >>>> to >>>>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as >>> suggested >>>>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid >>>> confusion >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >>>>>> >>>>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >>>>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >>>>>> >>>>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly >>>> spell >>>>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I >>> would >>>> be >>>>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >>>>>> >>>>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first >>> build a >>>>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed >>>>>> from >>>>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >>>>>> which >>>>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >>>>>> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" >>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" >>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >>>>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >>>>>> >>>>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, >>> apart >>>>>> >>>>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a >>> few >>>>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >>>>>> length-constrained >>>>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >>>>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >>>>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its >>>> additional >>>>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be >>>> used >>>>>> instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email] >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> HI Mike, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>>>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>>>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> items: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Requires tweaking: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The >>>>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < >>> [hidden email] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been >>> published >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > |
smime.p7s (3K) |
|
In reply to this post by marcopaul
> Under your proposed data import integration, you’ll have to maintain
descriptions, titles, content, pricing, associations, variants, etc FOR EVERY SUPPLIER. You’ll go insane. Awesome advice Paul, and a great example. It's definitely better to just use the UPC (in my case), and maintain the supplier table. For stuff that *I* control (like products, descriptions, content, electronictext, etc), I prefer to use primary keys that I control. For all other stuff (sales orders, invoices, etc.) ofbiz can take care of that. Thanks a lot. On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Paul Mandeltort <[hidden email]> wrote: > While I don’t know the details of your application, sounds like you are > trying to hardcode a join into the ProductID primary key which is just > going to lead you to a world of pain down the road. > > OFbiz supports composite/compound primary keys which in many cases > eliminates the need for an arbitrary unique identifier. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_key <https://en.wikipedia.org/ > wiki/Compound_key> OFbiz uses these extensively in sub entities. Look in > the entity reference (/webtools/control/entityref) you’ll see the primary > keys in red. > > The supplierProduct entity is already setup with a composite primary key > OOTB. > Product.ProductID-PartyID-MOQ-Currency guarantees uniqueness within the > entity. > > Why crap up your Product entity with redundant information that should be > kept in the supplier table? Products should be things that are, to an > end-user, unique. A hardware store, for example, sells framing 2x4’s from > thousands of suppliers, but the same end-user Product number is applied to > them. Under your proposed data import integration, you’ll have to maintain > descriptions, titles, content, pricing, associations, variants, etc FOR > EVERY SUPPLIER. You’ll go insane. > > Need to select, delete, etc all your products from a supplier? Just do the > simple joined query: > > SELECT FROM supplierProduct WHERE > supplierProduct.productId=10000 AND > supplier.productManufacturerCode=798936836182. > > That’s the same. > > supplier.productManufacturerCode is currently not part of the > SupplierProduct composite key but you could make it one if you’d like. > > The 20 character limit is there for a reason - IDs (such as productId) are > used in MANY areas of Ofbiz, including forms like invoices, sales orders, > purchase orders, barcodes, receipts, etc, so having a known sane limit > there enables consistency throughout the business processes. I wouldn’t > mess with it. > > You gotta remember that Ofbiz is far from “finished”, In many areas, > human-readable values are “encoded” into ID fields as a shortcut to avoid > creating lookup entities for that information and to simplify programming > for things that only ever have a handful of values in the entity like with > the roleTypeId=“INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO” that was mentioned originally, > > As a general rule, if you find yourself trying to change the framework for > your convenience, take a real good hard look as to why you’re doing that. > Every time I try to take shortcuts with the data model because I’m too lazy > to get my data cleaned up to fit it, I ALWAYS regret it,100% of the time, > often years later. > > Hope that helps! > —P > > > > > On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Apologies for the absurd reference. Certainly the screen real estate is > > the biggest issue. Sure, it is nice to display primary keys within 20 > > characters... > > > > But let me give you a working example. In fact, this was a real issue > with > > me, considering the import of products. Sure, I could have assigned a > > non-meaningful sequential number, but I like real reference, like a part > > number or UPC code. In my case, multiple suppliers may carry the same > UPC, > > so I elected to create the primary key as "SUPPLIER_CODE-UPC". This way > I > > can always work on a set of P/Ns from a given supplier. So, the primary > > key becomes: "10000-798936836182", already 18 characters. > > > > <Product productId="10000-798936836182" ... CHR=18 > > <ProductCategoryMember productId="10000-798936836182" > > productCategoryId="10002"... > > <ProductPrice productId="10000-798936836182"... > > <SupplierProduct productId="10000-798936836182"... > > <GoodIdentification