+1, this is a great formalization of an intuitive idea.
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 12:07 PM Peeyush Gupta <peeyush.gu...@couchbase.com.invalid> wrote: > > Hi, > > As a part of this we should also make sure that we make the connection > of these to feeds - so that you can hang a transform function on a feed, > which is the scenario where these are much safer than general functions > hanging on feeds. (We might want to add a > backward-compatibility-breaking restriction that doesn't allow the > functions on feeds to NOT be this type.) > > Sounds like a good idea. > > We should presumably allow these functions to be called in queries like > other functions. (In case that's not in plan at the moment, it > definitely should be - if for no other reason than for testing.) > > Transform functions can be used just like any other UDFs. > > We should presumably allow transform functions to call UDFs in their > definitions, as long as the resulting query still stays "in bounds" > (using only the bits inside the argument object). Either way, the spec > should say whether or not this is going to be supported. > > Yes, other UDFs can be used in the definition if the original conditions are > met. > I have updated the spec to reflect this. > > Thanks, > Peeyush > > From: Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:46 AM > To: dev@asterixdb.apache.org <dev@asterixdb.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][APE] Proposal for Adding transform function > Looks good - and very useful! +1 for this addition to AsterixDB. > > As a part of this we should also make sure that we make the connection > of these to feeds - so that you can hang a transform function on a feed, > which is the scenario where these are much safer than general functions > hanging on feeds. (We might want to add a > backward-compatibility-breaking restriction that doesn't allow the > functions on feeds to NOT be this type.) > > We should presumably allow these functions to be called in queries like > other functions. (In case that's not in plan at the moment, it > definitely should be - if for no other reason than for testing.) > > We should presumably allow transform functions to call UDFs in their > definitions, as long as the resulting query still stays "in bounds" > (using only the bits inside the argument object). Either way, the spec > should say whether or not this is going to be supported. > > Cheers, > > Mike > > > On 5/12/25 6:32 PM, Peeyush Gupta wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Initiating a discussion to propose adding transform function. > > > > Feature: Adding transform function. > > Details: SQL++ UDFs are very powerful, in that they can return anything. In > > certain circumstances this is not desirable. For example, with feeds we can > > today apply a function on every record incoming to the dataset. A function > > that produces an entire dataset's worth of data for 1 input value would not > > be feasible to run in that fashion. Hence, restricting the function so that > > it may only take an input, and do some transform on it, is desirable for > > performance reasons. > > APE:https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/APE+21%3A+Transform+Function > > > > Thanks, > > Peeyush > > > >
