Thanks Julian! -- Michael Mior [email protected]
-- Michael Mior [email protected] 2018-04-16 2:26 GMT-04:00 Julian Hyde <[email protected]>: > Beam and HerdDB are now on “powered by”: https://calcite.apache.org/ > docs/powered_by.html <https://calcite.apache.org/docs/powered_by.html> > > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 5:33 AM, Michael Mior <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > FYI, I talked to Julian earlier this week and he will be adding Beam to > the > > powered by page since he has a doc for generating the image with the > logos. > > > > -- > > Michael Mior > > [email protected] > > > > 2018-04-12 4:06 GMT-04:00 Shuyi Chen <[email protected]>: > > > >> @Andrew, great to see BEAM is also using Calcite streaming SQL. Maybe > you > >> can help adding an entry in the Calcite powered_by page > >> <https://calcite.apache.org/docs/powered_by.html> for BEAM by editing > >> site/_docs/powered_by.md > >> <https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/657#diff- > >> 1aa810bc92051b46555ee4caf24bd6c3>. > >> Also, > >> can you explain a bit more on how you plan to use streaming SQL to > >> transform > >> arbitrary JSON objects with and w/o the AS STRUCT syntax? > >> For adding DDL in BEAM, please take a look at the server module and the > >> TYPE DDL (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2045) I am > adding. > >> Let me know if you have any comments and need any help. > >> > >> @Rong, I think it's better to conform with the ROW SQL standard, and add > >> new grammar to handle named struct construction. > >> This should work with the TYPE DDL, and we should be able to CAST the > >> created STRUCT as a custom type defined using DDL. > >> > >> @Julian, thanks for the suggestions. I think the AS STRUCT addition > should > >> do it. > >> > >> Shuyi > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:36 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> For what it’s worth, ROW is standard SQL. If it does what you need, we > >>> should use it. > >>> > >>> Reading your case quickly, I perceived that you needed a concise way to > >>> assign field names, and AS STRUCT seemed to do that. > >>> > >>> But staying within the standard is always preferred. BigQuery isn’t > >> always > >>> good at that. > >>> > >>> Julian > >>> > >>>> On Apr 5, 2018, at 10:18, Rong Rong <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the fantastic proposal @shuyi. I think the STRUCT idea is > >>> great > >>>> considering ROW is not standard SQL either. As a user of calcite I > >> have a > >>>> couple questions. > >>>> > >>>> Since ROW constructor is so similar with STRUCT, would it be a good > >> idea > >>> to > >>>> consolidate the two syntax? Or have a clear distinction between? > >>>> > >>>> Whats the relationship going forward with DDL, for example > >> CALCITE-2045. > >>>> DDL seems more flexible in terms of defining the structure not just on > >>>> field names but also field types. Maybe @andrew can share more on the > >> use > >>>> cases on calcite on beam steaming integration? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Rong > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 10:05 AM Andrew Pilloud > >> <[email protected] > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> As a user of Calcite working on adding streaming SQL to Apache Beam > >> this > >>>>> sounds like a fantastic proposal. Our initial goal is to be able to > >> run > >>> SQL > >>>>> queries that transform arbitrary JSON objects. Without this syntax > >>> objects > >>>>> must be flattened when they pass through the transform. Is this > >>> something > >>>>> that might make it into 1.17? > >>>>> > >>>>> We have also had some discussion about adding DDL to Beam so a user > >> can > >>>>> describe the schema of a stream of JSON in pure SQL. Our current > >> though > >>> is > >>>>> to use Big Query compatible STRUCT and ARRAY syntax. Big Query is a > >>> popular > >>>>> sink for our users. Syntax compatible with Big Query would be a big > >> plus > >>>>> for us. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andrew > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:43 AM Shuyi Chen <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> @Michael, @Albert, yes, I dont think it is SQL standard. But I think > >>> it's > >>>>>> very useful in the context of streaming SQL, e.g. Flink SQL, where > >> the > >>>>>> sinks can be a database or endpoints with defined protobuf/thrift > >>> schema. > >>>>>> They usually have complex structure. Supporting complex structure in > >>> SQL > >>>>>> output will make it much easier to write to different sinks with > >>>>> predefined > >>>>>> schemas in a unified way, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> @julian, that's great suggestion, I think instead of extending the > >> ROW > >>>>>> constructor, which is not SQL standard, adding a new extension might > >> be > >>>>> the > >>>>>> right way to go. Looking at the STRUCT big query syntax, we can > >>> implement > >>>>>> something like the following: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> SELECT STRUCT(a as first_name, b as last_name, STRUCT(c as zip code, > >> d > >>> as > >>>>>> street, e as state) as address) as record FROM example_table > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected] > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly, Google BigQuery has SELECT AS STRUCT. It’s > >> not > >>>>>>> standard, but if it does what you need we could consider adopting > >> that > >>>>>>> syntax. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Julian > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2018, at 10:23 AM, Albert <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> if it is not SQL standard, it's just a matter of categorizing it > to > >>>>>> some > >>>>>>>> dialect ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Michael Mior < > [email protected] > >>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Apologies for my silence. I don't really have thoughts on the > >> matter > >>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>> this point. It might be helpful if you can give an example of > what > >>>>>>> you're > >>>>>>>>> proposing. Unless I'm missing something (very possible), it's not > >>>>> part > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> the SQL standard. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Michael Mior > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2018-04-03 18:48 GMT-04:00 Shuyi Chen <[email protected]>: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Friendly ping, any thoughts? Much appreciated. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:59 PM, Shuyi Chen < > >> [email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi community, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I am thinking of adding the following support in Calcite to > >>>>> support > >>>>>>>>> named > >>>>>>>>>>> row construction, e.g. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> SELECT (a as first_name, b as last_name, (c as zip code, d as > >>>>>> street, > >>>>>>> e > >>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>> state) as address) as record FROM example_table > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The output will be struct with field names specified in the > SQL. > >>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>> usage > >>>>>>>>>>> scenario is that say, in streaming SQL, the downstream sink's > >>>>> schema > >>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>> not be changed, so we will need to use SQL to construct a > struct > >>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> proper naming according to the schema in order to write to the > >>>>>>>>> downstream > >>>>>>>>>>> sinks. Thanks a lot. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > your > >>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > >>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>>>>>> no mistakes > >>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > >>> future." > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > future." > >> > >
