That was my first attempt and it worked, but Julian pointed out that I can
support a type without modifying the parser (which I prefer) but I couldn't
get it to return the column type name as I wish.
Thanks,
Gelbana
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:13 AM Yuzhao Chen wrote:
> You don’t need to, just
found some efforts in bringing sql to machine learning world.
https://github.com/sql-machine-learning/sqlflow/blob/develop/doc/syntax.md
any comments ?
--
~~~
no mistakes
~~
Oh, I see a big hammer, thanks Daniel !
Best,
Danny Chan
在 2019年6月3日 +0800 AM6:21，Daniel Gruno ，写道：
> Found it!
>
> http://humbedooh.com/calcite-proposed.svg
>
> Thanks, Wayback Machine!
>
> On 19/05/2019 10.01, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We started this discussion about a
You don’t need to, just define a new type name in parser[1] and translate it to
VARCHAR is okey.
[1]
https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/b0e83c469ff57257c1ea621ff943ca76f626a9b7/server/src/main/codegen/config.fmpp#L375
Best,
Danny Chan
在 2019年6月3日 +0800 AM6:09，Muhammad Gelbana ，写道：
> That I
Found it!
http://humbedooh.com/calcite-proposed.svg
Thanks, Wayback Machine!
On 19/05/2019 10.01, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:
Hi all,
We started this discussion about a year ago and many people were
positive with the idea of having a new logo for Calcite.
We had some nice proposals at the
That I understand now. But how can I support casting to TEXT and having the
returned column type name as TEXT (ie. Not VARCHAR) ?
Thanks,
Gelbana
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:41 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> The parser should only parse, not validate. This is a very important
> organizing principle for
The parser should only parse, not validate. This is a very important organizing
principle for the parser.
If I write “x :: text” or “x :: foo” it is up to the type system (implemented
in the validator and elsewhere) to figure out whether “text” or “foo” are valid
types.
Logically, “x :: foo”
I'm trying to support the PostgreSQL TEXT type[1]. It's basically a VARCHAR.
As Julian mentioned in his comment on Jira, I don't need to define a
keyword to achieve what I need so I tried exploring that and here is what I
observed so far:
1. If I define a new keyword in the parser, I face no
