Agree with Kenn on this. From our SamzaRunner point of view, we would like Beam SQL to be self-contained and flexible enough for our users to use it in different scenarios, e.g. pure SQL and embeded in different SDKs. We are also extremely interested in the DataFrame-like API mentioned above. To digress a little bit from this topic, this is actually the current hurdle of letting our users try it out in hadoop since they expect such kind of API with columnar data set IO support, e.g. ORC. If there are any more details about the status of DF API and columnar support, I will be very happy to learn more about it.
Thanks, Xinyu On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 8:55 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: > Hi all, > > after letting this sink for a while, I'd like to summarize the feedback > and emphasize some questions that appeared: > > a) there were several 'it makes sense' opinions > > b) there was one 'not right now' - which makes sense, but the purpose of > this discussion was to try to first answer the what and then the when :-) > > c) there were several 'maybe, but': > > i) it would be more complicated to code SQL against user-facing API, > because that way, each change needed by SQL would have to be first > implemented in this user-friendly API layer > > I can absolutely agree with this, it would be definitely more > complicated and more work. I see basically two ways out. The first one > would suggest to move all the code from Euphoria into something similar to > Join library, and let Euphoria be just the user-friendly layer on top of > this library (basically just the builders). That way, we could reuse the > code and be pretty much sure, that the implementation of SQL transforms are > identical to what Euphoria would offer, which is one the goals of this > discussion. The drawback would be, that there would be no guaranties, that > what this underlying library would offer would be also accessible from > Euphoria - that is because the complexity would not disappear, it would be > just moved onto different component - new added feature to the shared > library would have to be made accessible in Euphoria. The other way around > would be to accept this added complexity in favor of making sure, that > every feature that is needed by SQL is also available in Euphoria, because > the user-facing API would be used by SQL itself. I'd really like to further > hear community opinions on pros and cons of these two (or maybe I'm > overlooking something and there is a third way). > > ii) in some cases, we might want to support relational operators in SDK > harness for performance, and we don't want to close doors for this > > Again, the motivation of this seems to be clear and valid, but the > question that arises is - under the conditions (something like we have > schema aware PCollection), would we want to enable code reuse between logic > written in SQL and Euphoria to ensure consistent behavior? That would > probably mean that Euphoria would have to make use of the provided scheme > of PCollection and switch to a different behavior on API level (more > DataFrame-like) and/or different operators created and passed to the SDK > harness. This feature is currently absolutely missing, but seems to be > plausible and maybe there could be benefits for both sides. > > Many thanks for any more opinions on this. > > Jan > > > On 12/4/18 11:32 PM, Rui Wang wrote: > > For pure SQL users, there shouldn't be a SDK concepts. SQL shell and JDBC > driver should be the way to interact Beam by SQL. > > > For embedded SQL use case in all SDKs (Python, Go, etc.), even assume > there are relational algebra operators defined in SDKs, SDKs still have to > implement its own way to parse SQL into operators (SQL is just a string). > To avoid that overhead, I would imagine that SDKs should keep SQL queries > and wait for a later but shared processing (I don't know if Portability > should handle SQL or if it could). > > > -Rui > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:04 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: > >> Hi Kenn, >> >> my intent really was not to propose any changes right now. I'm trying to >> create a clear understanding about what the relation between Euphoria and >> SQL should be in long run. In my point of view, Euphoria should be always >> superset of SQL, because it should support complete relational algebra (and >> I'm not saying it does so right now, it should just be our goal) plus more >> flexible UDFs (not limited to SQL standard) and stateful processing (which >> will probably not be part of SQL any time soon). There should be some sort >> of guaranties that the semantics of SQL and Euphoria are the same, because >> that is what users would expect it to be. This can be for sure ensured by >> introducing another layer between Euphoria and core SDK (e.g. the join >> library), but the question is - what makes this solution different from >> creating this shared library from Euphoria itself (when looking at the big >> picture)? And it is not only about