Sure Shuyu,
What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon as
possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and ours. Once
Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the those
differences, and see how far away towards a unified design.
WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can design
it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We
should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of DDL
implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher priority on
the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user
experience of SQL_CLI.
Regards,
Shaoxuan
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <suez1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely collaborate
> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in production for
> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both companies, we
> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better.
>
> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks about the
> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them into one,
> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, we should
> take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. What do
> you guys think?
>
> Shuyi
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Shaoxuan,
> >
> > I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We will prepare
> it
> > in the next few days.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jark
> >
> > Shaoxuan Wang <wshaox...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道：
> >
> > > Hi Lin and Jark,
> > > Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider summarizing
> > your
> > > DDL design into a google doc.
> > > We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. But having a
> > > separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to
> > understand/comment/discuss
> > > on your proposed DDL implementation.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Shaoxuan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Shuyi,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome work! I have
> > left
> > > > some comments in the doc.
> > > >
> > > > I want to share something more about the watermark definition learned
> > > from
> > > > Alibaba.
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > >
> > > > Table should be able to accept multiple watermark definition.
> > > >
> > > > Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. For example,
> > one
> > > > rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some records,
> > > > another
> > > > is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very accurate. In this
> > > case,
> > > > user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in the Table
> and
> > > > choose
> > > > one in different situation.
> > > > 2.
> > > >
> > > > Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field together.
> > > >
> > > > Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should combine the
> > > > watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which existing
> > field
> > > > used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can define
> > multiple
> > > > watermarks in one Table.
> > > >
> > > > Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba (simply
> > modified):
> > > >
> > > > watermarkDefinition:
> > > > WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS wm_strategy
> > > >
> > > > wm_strategy:
> > > > BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit
> > > > |
> > > > ASCENDING
> > > >
> > > > The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The “FOR”
> > keyword
> > > > defines which existing field used to generate watermark, this field
> > > should
> > > > already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to derive
> from
> > > > other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, such as
> > > BOUNDED
> > > > WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and ASCENDING.
> > > >
> > > > When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the schema, we can
> > use
> > > > computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing fields using
> > > > built-in functions or user defined functions. So the
> rowtime/watermark
> > > > definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” strategy
> > > > (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition can also
> be
> > > > defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() which
> defines a
> > > > proctime field named “pt” in the schema.
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to working with you guys!
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Jark Wu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lin Li <lincoln.8...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道：
> > > >
> > > > > @Shuyi
> > > > > Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL implementation
> > (extends
> > > > > Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years on
> > production
> > > > and
> > > > > works well.
> > > > > I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping simplicity
> and
> > > > > standard compliance.
> > > > > Here's the approximate grammar, FYI
> > > > > CREATE TABLE
> > > > >
> > > > > CREATE TABLE tableName(
> > > > > columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]*
> > > > > [ computedColumnDefinition [, computedColumnDefinition]* ]
> > > > > [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ]
> > > > > [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ]
> > > > > [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ]
> > > > > [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS
> > > > > withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( tableOption [ ,
> > > > > tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ]
> > > > >
> > > > > columnDefinition ::=
> > > > > columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ]
> > > > >
> > > > > dataType ::=
> > > > > {
> > > > > [ VARCHAR ]
> > > > > | [ BOOLEAN ]
> > > > > | [ TINYINT ]
> > > > > | [ SMALLINT ]
> > > > > | [ INT ]
> > > > > | [ BIGINT ]
> > > > > | [ FLOAT ]
> > > > > | [ DECIMAL ]
> > > > > | [ DOUBLE ]
> > > > > | [ DATE ]
> > > > > | [ TIME ]
> > > > > | [ TIMESTAMP ]
> > > > > | [ VARBINARY ]
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > computedColumnDefinition ::=
> > > > > columnName AS computedColumnExpression
> > > > >
> > > > > tableConstraint ::=
> > > > > { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE }
> > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* )
> > > > >
> > > > > tableIndex ::=
> > > > > [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName
> > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* )
> > > > >
> > > > > rowTimeColumn ::=
> > > > > columnName
> > > > >
> > > > > tableOption ::=
> > > > > property=value
> > > > > offset ::=
> > > > > positive integer (unit: ms)
> > > > >
> > > > > CREATE VIEW
> > > > >
> > > > > CREATE VIEW viewName
> > > > > [
> > > > > ( columnName [, columnName]* )
> > > > > ]
> > > > > AS queryStatement;
> > > > >
> > > > > CREATE FUNCTION
> > > > >
> > > > > CREATE FUNCTION functionName
> > > > > AS 'className';
> > > > >
> > > > > className ::=
> > > > > fully qualified name
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Shuyi Chen <suez1...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can finalize the
> > design
> > > > doc
> > > > > > first and start implementation w/o the unified connector API
> ready
> > by
> > > > > > skipping some featue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific properties into
> > > generic
> > > > > > key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with Hive DDL
> (or
> > > > > others,
> > > > > > e.g. Beam DDL) easier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize the design
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > next few days. And we can start creating tasks and collaborate on
> > the
> > > > > > implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and inputs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers!
