I agree, let’s drive from the SQL standard or what other databases do, rather than driving from what Java has. If other DBs support a particular function, and are consistent, then that is a good argument for adding it to Calcite.
I rather like the way that we categorize extensions into “libraries” - allowing people to enable functions compatible with a particular DB - so let’s continue doing that. > On Jan 6, 2020, at 12:35 PM, Rui Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Most of those functions are not mentioned in SQL standard 2011. So It's a > good idea to decide if implementing a function by checking if other systems > provide it. Thanks for putting those together into the spreadsheet! > > > > -Rui > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 11:03 PM Chunwei Lei <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for proposing this, Forward. >> >> IMHO, we can implement functions that are supported by major vendors. >> As for others, we can implement it when there is a need. >> >> Best, >> Chunwei >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:38 AM Forward Xu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd like to kick off a discussion on Enhanced MATH functions in calcite. >>> >>> >>> >>> I recently checked java's math function and found that some functions in >>> calcite are not supported. So I made some comparisons with some commonly >>> used databases to discuss whether these functions need to be supported. >> The >>> comparison details are in [2]. And built an umbrella jira for this [1]. >>> >>> >>> >>> Would love to hear your thoughts. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Forward >>> >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3683 >>> >>> [2] >>> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q6Mj1ub-etyE0dbwvsaLquy6bz_fKuFX0vU3mGn8QKA/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>