implementations of joins or any other >> operators, but there are other techniques that could be beneficial for SQL >> - e.g. pipeline sampling, automatic pipeline optimizations based on >> statistics from previous runs of batch queries, etc. >> >> The other way - that relational algebra nodes will become essential part >> of (some) SDK, that is equivalent to actually creating SQL SDK, am I right? >> I understand, that this approach can bring performance benefits, but >> besides that - is the language which implements SQL really important for >> users? Do we need SQL implementing Go UDFs, Java UDFs, Python UDFs? How >> would the resulting SQL query look like? If it is about allowing using SQL >> from all other SDKs (I want to do some basic preprocessing using SQL and >> then optimize some hard part in my favorite SDK) - can this be solved by >> enabling SQL in all SDKs by mixing various SDKs harnesses in single >> pipeline instead (e.g. I want to use SQL in Go SDK, I just tell the >> portable layer to run these operators using Java SDK and these using Go)? >> That seems plausible, solving interoperability issues, while leaving the >> whole implementation of SQL as an internal detail. Generally this solves >> more issues, like ability to reuse IOs in all SDKs (I'm aware that there >> are caveats, but that is beyond scope of intended discussion topic of this >> thread). >> >> Jan >> On 12/3/18 7:27 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >> >> To be honest, I don't think there's much worth doing right now. I think >> more self-contained is better for Beam SQL, generally. Two things I have on >> my mind are (1) SQL as an inline transform in every SDK and (2) supporting >> pure SQL like the CLI and JDBC driver, where the underlying language is an >> implementation detail. >> >> Big picture / long term, I would envision pure SQL, embedded SQL >> transform, and a DataFrame-like API in ~each SDK all desugaring to >> relational algebra nodes, sharing an optimizer, sharing some amount of >> mapping the physical plan to Beam transforms. The necessarily SDK-specific >> parts are the embedded transform API and UDFs in the host language. The >> rest should remain an implementation detail that we can change. >> >> - For example, it is easy to imagine a customized columnar >> element/bundle encoding and SDK harness that only works for SQL to remove >> overhead of being general purpose. It could be written in C/C++/Go if we >> wanted to squeeze it for perf. Such things are made harder by having an >> elaborate end-user API between SQL and the core Beam model. >> - Conversely, for whatever is chosen to underlie SQL's execution, >> stability is paramount. Ideally the simplest and least likely to change >> transforms would be the foundation. And I wouldn't want to have to design a >> user-friendly API for Euphoria or the join library just to enable a >> different join algorithm in SQL. >> >> So my take is keep SQL flexible, implement SQL on low-level and stable >> APIs, use join library, Euphoria, etc, if it looks like a big win, but >> don't build any policy here or do big refactors right now. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:31 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: >> >>> Hi Robert, >>> >>> currently there is no actual proposal, I was just trying to gather >>> feedback from the community. But my original thoughts would be [1]. I >>> actually don't see much need for restructuring the code by nesting >>> directories. If the community sees that it would make sense to structure >>> the dependencies, the second step would probably be to figure out how to >>> accomplish this. I don't have any exact solution in mind so far, it >>> would be probably needed to first identify features that are needed by >>> SQL and not supported by Euphoria currently. Then we can actually >>> identify costs and see it this still makes sense. >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> On 12/3/18 6:17 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> > Taking a step back, what exactly is the proposal. Looking at the >>> > original message, I see >>> > >>> > (1) Letting SQL take a dependency on Euphoria, sharing more code and >>> > taking advantage of the logical nesting of levels of abstraction. This >>> > makes sense to me. >>> > (2) Nesting the directories (but not the gradle targets or module >>> > names?). Here I'm not so sure about the benefit, especially vs. the >>> > cost. >>> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 8:38 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: >>> >> I think that the fact that SQL uses some other internal dependency >>> >> should remain hidden implementation detail. I absolutely agree that >>> the >>> >> dependency should of course remain sdks-java-sql in all cases. >>> >> >>> >> Jan >>> >> >>> >> On 12/1/18 12:54 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> >>> I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I see this module structure >>> >>> as a tool for discoverability and enumerating end-user endpoints. In >>> >>> other words, if one wants to use SQL, it would seem odd to have to >>> >>> depend on sdks-java-euphoria-sql rather than just sdks-java-sql if >>> >>> sdks-java-euphoria is also a DSL one might use. A sibling >>> relationship >>> >>> does not prohibit the layered approach to implementation that sounds >>> >>> like it makes sense. >>> >>> >>> >>> (As for merging Euphoria into core, my initial impression is that's >>> >>> probably a good idea, and something we should consider for 3.0 at the >>> >>> very least.) