Re: type name changes

2016-10-18 Thread Mike Carey
Agreed that this is a needed consistency correction and should be benign. I think our first top level project release, with SQL++ and other goodies, should be the point beyond which such changes are no longer okay I think this is "last call" for data-impacting changes. Henceforth we'll need

Re: type name changes

2016-10-18 Thread Taewoo Kim
Thanks for the clarification. Best, Taewoo On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Yingyi Bu wrote: > >> I'm just worried about the backward compatibility. > >> If we change the definition (before:int for int64, after:int for integer > >> (int32)) and outside users that Mike

Re: type name changes

2016-10-18 Thread Yingyi Bu
>> I'm just worried about the backward compatibility. >> If we change the definition (before:int for int64, after:int for integer >> (int32)) and outside users that Mike mentioned did not have numbers greater >> than INT32 range, I think it's OK. As I said, if they have created a dataset using

Re: type name changes

2016-10-18 Thread Yingyi Bu
Taewoo, >> So, can we use "int" for "bigint" to be consistent? That's not what other SQL systems do. We probably don't want to create new conventions (or surprises) in this area. Just FYI. Hive:

Re: type name changes

2016-10-18 Thread Taewoo Kim
I understood that other SQL based systems have int and bigint. What we used was "int" for "int64". I'm just worried about the backward compatibility. If we change the definition (before:int for int64, after:int for integer (int32)) and outside users that Mike mentioned did not have numbers greater

Re: type name changes

2016-10-18 Thread Taewoo Kim
So, can we use "int" for "bigint" to be consistent? Best, Taewoo On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Yingyi Bu wrote: > >>Actually I think Taewoo is right about having supported int as an int64 > >>synonym in ADM. > > Ahh, just checked an old version and you're right! > > >>

Re: type name changes

2016-10-18 Thread Yingyi Bu
>>Actually I think Taewoo is right about having supported int as an int64 >>synonym in ADM. Ahh, just checked an old version and you're right! >> But I think the revised 101 examples used int, no? Yes, they use int. >> We should just check so we know if we need to warn them when >> we

Re: type name changes

2016-10-18 Thread Mike Carey
Actually I think Taewoo is right about having supported int as an int64 synonym in ADM. However, apparently this change didn't break any tests, so we probably didn't have anything whose outputs were changed. But I think the revised 101 examples used int, no? Not sure if any of our users had

Re: type name changes

2016-10-17 Thread Yingyi Bu
>> We used int for the abbreviation >> for INT64 (I assume that is now bigint?) type. Now, INT is an abbreviation >> for INT32? We didn't have "int" as a type name. A constant integer value by default was an int64. That's unchanged. Now, a constant integer value by default is a bigint. >>