I'm late to the party as usual, but also added some comments. Overall supportive of this work. Thanks for the clear analysis, Anton.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:58 AM Mingmin Xu <mingm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks @Anton for the proposal. Window(w/ trigger) support in SQL is > limited now, you're very welcome to join the improvement. > > There's a balance between injected DSL mode and CLI mode when we were > implementing BealmSQL overall, not only widowing. Many default behaviors > are introduced to make it workable in pure SQL CLI scenario. If it limits > the potential with DSL mode, we should adjust it absolutely. > > Mingmin > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > >> I've commented on the doc. This is a really nice analysis and I think the >> proposal is good for making SQL work with Beam windowing and triggering in >> a way that will make sense to users. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Anton Kedin <ke...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Wanted to gather feedback on changes I propose to the behavior of some >>> aspects of windowing and triggering in Beam SQL. >>> >>> In short: >>> >>> Beam SQL currently overrides input PCollections' windowing/triggering >>> configuration in few cases. For example if a query has a simple GROUP BY >>> clause, we would apply GlobalWindows. And it's not configurable by the >>> user, it happens under the hood of SQL. >>> >>> Proposal is to update the Beam SQL implementation in these cases to >>> avoid changing the input PCollections' configuration as much as possible. >>> >>> More details here: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RmyV9e1Qab-axsLI1WWpw5oGAJDv0X7y9OSnPnrZWJk >>> >>> Regards, >>> Anton >>> >> >> > > > -- > ---- > Mingmin >