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:06 PM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Rui, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> yes, there are optimizations that could be added by each layer. The >>> purpose of Euphoria layer actually is not to reorder or modify any user >>> operators that are present in the pipeline (because it might not have >>> enough information to do this), but it can for instance choose between >>> various join implementations (shuffle join, broadcast join, ...) - so the >>> optimizations it can do are more low level. But this plays nicely with the >>> DSL hierarchy - each layer adds a little more restrictions, but can >>> therefore do more optimizations. And I think that the layer between SDK and >>> SQL wouldn't have to support SQL optimizations, it would only have to >>> support way for SQL to express these optimizations. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Jan ---------- Původní e-mail ---------- >>> >>>> Od: Rui Wang <ruw...@google.com> >>> >>>> Komu: dev@beam.apache.org >>> >>>> Datum: 30. 11. 2018 22:43:04 >>> >>>> Předmět: Re: [DISCUSS] Structuring Java based DSLs >>> >>>> >>> >>>> SQL's optimization is another area to consider for integration. SQL >>> optimization includes pushing down filters/projections, merging or removing >>> or swapping plan nodes and comparing plan costs to choose best plan. Add >>> another layer between SQL and java core might need the layer to support SQL >>> optimizations if there is a need. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I don't have a clear image on what SQL needs from Euphoria for >>> optimization(best case is nothing). As those optimizations are happening or >>> will happen, we might start to have a sense of it. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -Rui >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 12:38 PM Robert Bradshaw < >>> rober...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I don't really see Euphoria as a subset of SQL or the other way >>> >>>> around, and I think it makes sense to use either without the other, >>> so >>> >>>> by this criteria keeping them as siblings than a nesting. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> That said, I think it's really good to have a bunch of shared code, >>> >>>> e.g. a join library that could be used by both. One could even >>> depend >>> >>>> on the other without having to abandon the sibling relationship. >>> >>>> Something like retractions belong in the core SDK itself. Deeper >>> than >>> >>>> that, actually, it should be part of the model. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - Robert >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:20 PM David Morávek <d...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Jan, we made Kryo optional recently (it is a separate module and >>> is used only in tests). From a quick look it seems that we forgot to remove >>> compile time dependency from euphoria's build.gradle. Only "strong" >>> dependencies I'm aware of are core SDK and guava. We'll be probably adding >>> sketching extension dependency soon. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> D. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:08 PM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Hi Anton, >>> >>>>>> reactions inline. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ---------- Původní e-mail ---------- >>> >>>>>> Od: Anton Kedin <ke...@google.com> >>> >>>>>> Komu: dev@beam.apache.org >>> >>>>>> Datum: 30. 11. 2018 18:17:06 >>> >>>>>> Předmět: Re: [DISCUSS] Structuring Java based DSLs >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I think this approach makes sense in general, Euphoria can be the >>> implementation detail of SQL, similar to Join Library or core SDK Schemas. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I wonder though whether it would be better to bring Euphoria >>> closer to core SDK first, maybe even merge them together. If you look at >>> Reuven's recent work around schemas it seems like there are already >>> similarities between that and Euphoria's approach, unless I'm missing the >>> point (e.g. Filter transforms, FullJoin vs CoGroup... see [2]). And we're >>> already switching parts of SQL to those transforms (e.g. SQL Aggregation is >>> now implemented by core SDK's Group[3]). >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Yes, these transforms seem to be very similar to those Euphoria >>> has. Whether or not to merge Euphoria with core is essentially just a >>> decision of the community (in my point of view). >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Adding explicit Schema support to Euphoria will bring it both >>> closer to core SDK and make it natural to use for SQL. Can this be a first >>> step towards this integration? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Euphoria currently operates on pure PCollections, so when >>> PCollection has a schema, it will be accessible by Euphoria. It makes sense >>> to make use of the schema in Euphoria - it seems natural on inputs to >>> Euphoria operators, but it might be tricky (not saying impossible) to >>> actually produce schema-aware PCollections as outputs from Euphoria >>> operators (generally speaking, in special cases that might be possible). >>> Regarding inputs, there is actually intention to act on type of PCollection >>> - e.g. when PCollection is already of type KV, then it is possible to make >>> key extractor and value extractor optional in Euphoria builders, so it >>> feels natural to enable changing the builders when a schema-aware >>> PCollection, and make use of the provided schema. The rest of Euphoria team >>> might correct me, if I'm wrong. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> One question I have is, does Euphoria bring dependencies that are >>> not needed by SQL, or does more or less only rely on the core SDK? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I think the only relevant dependency that Euphoria has besides >>> core SDK is Kryo. It is the default coder when no coder is provided, but >>> that could be made optional - e.g. the default coder would be supported >>> only if an appropriate module would be available. That way I think that >>> Euphoria has no special dependencies. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/f66eb5fe23b2500b396e6f711cdf4aeef6b31ab8/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/schemas/transforms/Group.java#L73 >>> >>>>>> [2] >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/f66eb5fe23b2500b396e6f711cdf4aeef6b31ab8/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/schemas/transforms >>> >>>>>> [3] >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/f66eb5fe23b2500b396e6f711cdf4aeef6b31ab8/sdks/java/extensions/sql/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/extensions/sql/impl/rel/BeamAggregationRel.java#L179 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 6:29 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Hi community, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I'm part of Euphoria DSL team, and on behalf of this team, I'd >>> like to >>> >>>>>> discuss possible development of Java based DSLs currently present >>> in >>> >>>>>> Beam. In my knowledge, there are currently two DSLs based on Java >>> SDK - >>> >>>>>> Euphoria and SQL. These DSLs currently share only the SDK itself, >>> >>>>>> although there might be room to share some more effort. We >>> already know >>> >>>>>> that both Euphoria and SQL have need for retractions, but there >>> are >>> >>>>>> probably many more features that these two could share. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> So, I'd like to open a discussion on what it would cost and what >>> it >>> >>>>>> would possibly bring, if instead of the current structure >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Java SDK >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> | ---- SQL >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> | ---- Euphoria >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> these DSLs would be structured as >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Java SDK ---> Euphoria ---> SQL >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I'm absolutely sure that this would be a great investment and a >>> huge >>> >>>>>> change, but I'd like to gather some opinions and general feelings >>> of the >>> >>>>>> community about this. Some points to start the discussion from my >>> side >>> >>>>>> would be, that structuring DSLs like this has internal logical >>> >>>>>> consistency, because each API layer further narrows completeness, >>> but >>> >>>>>> brings simpler API for simpler tasks, while adding additional >>> high-level >>> >>>>>> view of the data processing pipeline and thus enabling more >>> >>>>>> optimizations. On Euphoria side, these are various >>> implementations joins >>> >>>>>> (most effective implementation depends on data), pipeline >>> sampling and >>> >>>>>> more. Some (or maybe most) of these optimizations would have to be >>> >>>>>> implemented in both DSLs, so implementing them once is beneficial. >>> >>>>>> Another benefit is that this would bring Euphoria "closer" to >>> Beam core >>> >>>>>> development (which would be good, it is part of the project >>> anyway, >>> >>>>>> right? :)) and help better drive features, that although currently >>> >>>>>> needed mostly by SQL, might be needed by other Java users anyway. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks for discussion and looking forward to any opinions. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Jan >>> >>>>>> >>> >>