productId="10000-798936836182" > idValue="798936836182"... > > <ProductFacility productId="10000-798936836182"... > > <DataResource dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** > > <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 > **FAIL** > > <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den" ... > > <ProductContent productId="10000-798936836182" > > contentId="10000-798936836182Den" ... > > <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Den" > > contentIdTo="10000-798936836182Den"/> ... > > <DataResource dataResourceTypeId="ELECTRONIC_TEXT" > > dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > > <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > > <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" > > contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > > <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... > > ...etc... > > > > And this is a relatively short part number sequence. If I WANT to pad > > extra info into the primary key.. for MY convenience, I don't have to > worry > > about the import failing due to a 20 character limit somewhere. > > > > In addition, setting up the data import as above allows me to quickly > blow > > away the product, because all primary keys on all affected tables were > > created using a consistent pattern. > > > > That is all that I am saying. Once you set up a database, you have to to > > live with it. > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Gray <[hidden email] > > > > wrote: > > > >> Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? > >> > >> A few things come to mind: > >> - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed > >> - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the > client > >> - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever > >> > >> Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing > >> uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for > >> nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything > >> bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to > fit, > >> not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". > >> > >> Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated > design. > >> Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong > >> language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is > >> unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. > >> > >> Regards > >> Scott > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about > UTF8 > >>> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the > >>> performance is fast. > >>> > >>> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe > >> to > >>> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are > >>> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. > >>>> > >>>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't > >>>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in > >>>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. > >>>> > >>>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/ > op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg > >>> to > >>>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres > >>>> > >>>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as > >> suggested > >>>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid > >>> confusion > >>>> > >>>> Jacques > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: > >>>>> > >>>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" > >>>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> > >>>>> > >>>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly > >>> spell > >>>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I > >> would > >>> be > >>>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. > >>>>> > >>>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first > >> build a > >>>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. > >>>>> > >>>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... > Removed > >>>>> from > >>>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), > >>>>> which > >>>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. > >>>>> > >>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" > >>>>> java-type="String"/> > >>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" > >>> java-type="String"/> > >>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" > >>> java-type="String"/> > >>>>> > >>>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what > >>>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. > >>>>> > >>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html > >>>>> > >>>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, > >> apart > >>>>> > >>>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a > >> few > >>>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a > >>>>> length-constrained > >>>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other > >>>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact > >>>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its > >>> additional > >>>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be > >>> used > >>>>> instead. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits < > [hidden email] > >>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> HI Mike, all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size > >>>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? > >>>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Pierre Smits > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > >>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > >>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> items: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> group. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Requires tweaking: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml > >>>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). > The > >>>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" > >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> > >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" > >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> > >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" > >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < > >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Pranay Pandey > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi Team, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk > >>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> > >>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit > >>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < > >> [hidden email] > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Akash Jain > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> com > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been > >> published > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 > >>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit > >>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > |
