+1 (non-binding)
Thanks.
--Yongjun
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 9:58 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 18:41, Lars Volker wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 18:36 Brock Noland wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Jim
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:13 PM Yongjun Zhang wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Yongjun
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 9:58 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 18:41, Lars Volker wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > On Sun,
I think I agree with Lars. Having the (mostly) Hive-compatible version is
useful if there are shared views between Hive/Impala and for people
migrating queries from Hive or some of the Impala JSON UDFs that I've seen
floating around.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Lars Volker wrote:
> Thanks
Thanks for the comprehensive summary, Quanlong.
I'm in favor of (c) but I don't feel strongly about the order in which we
should prioritize them. Being compatible to Hive and following the SQL
standard will help users to switch more easily between systems. I'm not
worried about the confusing
+1 for option c
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Tim Armstrong
wrote:
> I think I agree with Lars. Having the (mostly) Hive-compatible version is
> useful if there are shared views between Hive/Impala and for people
> migrating queries from Hive or some of the Impala JSON UDFs that I've seen
>
Hi all,
Recently, I'm working on a patch to add a built-in function for parsing
JSON strings and extracting values in them:
https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/10950. We've not reached an agreement on
the name of this function. So I reach here for a broader discussion.
*-- Background --*
Hive has a
