Thanks for the clarification.

Best,
Taewoo

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Yingyi Bu <buyin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I'm just worried about the backward compatibility.
> >> If we change the definition (before:int for int64, after:int for integer
> >> (int32)) and outside users that Mike mentioned did not have numbers
> greater
> >> than INT32 range, I think it's OK.
>
> As I said, if they have created a dataset using the old DDL on an old
> version,
> nothing will break because in the metadata, the type is int64.
>
> The only thing is that if they're going to create a new dataset based on
> the new binary, they need to
> be aware that int means int32.  Since we will notify them, I think it's
> fine.
>
> Best,
> Yingyi
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Taewoo Kim <wangs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I understood that other SQL based systems have int and bigint. What we
> used
> > was "int" for "int64". I'm just worried about the backward compatibility.
> > If we change the definition (before:int for int64, after:int for integer
> > (int32)) and outside users that Mike mentioned did not have numbers
> greater
> > than INT32 range, I think it's OK.
> >
> > Best,
> > Taewoo
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Yingyi Bu <buyin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >  Taewoo,
> > >
> > >     >> So, can we use "int" for "bigint" to be consistent?
> > >     That's not what other SQL systems do. We probably don't want to
> > create
> > > new conventions (or surprises) in this area.
> > >
> > >     Just FYI.
> > >     Hive:
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+Types#
> > > LanguageManualTypes-NumericTypes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     Postgres:
> > >
> > >     https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/datatype-numeric.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     MySQL:
> > >
> > >     http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/integer-types.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     MSSQL:
> > >
> > >     https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187745.aspx
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yingyi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Taewoo Kim <wangs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, can we use "int" for "bigint" to be consistent?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Taewoo
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Yingyi Bu <buyin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >>Actually I think Taewoo is right about having supported int as an
> > > int64
> > > > > >>synonym in ADM.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahh, just checked an old version and you're right!
> > > > >
> > > > > >> But I think the revised 101 examples used int, no?
> > > > > Yes, they use int.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> We should just check so we know if we need to warn them when
> > > > > >> we release....
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Datasets created by their old DDLs should still work.
> > > > > But this will impact their new DDLs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Yingyi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually I think Taewoo is right about having supported int as an
> > > int64
> > > > > > synonym in ADM.  However, apparently this change didn't break any
> > > > tests,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > we probably didn't have anything whose outputs were changed.
> But I
> > > > think
> > > > > > the revised 101 examples used int, no?  Not sure if any of our
> > users
> > > > had
> > > > > > followed that transition - can Ian ask SDSC and Condor for copies
> > of
> > > > > their
> > > > > > current ADMs?  We should just check so we know if we need to warn
> > > them
> > > > > when
> > > > > > we release....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Oct 17, 2016 11:49 PM, "Yingyi Bu" <buyin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the change that changes "record" to "object".
> > > > > > > https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/c/1295/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The existing record functions will still work.
> > > > > > > If anyone thinks that the change breaks the current use case,
> > > please
> > > > > let
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Yingyi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Yingyi Bu <
> buyin...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> We used int for the abbreviation
> > > > > > > > >> for INT64 (I assume that is now bigint?) type. Now, INT is
> > an
> > > > > > > > abbreviation
> > > > > > > > >> for INT32?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We didn't have "int" as a type name.
> > > > > > > > A constant integer value by default was an int64.  That's
> > > > unchanged.
> > > > > > > > Now, a constant integer value by default is a bigint.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Aren't INT32 type displaying i32 as suffix?
> > > > > > > > Other than type names, nothing is changed. I think we stopped
> > > using
> > > > > > > suffix
> > > > > > > > quite a while ago.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Yingyi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Taewoo Kim <
> > wangs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I checked the newly changed documentation. We used int for
> the
> > > > > > > >> abbreviation
> > > > > > > >> for INT64 (I assume that is now bigint?) type. Now, INT is
> an
> > > > > > > abbreviation
> > > > > > > >> for INT32? I thought we converted the default type to INT64
> > > > > (bigint).
> > > > > > > >> Aren't INT32 type displaying i32 as suffix?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > > > >> From: Yingyi Bu <buyin...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:55 PM
> > > > > > > >> Subject: type name changes
> > > > > > > >> To: us...@asterixdb.apache.org
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hi users,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Recently, we did some name changes for builtin types to
> better
> > > > align
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> SQL's types:
> > > > > > > >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/asterixdb/datamodel.html
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> There will be a further name change that changes "record" to
> > > > > "object",
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> better align with JSON.
> > > > > > > >> The purpose of renaming those builtin types is to lower the
> > > usage
> > > > > bar
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> users who are using either SQL or JSON.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Note that all the old type names should still work as it
> used
> > to
> > > > be.
> > > > > > > >> However, it is better to move to new names for future use
> > cases.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > >> Yingyi
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to