alamb opened a new issue, #8708:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/8708

   ### Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?
   
   ### Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?
   
   For many of the same reasons as listed on 
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/8045, having two types of 
aggregate functions ("built in" -- 
[datafusion](https://docs.rs/datafusion/latest/datafusion/index.html)::[physical_plan](https://docs.rs/datafusion/latest/datafusion/physical_plan/index.html)::[aggregates](https://docs.rs/datafusion/latest/datafusion/physical_plan/aggregates/index.html)::[AggregateFunction](https://docs.rs/datafusion/latest/datafusion/physical_plan/aggregates/enum.AggregateFunction.html#))
 and 
[AggregateUDF](https://docs.rs/datafusion/latest/datafusion/physical_plan/udaf/struct.AggregateUDF.html#)
 is problematic for two reasons:
   
   1. There are some features not available to User Defined Aggregate Functions 
(such as the faster `GroupsAccumulator` interface)
   2. Users can not easily choose which aggregate functions to include (for 
example, do they want to allow (and pay the code size / compile time) for the 
[Statistical](https://arrow.apache.org/datafusion/user-guide/sql/aggregate_functions.html#statistical)
 and 
[Approximate](https://arrow.apache.org/datafusion/user-guide/sql/aggregate_functions.html#approximate)
  functions
   
   The second also ends up causing pushback on adding new aggregates (like 
`ARRAY_SUM` in https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/8325) and 
geospatial support https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/7859. 
   
   ### Describe the solution you'd like
   
   I propose moving DataFusion to **only** use `AggregateUDF`s and remove the 
built in list of AggregateFunctions for the same reasons as 
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/8045
   
   We will keep the existing `AggregateUDF` interface as much as possible, 
while also potentially providing an easier way to define them.
   
   ### Describe alternatives you've considered
   
   ### Additional context
   
   Proposed implementation steps:
   
   - [x] Add trait based Aggregate 
   
   ### Describe the solution you'd like
   
   _No response_
   
   ### Describe alternatives you've considered
   
   _No response_
   
   ### Additional context
   
   _No response_


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to