> > > > > > Shuyi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu <
> > > xuef...@alibaba-inc.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed w/o being
> > > > blocked
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > connector API. We can leave the unknown out while defining the
> > > basic
> > > > > > syntax.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Shuyi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As commented in the doc, I think we can probably stick with
> > simple
> > > > > syntax
> > > > > > > with general properties, without extending the syntax too much
> > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > > mimics the descriptor API.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also to make
> DDL
> > > > syntax
> > > > > > > compatible with Hive's. The one in the current proposal seems
> > > making
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > effort more challenging.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think we can
> > > finalize
> > > > on
> > > > > > > the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for better
> > > > collaboration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please let me know if there are any questions or suggestions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Xuefu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Sender:Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21
> > > > > > > Recipient:dev <dev@flink.apache.org>
> > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would be great to
> > > move
> > > > > > > these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is somehow releated
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > unified connector API design but we can also start with the
> basic
> > > > > > > functionality now and evolve the DDL during this release and
> next
> > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax that skips
> > > defining
> > > > > > > key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This DDL could
> be
> > > > used
> > > > > > > for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL queries (no time
> > > > > > > operations like windows).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The unified connector API is high on our priority list for the
> > 1.8
> > > > > > > release. I will try to update the document until mid of next
> > week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Timo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen:
> > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other stuff for the
> > > last 2
> > > > > > > weeks,
> > > > > > > > but we are definitely interested in moving this forward. I
> > think
> > > > once
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > unified connector API design [1] is done, we can finalize the
> > DDL
> > > > > > design
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > well and start creating concrete subtasks to collaborate on
> the
> > > > > > > > implementation with the community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Shuyi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu <
> > > > > xuef...@alibaba-inc.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hi Shuyi,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I'm wondering if you folks still have the bandwidth working
> on
> > > > this.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> We have some dedicated resource and like to move this
> forward.
> > > We
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> collaborate.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Xuefu
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<wenlong88....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35
> > > > > > > >> 收件人：<dev@flink.apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I have two concerns about the table ddl:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the ddl,
> because
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> necessary, the framework determine the table referred is a
> > > source
> > > > > or a
> > > > > > > sink
> > > > > > > >> according to the context of the query using the table. it
> will
> > > be
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> convenient for use defining a table which can be both a
> source
> > > and
> > > > > > sink,
> > > > > > > >> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and manage the
> > > meta
> > > > > > infos.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as parameters
> > for
> > > > > table,
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable (
> > > > > > > >> intField INTEGER,
> > > > > > > >> stringField VARCHAR(128),
> > > > > > > >> longField BIGINT,
> > > > > > > >> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP
> > > > > > > >> ) with (
> > > > > > > >> connector.type = ’kafka’,
> > > > > > > >> connector.property-version = ’1’,
> > > > > > > >> connector.version = ’0.10’,
> > > > > > > >> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’,
> > > > > > > >> connector.properties.startup-mode = ‘latest-offset’,
> > > > > > > >> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’,
> > > > > > > >> format.type = 'json'
> > > > > > > >> format.prperties.version=’1’,
> > > > > > > >> format.derive-schema = 'true'
> > > > > > > >> );
> > > > > > > >> Because:
> > > > > > > >> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map
> properties,
> > > > > defining
> > > > > > > >> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to mapping
> how
> > > > user
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> parameters.
> > > > > > > >> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, like what
> is
> > > done
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > >> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in connector or
> > > format
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> different in different implementation, we can not restrict
> the
> > > key
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope and a map
> > in
> > > > > > > >> connector.properties scope. why not just give user a single
> > map,
> > > > let
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > >> put parameters in a format they like, which is also the
> > simplest
> > > > way
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> implement DDL parser.
> > > > > > > >> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, depends on
> > the
> > > > > > > >> implementation of the connector, using different clause in
> DDL
> > > may
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> misunderstanding that we can combine the connectors with
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > formats,
> > > > > > > >> which may not work actually.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński <
> > wos...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> +1, Thanks for the proposal.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can vastly
> > increase
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be possible to
> > use
> > > > > > complex
> > > > > > > >>> extensions like for example those provided by Apache
> > Bahir[1].
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Best Regards,
> > > > > > > >>> Dom.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> [1]
> > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong <walter...@gmail.com>
> > > > > napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together Shuyi.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times previously
> > [1,2].
> > > > > > > >> Utilizing
> > > > > > > >>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the current
> > Flink
> > > > SQL
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>> systematically support some of the previously brought up
> > > > features
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > >>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the document
> > > closely
> > > > > > > aligned
> > > > > > > >>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL connector API
> > > [4].
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking forward to
> > the
> > > > > > > alignment
> > > > > > > >>>> with the other couple of efforts and contributing to them!
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>>> Rong
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> [1]
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > > > > > > >>>> [2]
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E
> > > > > > > >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003
> > > > > > > >>>> [4]
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3c6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88...@apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li <
> > bowenl...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks Shuyi!
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design of SQL DDL
> > and
> > > > > > > >>> Flink-Hive
> > > > > > > >>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will work
> closely
> > > > with
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > > >>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the directions of the
> > two
> > > > > > designs,
> > > > > > > >>>> and I
> > > > > > > >>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both!
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Bowen
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen <
> > > suez1...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from the
> > community.
> > > > > > > >> Current
> > > > > > > >>>>> Flink
> > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT
> statements).
> > In
> > > > its
> > > > > > > >>>> current
> > > > > > > >>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to define/create table
> > > > sources
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>> sinks
> > > > > > > >>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL Client,
> > without
> > > > DDL
> > > > > > > >>>> support,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the current implementation does not allow dynamical
> > creation
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> table,
> > > > > > > >>>>> type
> > > > > > > >>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for its
> > adoption.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other community
> > > members
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>>> proposes
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL support in
> > > Flink.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > >>>>> initial
> > > > > > > >>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, library and
> > > > > function.
> > > > > > > >> It
> > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from the
> community,
> > > and
> > > > > > > >> align
> > > > > > > >>>> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] and Flink
> > > Hive
> > > > > > > >>>>> integration
> > > > > > > >>>>>> [3].
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Shuyi Chen
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > >>>>>> [2]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > >>>>>> [3]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>> "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."
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future."
>