|
|
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Data+Model+Diagrams <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Data+Model+Diagrams>
Print these up and frame them, I wish I had found them earlier in my OFbiz journey. Will quickly show you how everything fits together. My greatest regret was not finding them sooner. They’re a little dated but still 95% accurate especially for getting going. Good place to store UPC information is here: https://demo-stable.ofbiz.apache.org/catalog/control/EditProductGoodIdentifications?productId=GZ-1000 <https://demo-stable.ofbiz.apache.org/catalog/control/EditProductGoodIdentifications?productId=GZ-1000> Then you can use an arbitrary schema for your top-level product catalog which is always a good idea. I suggest avoiding modifying the core data model if at all possible to protect yourself down the road for upgrades. It’s pretty easy to paint yourself into a corner if you start modifying that stuff unnecessarily. —P > On Apr 6, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Under your proposed data import integration, you’ll have to maintain > descriptions, titles, content, pricing, associations, variants, etc FOR > EVERY SUPPLIER. You’ll go insane. > > Awesome advice Paul, and a great example. It's definitely better to just > use the UPC (in my case), and maintain the supplier table. For stuff that > *I* control (like products, descriptions, content, electronictext, etc), I > prefer to use primary keys that I control. For all other stuff (sales > orders, invoices, etc.) ofbiz can take care of that. Thanks a lot. > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Paul Mandeltort <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> While I don’t know the details of your application, sounds like you are >> trying to hardcode a join into the ProductID primary key which is just >> going to lead you to a world of pain down the road. >> >> OFbiz supports composite/compound primary keys which in many cases >> eliminates the need for an arbitrary unique identifier. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_key <https://en.wikipedia.org/ >> wiki/Compound_key> OFbiz uses these extensively in sub entities. Look in >> the entity reference (/webtools/control/entityref) you’ll see the primary >> keys in red. >> >> The supplierProduct entity is already setup with a composite primary key >> OOTB. >> Product.ProductID-PartyID-MOQ-Currency guarantees uniqueness within the >> entity. >> >> Why crap up your Product entity with redundant information that should be >> kept in the supplier table? Products should be things that are, to an >> end-user, unique. A hardware store, for example, sells framing 2x4’s from >> thousands of suppliers, but the same end-user Product number is applied to >> them. Under your proposed data import integration, you’ll have to maintain >> descriptions, titles, content, pricing, associations, variants, etc FOR >> EVERY SUPPLIER. You’ll go insane. >> >> Need to select, delete, etc all your products from a supplier? Just do the >> simple joined query: >> >> SELECT FROM supplierProduct WHERE >> supplierProduct.productId=10000 AND >> supplier.productManufacturerCode=798936836182. >> >> That’s the same. >> >> supplier.productManufacturerCode is currently not part of the >> SupplierProduct composite key but you could make it one if you’d like. >> >> The 20 character limit is there for a reason - IDs (such as productId) are >> used in MANY areas of Ofbiz, including forms like invoices, sales orders, >> purchase orders, barcodes, receipts, etc, so having a known sane limit >> there enables consistency throughout the business processes. I wouldn’t >> mess with it. >> >> You gotta remember that Ofbiz is far from “finished”, In many areas, >> human-readable values are “encoded” into ID fields as a shortcut to avoid >> creating lookup entities for that information and to simplify programming >> for things that only ever have a handful of values in the entity like with >> the roleTypeId=“INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO” that was mentioned originally, >> >> As a general rule, if you find yourself trying to change the framework for >> your convenience, take a real good hard look as to why you’re doing that. >> Every time I try to take shortcuts with the data model because I’m too lazy >> to get my data cleaned up to fit it, I ALWAYS regret it,100% of the time, >> often years later. >> >> Hope that helps! >> —P >> >> >> >>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Apologies for the absurd reference. Certainly the screen real estate is >>> the biggest issue. Sure, it is nice to display primary keys within 20 >>> characters... >>> >>> But let me give you a working example. In fact, this was a real issue >> with >>> me, considering the import of products. Sure, I could have assigned a >>> non-meaningful sequential number, but I like real reference, like a part >>> number or UPC code. In my case, multiple suppliers may carry the same >> UPC, >>> so I elected to create the primary key as "SUPPLIER_CODE-UPC". This way >> I >>> can always work on a set of P/Ns from a given supplier. So, the primary >>> key becomes: "10000-798936836182", already 18 characters. >>> >>> <Product productId="10000-798936836182" ... CHR=18 >>> <ProductCategoryMember productId="10000-798936836182" >>> productCategoryId="10002"... >>> <ProductPrice productId="10000-798936836182"... >>> <SupplierProduct productId="10000-798936836182"... >>> <GoodIdentification productId="10000-798936836182" >> idValue="798936836182"... >>> <ProductFacility productId="10000-798936836182"... >>> <DataResource dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 **FAIL** >>> <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den"... CHR=21 >> **FAIL** >>> <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Den" ... >>> <ProductContent productId="10000-798936836182" >>> contentId="10000-798936836182Den" ... >>> <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Den" >>> contentIdTo="10000-798936836182Den"/> ... >>> <DataResource dataResourceTypeId="ELECTRONIC_TEXT" >>> dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... >>> <ElectronicText dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" ... >>> <Content dataResourceId="10000-798936836182Len" >>> contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... >>> <ContentAssoc contentId="10000-798936836182Len" ... >>> ...etc... >>> >>> And this is a relatively short part number sequence. If I WANT to pad >>> extra info into the primary key.. for MY convenience, I don't have to >> worry >>> about the import failing due to a 20 character limit somewhere. >>> >>> In addition, setting up the data import as above allows me to quickly >> blow >>> away the product, because all primary keys on all affected tables were >>> created using a consistent pattern. >>> >>> That is all that I am saying. Once you set up a database, you have to to >>> live with it. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Scott Gray <[hidden email] >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? >>>> >>>> A few things come to mind: >>>> - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed >>>> - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the >> client >>>> - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever >>>> >>>> Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing >>>> uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for >>>> nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything >>>> bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to >> fit, >>>> not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". >>>> >>>> Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated >> design. >>>> Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong >>>> language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is >>>> unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about >> UTF8 >>>>> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the >>>>> performance is fast. >>>>> >>>>> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe >>>> to >>>>> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are >>>>> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. >>>>>> >>>>>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't >>>>>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in >>>>>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. >>>>>> >>>>>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/ >> op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg >>>>> to >>>>>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres >>>>>> >>>>>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as >>>> suggested >>>>>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid >>>>> confusion >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >>>>>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly >>>>> spell >>>>>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I >>>> would >>>>> be >>>>>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first >>>> build a >>>>>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... >> Removed >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >>>>>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, >>>> apart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a >>>> few >>>>>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >>>>>>> length-constrained >>>>>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >>>>>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >>>>>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its >>>>> additional >>>>>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be >>>>> used >>>>>>> instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits < >> [hidden email] >>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HI Mike, all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>>>>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>>>>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>>>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> items: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Requires tweaking: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>>>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). >> The >>>>>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < >>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been >>>> published >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Mike Z
It has been decided to remove localpostnew. I'll not ask to put it back. The majority does not want it, even if renamed localpostText I guess.
Jacques Le 06/04/2017 à 17:58, Mike a écrit : > Thanks Jacques. The Jira and article are good examples of why you > shouldn't paint yourself in a corner when it comes to defining the database > structure. Eventually, it will come back to haunt you when you need to do > special stuff, like using GIUDs, if that is your new requirement. In my > opinion (only), this is the beauty of localpostnew.. All variable length > fields throughout the DB structure. > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi Scott; >> >> I crossed that in a project. They wanted extended PK lengths. It's somehow >> explained here https://blog.techottis.ch/2016/10/03/the-quest-for-the-id/ >> >> I created OFBIZ-5648 for that >> >> Jaqcues >> >> >> >> Le 06/04/2017 à 00:12, Scott Gray a écrit : >> >>> Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? >>> >>> A few things come to mind: >>> - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed >>> - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the client >>> - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever >>> >>> Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing >>> uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for >>> nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything >>> bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to fit, >>> not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". >>> >>> Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated design. >>> Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong >>> language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is >>> unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 >>>> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the >>>> performance is fast. >>>> >>>> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe >>>> to >>>> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are >>>> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. >>>>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't >>>>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in >>>>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. >>>>> >>>>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op2yl3pcbj3lgxpg >>>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as >>>>> suggested >>>>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid >>>>> >>>> confusion >>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >>>>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >>>>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >>>>>> >>>>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly >>>>>> >>>>> spell >>>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I would >>>>> be >>>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >>>>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first build >>>>>> a >>>>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... Removed >>>>>> from >>>>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >>>>>> which >>>>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >>>>>> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>>> >>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >>>>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >>>>>> >>>>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, >>>>>> apart >>>>>> >>>>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a >>>>>> few >>>>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >>>>>> length-constrained >>>>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >>>>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >>>>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its >>>>>> >>>>> additional >>>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be >>>>> used >>>>> instead. >>>>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> HI Mike, all, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>>>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>>>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>>>>> items: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>> Requires tweaking: >>>>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The >>>>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> |
|
|
You might consider: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8230
Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux < [hidden email]> wrote: > It has been decided to remove localpostnew. I'll not ask to put it back. > The majority does not want it, even if renamed localpostText I guess. > > Jacques > > > > Le 06/04/2017 à 17:58, Mike a écrit : > >> Thanks Jacques. The Jira and article are good examples of why you >> shouldn't paint yourself in a corner when it comes to defining the >> database >> structure. Eventually, it will come back to haunt you when you need to do >> special stuff, like using GIUDs, if that is your new requirement. In my >> opinion (only), this is the beauty of localpostnew.. All variable length >> fields throughout the DB structure. >> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi Scott; >>> >>> I crossed that in a project. They wanted extended PK lengths. It's >>> somehow >>> explained here https://blog.techottis.ch/2016 >>> /10/03/the-quest-for-the-id/ >>> >>> I created OFBIZ-5648 for that >>> >>> Jaqcues >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 06/04/2017 à 00:12, Scott Gray a écrit : >>> >>> Perhaps lookup performance isn't the only consideration? >>>> >>>> A few things come to mind: >>>> - screen realestate when PKs need to be displayed >>>> - bandwidth for syncing to slaves and transporting data to/from the >>>> client >>>> - file size for export/import be it XML or whatever >>>> >>>> Given that PKs shouldn't perform any function beyond guaranteeing >>>> uniqueness within a given table, and that we use numeric sequences for >>>> nonstatic tables, I struggle to see where it makes sense to use anything >>>> bigger than 20 characters. So we have to abbreviate some seed data to >>>> fit, >>>> not really a big deal and certainly not "absurd". >>>> >>>> Like any other code base in the world, OFBiz contains opinionated >>>> design. >>>> Everyone is free to discuss those opinions ad nauseam, but using strong >>>> language such as "absurd" because you have a different opinion is >>>> unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/04/2017 09:33, "Mike" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, with postgresql, and localpostnew, there are no worries about UTF8 >>>> >>>>> compatibility, or lengths of *ANY* fields. It works just fine, and the >>>>> performance is fast. >>>>> >>>>> One may argue that you SHOULD limit your primary ID fields. OK: Maybe >>>>> to >>>>> 255, using VARYING(255)... But never use VARCHAR(255), because you are >>>>> physically storing 255 characters... but never just 20. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For history sake: I committed localpostnew. >>>>> >>>>>> After a discussion (on dev ML or somewhere else? Unfortunately I can't >>>>>> find) it was commonly agreed that we should merge localpostnew in >>>>>> localpostgres and then remove localpostnew. >>>>>> >>>>>> Later we commonly decided http://markmail.org/message/op >>>>>> 2yl3pcbj3lgxpg >>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> revert some changes in the new (merged) localpostgres >>>>>> >>>>>> Feel free to use localpostnew. We could even put it back in, as >>>>>> suggested >>>>>> Nicolas, but I believe it should be then named otherwise to avoid >>>>>> >>>>>> confusion >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 05/04/2017 à 19:32, Mike a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Pierre, here is an example from the demo data: >>>>>> >>>>>>> accounting_OrganizationData.xml: <PartyRole partyId="RECEIVING" >>>>>>> roleTypeId="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The default of ID (20 chrs) is so small that you can't even properly >>>>>>> >>>>>>> spell >>>>>> "INTERNAL_ORGANIZATION"... I work with databases every day, and I >>>>>> would >>>>>> be >>>>>> so limited if I had to work with such small primary IDs. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The thing is you don't want to not limit yourself when you first >>>>>>> build >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> database. The jira is interesting, and GUIDs are a good example. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally, I use postgresql, using the "localpostnew" type... >>>>>>> Removed >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> trunk for some reason.. It has unlimited primary ID sizes (ok, 2.1G), >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> allows me to create any sort of primary key I want. