Ur, I mean Tajo is focusing on features, not for a specific benchmark. I have no other intention such a thing you mentioned. If it looks like that, it's my fault due to English writing skill.
As you said in this email, WITH/IN/EXIST/scalar subquery will almost finish TPC-DS. I knew that. Moreover, you advised me to make TPC-DS wiki page, too. So, I 'GUESSED' and 'BELIEVE' in the first email in this thread. I know you and Tajo community consider TPC-DS for a long time before. (according to the Jira issues.) What I wanted here is to know Tajo maturity clearly and officially. I thought Tajo can do that proudly. Warmly, Dongjoon. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> wrote: > TPC-DS is just a benchmark, and it is not test sets. For just test > cases, why should we aim at TPC-DS? They are not proper as well as are > overkill for this purpose. > > > For the TPC-DS, Tajo PMC doesn't make any committment in Roadmap already. > > > TPC-DS does not mean anything to TAJO roadmap. > > They are NOT TRUE. As you already know, WITH, IN/EXIST subquery, and > scalar subquery are already on our roadmap. If they are supported, > most of TPC-DS queries will work naturally. I'm concerning with your > intension, saying we do not consider TPC-DS. > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hyunsik, TPC-DS is not important. It's just a way to see Tajo Maturity > as a > > SQL engine. TPC-DS does not mean anything to TAJO roadmap. > > > > More specifically, the importance is the same with TPC-H, however Tajo > > handled TPC-H well now, doesn't it? So, we need just another testsuite to > > see how Tajo handle SQL(including WITH/IN/EXISTS) clause well. I think > you > > agree that in TAJO-1410. > > > > TPC defines > > - TPC-H: TPC-H is an ad-hoc, decision support benchmark. > > - TPC-DS: TPC Benchmark™DS (TPC-DS): The New Decision Support Benchmark > > Standard > > > > In these days, TPC-DS is replacing the ancient TPC-H from real site > > customers. > > The main reason is based on the lack of TPC-H. TPC-H became a basic > level. > > > > Could you tell me if you have some other testcases in mind, except > TPC-DS? > > > > Dongjoon. > > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Could you tell me why you think TPC-DS is important? > >> > >> On Saturday, March 21, 2015, Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Oh, that was an expression of my regret about my weak pull-requests. > >> There > >> > exists no offence. It's a duty. I hope you didn't waste your time much > >> due > >> > to my stupid learning cost. > >> > > >> > After Hyunsik's direct advice, I have studied Tajo Jira more and > >> understand > >> > what you mean slightly more. Now I understand many speedup issues, > e.g. > >> > offheap-based scanner, zero-copy physical layer processing. For > newbies > >> > like me, we need more men like you. > >> > > >> > For the TPC-DS, Tajo PMC doesn't make any committment in Roadmap > >> already. I > >> > respect the current roadmap. You need not worry about that. It's my > >> > personal hope as I mentioned before in this mailing list. Here is more > >> > recent another report about TPC-DS. (It's consistent with the report > >> shared > >> > by Hyunsik.) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > https://developer.ibm.com/hadoop/blog/2014/12/02/big-sql-3-0-hadoop-ds-benchmark-performance-isnt-everything/ > >> > > >> > > >> > Thank you all. > >> > > >> > Warmly, > >> > Dongjoon. > >> > > >> >