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="TEXT" >>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>> If you think that type=TEXT is slow or less efficient.. Here is what >>>>>> >>>>>>> postgres says about type "TEXT".. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/datatype-character.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Tip:* There is no performance difference among these three types, >>>>>>> apart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type, and a >>>>>>> few >>>>>>> extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a >>>>>>> length-constrained >>>>>>> column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other >>>>>>> database systems, there is no such advantage inPostgreSQL; in fact >>>>>>> character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its >>>>>>> >>>>>>> additional >>>>>> storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be >>>>>> used >>>>>> instead. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mysql has a similar type... I personally haven't tested it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Pierre Smits < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HI Mike, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size >>>>>>>> Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? >>>>>>>> Following JIRA issue may be of interest: >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> >>>>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace >>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two >>>>>>>> items: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Requires tweaking: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml >>>>>>>>> /etc/mysql/my.cnf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). >>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> default is an absurd 20 characters: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" >>>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" >>>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>>> <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" >>>>>>>>> java-type="String"/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks so much Deepak! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pranay Pandey >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Team, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here are some more videos from Pranay >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk >>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> >>>>>>>>>>> - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for your effort. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain < >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nice videos, thanks Pranay! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Akash Jain >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> published >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Deepak Dixit >>>>>>>>>>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
I think that the root of the problems here is to store information in the
id fields (e.g. productId). It would instead be better to let the system generate a unique id and then store the more meaningful identifiers (e.g. UPC for products) in separate entities or fields (e.g. GoodIdentification for products, PartyIdentification for parties etc...). If the id fields are simply used to store a unique identifier then the current size will not be a problem. I know that the (seed and demo) data we release are misleading because they suggest information should be stored in the ids and similarly most of the applications (where for example, we have several search forms to search by product id or input fields for the productId) and I wish we will slowly improve them to provide a better implementation that hides the db ids to the user by implementing a better UX. Jacopo On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: > HI Mike, all, > > Re 2: Talk about adjustment of default key size > Why is that absurd? You believe it is too long/too short? > Following JIRA issue may be of interest: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8343 > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > OFBiz based solutions & services > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Mike <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Nice videos. Regarding the mysql setup, you may want to include two > items: > > > > 1) Make sure mysql is setup as UTF8, discussed earlier in this mail > group. > > Requires tweaking: > > > > framework/entity/config/entityengine.xml > > /etc/mysql/my.cnf > > > > 2) Talk about adjusting the default sizes of primary keys (ID). The > > default is an absurd 20 characters: > > > > framework/entity/fieldtype/fieldtypemysql.xml > > > > <field-type-def type="id" sql-type="VARCHAR(20)" java-type="String"/> > > <field-type-def type="id-long" sql-type="VARCHAR(60)" > > java-type="String"/> > > <field-type-def type="id-vlong" sql-type="VARCHAR(250)" > > java-type="String"/> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Pranay Pandey < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks so much Deepak! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Pranay Pandey > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Deepak Dixit > <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > > com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > > > Here are some more videos from Pranay > > > > > > > > - Setup OFBiz in IntelliJ IDEA IDE - Release 16.11 and Trunk > > > > <https://youtu.be/mxToh2rX7NY> > > > > - Setup OFBiz with MySQL <https://youtu.be/Lzmv0DCC5N4> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pranay for your effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > > -- > > > > Deepak Dixit > > > > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:07 PM, akash jain <[hidden email]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nice videos, thanks Pranay! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > -- > > > > > Akash Jain > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Deepak Dixit > > > <deepak.dixit@hotwaxsystems. > > > > > com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published > > on > > > > our > > > > > > OFBiz YouTube channel <https://www.youtube.com/user/ofbiz>: > > > > > > 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists <https://www.youtube.com/ > > > > > > watch?v=bIS2kftvsq4> > > > > > > 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11 > > > > > > <https://youtu.be/efkB_aN-ODw> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Deepak Dixit > > > > > > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |