[DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
Locked
123
123
 
|
Hi Shuyi,
It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I drafted. This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. But some of features might be not needed in the first version of Flink SQL DDL. So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach agreement ASAP based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version in my opinion (feedbacks are welcome): (1) Table DDL: (1.1) Type definition (1.2) computed column definition (1.3) watermark definition (1.4) with properties (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) (2) View DDL (3) Function DDL The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to point out): *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important difference, it would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. (1.1) Type definition: (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? In most cases, the varchar length is not used because they are stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the future if we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, and just VARCHAR in this version. (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. DECIMAL(12, 5)? If we clearly know the scale and precision of the Decimal, we can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we can support just support DECIMAL in this version, which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support custom scale and precision in the future. (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in doc[2])? What are the properties on the view used for? The features could be supported and discussed in the future: (1) period definition on table (2) Type DDL (3) Index DDL (4) Library DDL (5) Drop statement [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# Cheers, Jark On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sure Shuyu, > What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon as > possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and ours. Once > Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the those > differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can design > it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We > should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of DDL > implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher priority on > the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > experience of SQL_CLI. > > Regards, > Shaoxuan > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely collaborate > > here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in production for > > almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both companies, we > > can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > > > As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks about the > > current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them into > one, > > make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, we should > > take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. What do > > you guys think? > > > > Shuyi > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Shaoxuan, > > > > > > I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We will > prepare > > it > > > in the next few days. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jark > > > > > > Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > > > > > > > Hi Lin and Jark, > > > > Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider summarizing > > > your > > > > DDL design into a google doc. > > > > We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. But > having a > > > > separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > > understand/comment/discuss > > > > on your proposed DDL implementation. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome work! I have > > > left > > > > > some comments in the doc. > > > > > > > > > > I want to share something more about the watermark definition > learned > > > > from > > > > > Alibaba. > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > Table should be able to accept multiple watermark definition. > > > > > > > > > > Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. For > example, > > > one > > > > > rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > records, > > > > > another > > > > > is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very accurate. In > this > > > > case, > > > > > user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in the Table > > and > > > > > choose > > > > > one in different situation. > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field together. > > > > > > > > > > Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should combine > the > > > > > watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which existing > > > field > > > > > used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can define > > > multiple > > > > > watermarks in one Table. > > > > > > > > > > Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba (simply > > > modified): > > > > > > > > > > watermarkDefinition: > > > > > WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS wm_strategy > > > > > > > > > > wm_strategy: > > > > > BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > > > > | > > > > > ASCENDING > > > > > > > > > > The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The “FOR” > > > keyword > > > > > defines which existing field used to generate watermark, this field > > > > should > > > > > already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to derive > > from > > > > > other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, such as > > > > BOUNDED > > > > > WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and ASCENDING. > > > > > > > > > > When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the schema, we > can > > > use > > > > > computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing fields > using > > > > > built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > rowtime/watermark > > > > > definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” strategy > > > > > (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition can > also > > be > > > > > defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() which > > defines a > > > > > proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to working with you guys! > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Jark Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL implementation > > > (extends > > > > > > Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years on > > > production > > > > > and > > > > > > works well. > > > > > > I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping simplicity > > and > > > > > > standard compliance. > > > > > > Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > > > > > CREATE TABLE > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE tableName( > > > > > > columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > > > > > [ computedColumnDefinition [, computedColumnDefinition]* > ] > > > > > > [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > > > > > [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > > > > > [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > > > > > [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > > > > > withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( tableOption [ > , > > > > > > tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > > > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition ::= > > > > > > columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > > > > > > > > > > > dataType ::= > > > > > > { > > > > > > [ VARCHAR ] > > > > > > | [ BOOLEAN ] > > > > > > | [ TINYINT ] > > > > > > | [ SMALLINT ] > > > > > > | [ INT ] > > > > > > | [ BIGINT ] > > > > > > | [ FLOAT ] > > > > > > | [ DECIMAL ] > > > > > > | [ DOUBLE ] > > > > > > | [ DATE ] > > > > > > | [ TIME ] > > > > > > | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > > > > > | [ VARBINARY ] > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > computedColumnDefinition ::= > > > > > > columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > > > > > > > > > > > tableConstraint ::= > > > > > > { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > tableIndex ::= > > > > > > [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > rowTimeColumn ::= > > > > > > columnName > > > > > > > > > > > > tableOption ::= > > > > > > property=value > > > > > > offset ::= > > > > > > positive integer (unit: ms) > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW viewName > > > > > > [ > > > > > > ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > ] > > > > > > AS queryStatement; > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > > > > > AS 'className'; > > > > > > > > > > > > className ::= > > > > > > fully qualified name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can finalize the > > > design > > > > > doc > > > > > > > first and start implementation w/o the unified connector API > > ready > > > by > > > > > > > skipping some featue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific properties into > > > > generic > > > > > > > key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with Hive DDL > > (or > > > > > > others, > > > > > > > e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize the > design > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > next few days. And we can start creating tasks and collaborate > on > > > the > > > > > > > implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and inputs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed w/o > being > > > > > blocked > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > connector API. We can leave the unknown out while defining > the > > > > basic > > > > > > > syntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As commented in the doc, I think we can probably stick with > > > simple > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > with general properties, without extending the syntax too > much > > > that > > > > > it > > > > > > > > mimics the descriptor API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also to make > > DDL > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > compatible with Hive's. The one in the current proposal seems > > > > making > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > effort more challenging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think we can > > > > finalize > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for better > > > > > collaboration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there are any questions or > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > > > > > > > Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would be great > to > > > > move > > > > > > > > these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is somehow > releated > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > unified connector API design but we can also start with the > > basic > > > > > > > > functionality now and evolve the DDL during this release and > > next > > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax that skips > > > > defining > > > > > > > > key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This DDL > could > > be > > > > > used > > > > > > > > for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL queries (no > time > > > > > > > > operations like windows). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The unified connector API is high on our priority list for > the > > > 1.8 > > > > > > > > release. I will try to update the document until mid of next > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other stuff for > the > > > > last 2 > > > > > > > > weeks, > > > > > > > > > but we are definitely interested in moving this forward. I > > > think > > > > > once > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design [1] is done, we can finalize > the > > > DDL > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > well and start creating concrete subtasks to collaborate on > > the > > > > > > > > > implementation with the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I'm wondering if you folks still have the bandwidth > working > > on > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> We have some dedicated resource and like to move this > > forward. > > > > We > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > >> collaborate. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Xuefu > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > >> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > >> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > > > > > > > >> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the ddl, > > because > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > >> necessary, the framework determine the table referred is a > > > > source > > > > > > or a > > > > > > > > sink > > > > > > > > >> according to the context of the query using the table. it > > will > > > > be > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > >> convenient for use defining a table which can be both a > > source > > > > and > > > > > > > sink, > > > > > > > > >> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and manage > the > > > > meta > > > > > > > infos. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > parameters > > > for > > > > > > table, > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > >> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > > > > > > > >> intField INTEGER, > > > > > > > > >> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > > > > > > > >> longField BIGINT, > > > > > > > > >> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > > > > > > > >> ) with ( > > > > > > > > >> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > > > > > > > >> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > > > > > > > >> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.startup-mode = ‘latest-offset’, > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > > > > > > > >> format.type = 'json' > > > > > > > > >> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > > > > > > > >> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > > > > > > > >> ); > > > > > > > > >> Because: > > > > > > > > >> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > properties, > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > >> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to mapping > > how > > > > > user > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> parameters. > > > > > > > > >> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, like what > > is > > > > done > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > >> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in connector or > > > > format > > > > > > can > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> different in different implementation, we can not restrict > > the > > > > key > > > > > > in > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope and a > map > > > in > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties scope. why not just give user a > single > > > map, > > > > > let > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > >> put parameters in a format they like, which is also the > > > simplest > > > > > way > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> implement DDL parser. > > > > > > > > >> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, depends > on > > > the > > > > > > > > >> implementation of the connector, using different clause in > > DDL > > > > may > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> misunderstanding that we can combine the connectors with > > > > arbitrary > > > > > > > > formats, > > > > > > > > >> which may not work actually. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can vastly > > > increase > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be possible > to > > > use > > > > > > > complex > > > > > > > > >>> extensions like for example those provided by Apache > > > Bahir[1]. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > > > > > > >>> Dom. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong <[hidden email]> > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together Shuyi. > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times previously > > > [1,2]. > > > > > > > > >> Utilizing > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the current > > > Flink > > > > > SQL > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >>>> systematically support some of the previously brought up > > > > > features > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > >>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the document > > > > closely > > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > >>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL connector > API > > > > [4]. > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking forward > to > > > the > > > > > > > > alignment > > > > > > > > >>>> with the other couple of efforts and contributing to > them! > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > > > > >>>> Rong > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> [1] > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > >>>> [2] > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > > > > > > > >>>> [4] > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design of SQL > DDL > > > and > > > > > > > > >>> Flink-Hive > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will work > > closely > > > > > with > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > >>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the directions of > the > > > two > > > > > > > designs, > > > > > > > > >>>> and I > > > > > > > > >>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Bowen > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from the > > > community. > > > > > > > > >> Current > > > > > > > > >>>>> Flink > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > statements). > > > In > > > > > its > > > > > > > > >>>> current > > > > > > > > >>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to define/create > table > > > > > sources > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >>>> sinks > > > > > > > > >>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL Client, > > > without > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > >>>> support, > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the current implementation does not allow dynamical > > > creation > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >>> table, > > > > > > > > >>>>> type > > > > > > > > >>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for its > > > adoption. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other community > > > > members > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposes > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL support > in > > > > Flink. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > >>>>> initial > > > > > > > > >>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, library > and > > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > >> It > > > > > > > > >>>> will > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from the > > community, > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> align > > > > > > > > >>>> with > > > > > > > > >>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] and > Flink > > > > Hive > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3]. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1] > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [2] > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3] > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > connect > > > in > > > > > your > > > > > > > > >>>> future." > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > your > > > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi Jark,
Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation of DDL looks good to me. Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create [source/sink] table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" are the major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. @Shuyi, It would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts first. Regards, Shaoxuan On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Shuyi, > > It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I drafted. > This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > But some of features might be not needed in the first version of Flink SQL > DDL. > > So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach agreement ASAP > based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version in my > opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > (1) Table DDL: > (1.1) Type definition > (1.2) computed column definition > (1.3) watermark definition > (1.4) with properties > (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > (2) View DDL > (3) Function DDL > > The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to point > out): > *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important difference, it > would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian Hueske > <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > (1.1) Type definition: > (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > In most cases, the varchar length is not used because they are > stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the future if > we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, and > just VARCHAR in this version. > (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. > DECIMAL(12, 5)? > If we clearly know the scale and precision of the Decimal, we > can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we can > support just support DECIMAL in this version, > which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support custom scale > and precision in the future. > (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in doc[2])? > What are the properties on the view used for? > > > The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > (1) period definition on table > (2) Type DDL > (3) Index DDL > (4) Library DDL > (5) Drop statement > > [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > Cheers, > Jark > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Sure Shuyu, > > What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon as > > possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and ours. > Once > > Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the those > > differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > > > WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can > design > > it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We > > should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of DDL > > implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher priority > on > > the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > > experience of SQL_CLI. > > > > Regards, > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely collaborate > > > here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in production for > > > almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both companies, > we > > > can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > > > > > As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks about the > > > current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them into > > one, > > > make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, we > should > > > take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. What > do > > > you guys think? > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Shaoxuan, > > > > > > > > I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We will > > prepare > > > it > > > > in the next few days. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > > > > > > > > > Hi Lin and Jark, > > > > > Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > summarizing > > > > your > > > > > DDL design into a google doc. > > > > > We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. But > > having a > > > > > separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > > > understand/comment/discuss > > > > > on your proposed DDL implementation. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome work! I > have > > > > left > > > > > > some comments in the doc. > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to share something more about the watermark definition > > learned > > > > > from > > > > > > Alibaba. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > Table should be able to accept multiple watermark definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. For > > example, > > > > one > > > > > > rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > > records, > > > > > > another > > > > > > is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very accurate. In > > this > > > > > case, > > > > > > user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in the > Table > > > and > > > > > > choose > > > > > > one in different situation. > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field together. > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should combine > > the > > > > > > watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > existing > > > > field > > > > > > used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can define > > > > multiple > > > > > > watermarks in one Table. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba (simply > > > > modified): > > > > > > > > > > > > watermarkDefinition: > > > > > > WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS wm_strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > wm_strategy: > > > > > > BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > > > > > | > > > > > > ASCENDING > > > > > > > > > > > > The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The “FOR” > > > > keyword > > > > > > defines which existing field used to generate watermark, this > field > > > > > should > > > > > > already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to derive > > > from > > > > > > other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, such > as > > > > > BOUNDED > > > > > > WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and ASCENDING. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the schema, we > > can > > > > use > > > > > > computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing fields > > using > > > > > > built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > > rowtime/watermark > > > > > > definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” strategy > > > > > > (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition can > > also > > > be > > > > > > defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() which > > > defines a > > > > > > proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to working with you guys! > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Jark Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL implementation > > > > (extends > > > > > > > Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years on > > > > production > > > > > > and > > > > > > > works well. > > > > > > > I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > simplicity > > > and > > > > > > > standard compliance. > > > > > > > Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE tableName( > > > > > > > columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > > > > > > [ computedColumnDefinition [, > computedColumnDefinition]* > > ] > > > > > > > [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > > > > > > [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > > > > > > [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > > > > > > [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > > > > > > withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( tableOption > [ > > , > > > > > > > tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dataType ::= > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > [ VARCHAR ] > > > > > > > | [ BOOLEAN ] > > > > > > > | [ TINYINT ] > > > > > > > | [ SMALLINT ] > > > > > > > | [ INT ] > > > > > > > | [ BIGINT ] > > > > > > > | [ FLOAT ] > > > > > > > | [ DECIMAL ] > > > > > > > | [ DOUBLE ] > > > > > > > | [ DATE ] > > > > > > > | [ TIME ] > > > > > > > | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > > > > > > | [ VARBINARY ] > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > computedColumnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableConstraint ::= > > > > > > > { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableIndex ::= > > > > > > > [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rowTimeColumn ::= > > > > > > > columnName > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableOption ::= > > > > > > > property=value > > > > > > > offset ::= > > > > > > > positive integer (unit: ms) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW viewName > > > > > > > [ > > > > > > > ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > AS queryStatement; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > > > > > > AS 'className'; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > className ::= > > > > > > > fully qualified name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can finalize > the > > > > design > > > > > > doc > > > > > > > > first and start implementation w/o the unified connector API > > > ready > > > > by > > > > > > > > skipping some featue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific properties > into > > > > > generic > > > > > > > > key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with Hive > DDL > > > (or > > > > > > > others, > > > > > > > > e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize the > > design > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > collaborate > > on > > > > the > > > > > > > > implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and inputs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed w/o > > being > > > > > > blocked > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > connector API. We can leave the unknown out while defining > > the > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > syntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As commented in the doc, I think we can probably stick with > > > > simple > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > with general properties, without extending the syntax too > > much > > > > that > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > mimics the descriptor API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also to > make > > > DDL > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > compatible with Hive's. The one in the current proposal > seems > > > > > making > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > effort more challenging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think we can > > > > > finalize > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for better > > > > > > collaboration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there are any questions or > > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > > > > > > > > Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would be > great > > to > > > > > move > > > > > > > > > these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is somehow > > releated > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design but we can also start with the > > > basic > > > > > > > > > functionality now and evolve the DDL during this release > and > > > next > > > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax that > skips > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This DDL > > could > > > be > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL queries (no > > time > > > > > > > > > operations like windows). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The unified connector API is high on our priority list for > > the > > > > 1.8 > > > > > > > > > release. I will try to update the document until mid of > next > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other stuff for > > the > > > > > last 2 > > > > > > > > > weeks, > > > > > > > > > > but we are definitely interested in moving this forward. > I > > > > think > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design [1] is done, we can finalize > > the > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > well and start creating concrete subtasks to collaborate > on > > > the > > > > > > > > > > implementation with the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I'm wondering if you folks still have the bandwidth > > working > > > on > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> We have some dedicated resource and like to move this > > > forward. > > > > > We > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > >> collaborate. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Xuefu > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > >> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > >> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > > > > > > > > >> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the ddl, > > > because > > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > >> necessary, the framework determine the table referred > is a > > > > > source > > > > > > > or a > > > > > > > > > sink > > > > > > > > > >> according to the context of the query using the table. > it > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > >> convenient for use defining a table which can be both a > > > source > > > > > and > > > > > > > > sink, > > > > > > > > > >> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and manage > > the > > > > > meta > > > > > > > > infos. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > parameters > > > > for > > > > > > > table, > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > >> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > > > > > > > > >> intField INTEGER, > > > > > > > > > >> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > > > > > > > > >> longField BIGINT, > > > > > > > > > >> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > > > > > > > > >> ) with ( > > > > > > > > > >> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > > > > > > > > >> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > > > > > > > > >> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.startup-mode = ‘latest-offset’, > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > > > > > > > > >> format.type = 'json' > > > > > > > > > >> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > > > > > > > > >> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > > > > > > > > >> ); > > > > > > > > > >> Because: > > > > > > > > > >> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > > properties, > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > >> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > mapping > > > how > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> parameters. > > > > > > > > > >> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, like > what > > > is > > > > > done > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > >> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in connector > or > > > > > format > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > >> different in different implementation, we can not > restrict > > > the > > > > > key > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > >> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope and a > > map > > > > in > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties scope. why not just give user a > > single > > > > map, > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > >> put parameters in a format they like, which is also the > > > > simplest > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > >> implement DDL parser. > > > > > > > > > >> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, depends > > on > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> implementation of the connector, using different clause > in > > > DDL > > > > > may > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > >> misunderstanding that we can combine the connectors with > > > > > arbitrary > > > > > > > > > formats, > > > > > > > > > >> which may not work actually. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can vastly > > > > increase > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > possible > > to > > > > use > > > > > > > > complex > > > > > > > > > >>> extensions like for example those provided by Apache > > > > Bahir[1]. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > >>> Dom. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together Shuyi. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > previously > > > > [1,2]. > > > > > > > > > >> Utilizing > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > current > > > > Flink > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > >>>> systematically support some of the previously brought > up > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > document > > > > > closely > > > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL connector > > API > > > > > [4]. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking forward > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > > > alignment > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the other couple of efforts and contributing to > > them! > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rong > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > >>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > > > > > > > > >>>> [4] > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design of SQL > > DDL > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >>> Flink-Hive > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will work > > > closely > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > >>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the directions of > > the > > > > two > > > > > > > > designs, > > > > > > > > > >>>> and I > > > > > > > > > >>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Bowen > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from the > > > > community. > > > > > > > > > >> Current > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Flink > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > > statements). > > > > In > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > >>>> current > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to define/create > > table > > > > > > sources > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >>>> sinks > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL Client, > > > > without > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > >>>> support, > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the current implementation does not allow dynamical > > > > creation > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > >>> table, > > > > > > > > > >>>>> type > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for its > > > > adoption. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > community > > > > > members > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposes > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL support > > in > > > > > Flink. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > >>>>> initial > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, library > > and > > > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > > >> It > > > > > > > > > >>>> will > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from the > > > community, > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> align > > > > > > > > > >>>> with > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] and > > Flink > > > > > Hive > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3]. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3] > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > connect > > > > in > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > >>>> future." > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > > your > > > > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > future." > > > > > > |
|
|
Hi Shaoxuan,
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create table is the another major difference. Summarize the main differences again: *(1) watermark definition *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE (3) View DDL with properties (4) Type Definition Best, Jark On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Jark, > Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation of DDL > looks good to me. > Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create [source/sink] > table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" are the > major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. @Shuyi, It > would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts first. > > Regards, > Shaoxuan > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I drafted. > > This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > But some of features might be not needed in the first version of Flink > SQL > > DDL. > > > > So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach agreement > ASAP > > based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > > And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > > > The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version in > my > > opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > (1) Table DDL: > > (1.1) Type definition > > (1.2) computed column definition > > (1.3) watermark definition > > (1.4) with properties > > (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > (2) View DDL > > (3) Function DDL > > > > The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to > point > > out): > > *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important difference, it > > would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian Hueske > > <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > (1.1) Type definition: > > (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > > In most cases, the varchar length is not used because they are > > stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the future > if > > we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, and > > just VARCHAR in this version. > > (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. > > DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > If we clearly know the scale and precision of the Decimal, we > > can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we can > > support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support custom > scale > > and precision in the future. > > (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in > doc[2])? > > What are the properties on the view used for? > > > > > > The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > > (1) period definition on table > > (2) Type DDL > > (3) Index DDL > > (4) Library DDL > > (5) Drop statement > > > > [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > > > Cheers, > > Jark > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Sure Shuyu, > > > What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon as > > > possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and ours. > > Once > > > Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the those > > > differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > > > > > WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can > > design > > > it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We > > > should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of DDL > > > implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > priority > > on > > > the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > > > experience of SQL_CLI. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > collaborate > > > > here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in production > for > > > > almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > companies, > > we > > > > can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > > > > > > > As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks about > the > > > > current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them into > > > one, > > > > make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, we > > should > > > > take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. What > > do > > > > you guys think? > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Shaoxuan, > > > > > > > > > > I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We will > > > prepare > > > > it > > > > > in the next few days. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > > > Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lin and Jark, > > > > > > Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > > summarizing > > > > > your > > > > > > DDL design into a google doc. > > > > > > We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. But > > > having a > > > > > > separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > > > > understand/comment/discuss > > > > > > on your proposed DDL implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome work! I > > have > > > > > left > > > > > > > some comments in the doc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to share something more about the watermark definition > > > learned > > > > > > from > > > > > > > Alibaba. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. For > > > example, > > > > > one > > > > > > > rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > > > records, > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very accurate. > In > > > this > > > > > > case, > > > > > > > user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in the > > Table > > > > and > > > > > > > choose > > > > > > > one in different situation. > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > combine > > > the > > > > > > > watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > > existing > > > > > field > > > > > > > used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > define > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > watermarks in one Table. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba (simply > > > > > modified): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > watermarkDefinition: > > > > > > > WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS wm_strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wm_strategy: > > > > > > > BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > ASCENDING > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > “FOR” > > > > > keyword > > > > > > > defines which existing field used to generate watermark, this > > field > > > > > > should > > > > > > > already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > derive > > > > from > > > > > > > other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > such > > as > > > > > > BOUNDED > > > > > > > WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and ASCENDING. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the schema, > we > > > can > > > > > use > > > > > > > computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing fields > > > using > > > > > > > built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > > > rowtime/watermark > > > > > > > definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” strategy > > > > > > > (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition can > > > also > > > > be > > > > > > > defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() which > > > > defines a > > > > > > > proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to working with you guys! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Jark Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL implementation > > > > > (extends > > > > > > > > Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years on > > > > > production > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > works well. > > > > > > > > I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > > simplicity > > > > and > > > > > > > > standard compliance. > > > > > > > > Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE tableName( > > > > > > > > columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > > > > > > > [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > computedColumnDefinition]* > > > ] > > > > > > > > [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > > > > > > > [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > > > > > > > [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > > > > > > > [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > > > > > > > withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > tableOption > > [ > > > , > > > > > > > > tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > > columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dataType ::= > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > [ VARCHAR ] > > > > > > > > | [ BOOLEAN ] > > > > > > > > | [ TINYINT ] > > > > > > > > | [ SMALLINT ] > > > > > > > > | [ INT ] > > > > > > > > | [ BIGINT ] > > > > > > > > | [ FLOAT ] > > > > > > > > | [ DECIMAL ] > > > > > > > > | [ DOUBLE ] > > > > > > > > | [ DATE ] > > > > > > > > | [ TIME ] > > > > > > > > | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > > > > > > > | [ VARBINARY ] > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > computedColumnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > > columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableConstraint ::= > > > > > > > > { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableIndex ::= > > > > > > > > [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rowTimeColumn ::= > > > > > > > > columnName > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableOption ::= > > > > > > > > property=value > > > > > > > > offset ::= > > > > > > > > positive integer (unit: ms) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW viewName > > > > > > > > [ > > > > > > > > ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > AS queryStatement; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > > > > > > > AS 'className'; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > className ::= > > > > > > > > fully qualified name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can finalize > > the > > > > > design > > > > > > > doc > > > > > > > > > first and start implementation w/o the unified connector > API > > > > ready > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > skipping some featue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific properties > > into > > > > > > generic > > > > > > > > > key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with Hive > > DDL > > > > (or > > > > > > > > others, > > > > > > > > > e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize the > > > design > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > collaborate > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > inputs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed w/o > > > being > > > > > > > blocked > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > defining > > > the > > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > syntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As commented in the doc, I think we can probably stick > with > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > > with general properties, without extending the syntax too > > > much > > > > > that > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > mimics the descriptor API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also to > > make > > > > DDL > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > > compatible with Hive's. The one in the current proposal > > seems > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > effort more challenging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think we > can > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for better > > > > > > > collaboration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there are any questions or > > > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > > > > > > > > > Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would be > > great > > > to > > > > > > move > > > > > > > > > > these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is somehow > > > releated > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design but we can also start with > the > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > functionality now and evolve the DDL during this release > > and > > > > next > > > > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax that > > skips > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This DDL > > > could > > > > be > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL queries > (no > > > time > > > > > > > > > > operations like windows). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The unified connector API is high on our priority list > for > > > the > > > > > 1.8 > > > > > > > > > > release. I will try to update the document until mid of > > next > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other stuff > for > > > the > > > > > > last 2 > > > > > > > > > > weeks, > > > > > > > > > > > but we are definitely interested in moving this > forward. > > I > > > > > think > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > finalize > > > the > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > well and start creating concrete subtasks to > collaborate > > on > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > implementation with the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> I'm wondering if you folks still have the bandwidth > > > working > > > > on > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> We have some dedicated resource and like to move this > > > > forward. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > >> collaborate. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > >> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > >> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > > > > > > > > > >> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the ddl, > > > > because > > > > > > it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > >> necessary, the framework determine the table referred > > is a > > > > > > source > > > > > > > > or a > > > > > > > > > > sink > > > > > > > > > > >> according to the context of the query using the table. > > it > > > > will > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > >> convenient for use defining a table which can be both > a > > > > source > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > sink, > > > > > > > > > > >> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > manage > > > the > > > > > > meta > > > > > > > > > infos. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > > parameters > > > > > for > > > > > > > > table, > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > >> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > > > > > > > > > >> intField INTEGER, > > > > > > > > > > >> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > > > > > > > > > >> longField BIGINT, > > > > > > > > > > >> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > > > > > > > > > >> ) with ( > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.startup-mode = ‘latest-offset’, > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > > > > > > > > > >> format.type = 'json' > > > > > > > > > > >> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > > > > > > > > > >> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > > > > > > > > > >> ); > > > > > > > > > > >> Because: > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > > > properties, > > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > >> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > > mapping > > > > how > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> parameters. > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, like > > what > > > > is > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > > >> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > connector > > or > > > > > > format > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > >> different in different implementation, we can not > > restrict > > > > the > > > > > > key > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > >> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > and a > > > map > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties scope. why not just give user a > > > single > > > > > map, > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > >> put parameters in a format they like, which is also > the > > > > > simplest > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> implement DDL parser. > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > depends > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> implementation of the connector, using different > clause > > in > > > > DDL > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > >> misunderstanding that we can combine the connectors > with > > > > > > arbitrary > > > > > > > > > > formats, > > > > > > > > > > >> which may not work actually. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > vastly > > > > > increase > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > possible > > > to > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > complex > > > > > > > > > > >>> extensions like for example those provided by Apache > > > > > Bahir[1]. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dom. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together Shuyi. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > previously > > > > > [1,2]. > > > > > > > > > > >> Utilizing > > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > > current > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >>>> systematically support some of the previously > brought > > up > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > document > > > > > > closely > > > > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > connector > > > API > > > > > > [4]. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > forward > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > alignment > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the other couple of efforts and contributing to > > > them! > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rong > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [4] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design of > SQL > > > DDL > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > >>> Flink-Hive > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will work > > > > closely > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the directions > of > > > the > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > designs, > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and I > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Bowen > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from the > > > > > community. > > > > > > > > > > >> Current > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Flink > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > > > statements). > > > > > In > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > >>>> current > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to define/create > > > table > > > > > > > sources > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sinks > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > Client, > > > > > without > > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > > >>>> support, > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > dynamical > > > > > creation > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > >>> table, > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> type > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for its > > > > > adoption. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > community > > > > > > members > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposes > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > support > > > in > > > > > > Flink. > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> initial > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > library > > > and > > > > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > > > >> It > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from the > > > > community, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > >> align > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] and > > > Flink > > > > > > Hive > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3]. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3] > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > > connect > > > > > in > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future." > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > > > your > > > > > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > future." > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi Jark and Shaoxuan,
Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress here. Below are my thoughts. *(1) watermark definition IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors and watermark strategies defined in https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes. Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common scenarios. *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. (3) View DDL with properties We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it back later if needed. (4) Type Definition I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. As for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in Calcite type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can definitely change if needed. Shuyi On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Shaoxuan, > > Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create table is > the another major difference. > > Summarize the main differences again: > > *(1) watermark definition > *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > (3) View DDL with properties > (4) Type Definition > > Best, > Jark > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Hi Jark, > > Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation of DDL > > looks good to me. > > Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > [source/sink] > > table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" are > the > > major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. @Shuyi, > It > > would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts > first. > > > > Regards, > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I drafted. > > > This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > > But some of features might be not needed in the first version of Flink > > SQL > > > DDL. > > > > > > So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach agreement > > ASAP > > > based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > > > And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > > > > > The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version > in > > my > > > opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > > (1) Table DDL: > > > (1.1) Type definition > > > (1.2) computed column definition > > > (1.3) watermark definition > > > (1.4) with properties > > > (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > > (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > > (2) View DDL > > > (3) Function DDL > > > > > > The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to > > point > > > out): > > > *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important difference, > it > > > would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian Hueske > > > <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > > (1.1) Type definition: > > > (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > > > In most cases, the varchar length is not used because they > are > > > stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the future > > if > > > we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > > So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, > and > > > just VARCHAR in this version. > > > (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. > > > DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > > If we clearly know the scale and precision of the Decimal, > we > > > can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we > can > > > support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > > which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support custom > > scale > > > and precision in the future. > > > (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in > > doc[2])? > > > What are the properties on the view used for? > > > > > > > > > The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > > > (1) period definition on table > > > (2) Type DDL > > > (3) Index DDL > > > (4) Library DDL > > > (5) Drop statement > > > > > > [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > > [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jark > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Sure Shuyu, > > > > What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon > as > > > > possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and ours. > > > Once > > > > Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the those > > > > differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > > > > > > > WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can > > > design > > > > it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We > > > > should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of DDL > > > > implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > > priority > > > on > > > > the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > > > > experience of SQL_CLI. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > > collaborate > > > > > here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in production > > for > > > > > almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > > companies, > > > we > > > > > can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > > > > > > > > > As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks about > > the > > > > > current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them > into > > > > one, > > > > > make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, we > > > should > > > > > take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. > What > > > do > > > > > you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shaoxuan, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We will > > > > prepare > > > > > it > > > > > > in the next few days. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > > > > > Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lin and Jark, > > > > > > > Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > > > summarizing > > > > > > your > > > > > > > DDL design into a google doc. > > > > > > > We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. But > > > > having a > > > > > > > separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > > > > > understand/comment/discuss > > > > > > > on your proposed DDL implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome work! > I > > > have > > > > > > left > > > > > > > > some comments in the doc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to share something more about the watermark definition > > > > learned > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > Alibaba. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. For > > > > example, > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > > > > records, > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very accurate. > > In > > > > this > > > > > > > case, > > > > > > > > user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in the > > > Table > > > > > and > > > > > > > > choose > > > > > > > > one in different situation. > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > > combine > > > > the > > > > > > > > watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > > > existing > > > > > > field > > > > > > > > used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > > define > > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > > watermarks in one Table. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > (simply > > > > > > modified): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > watermarkDefinition: > > > > > > > > WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS wm_strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wm_strategy: > > > > > > > > BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > ASCENDING > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > > “FOR” > > > > > > keyword > > > > > > > > defines which existing field used to generate watermark, this > > > field > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > > derive > > > > > from > > > > > > > > other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > > such > > > as > > > > > > > BOUNDED > > > > > > > > WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > ASCENDING. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the schema, > > we > > > > can > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > fields > > > > using > > > > > > > > built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > > > > rowtime/watermark > > > > > > > > definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” strategy > > > > > > > > (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition > can > > > > also > > > > > be > > > > > > > > defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() which > > > > > defines a > > > > > > > > proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to working with you guys! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Jark Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > implementation > > > > > > (extends > > > > > > > > > Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years > on > > > > > > production > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > works well. > > > > > > > > > I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > > > simplicity > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > standard compliance. > > > > > > > > > Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE tableName( > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > > > > > > > > [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > > computedColumnDefinition]* > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > > > > > > > > [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > > > > > > > > [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > > > > > > > > [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > > > > > > > > withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > tableOption > > > [ > > > > , > > > > > > > > > tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > > > columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dataType ::= > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > [ VARCHAR ] > > > > > > > > > | [ BOOLEAN ] > > > > > > > > > | [ TINYINT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ SMALLINT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ INT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ BIGINT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ FLOAT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ DECIMAL ] > > > > > > > > > | [ DOUBLE ] > > > > > > > > > | [ DATE ] > > > > > > > > > | [ TIME ] > > > > > > > > > | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > > > > > > > > | [ VARBINARY ] > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > computedColumnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > > > columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableConstraint ::= > > > > > > > > > { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableIndex ::= > > > > > > > > > [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rowTimeColumn ::= > > > > > > > > > columnName > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableOption ::= > > > > > > > > > property=value > > > > > > > > > offset ::= > > > > > > > > > positive integer (unit: ms) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW viewName > > > > > > > > > [ > > > > > > > > > ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > AS queryStatement; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > > > > > > > > AS 'className'; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > className ::= > > > > > > > > > fully qualified name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > finalize > > > the > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > doc > > > > > > > > > > first and start implementation w/o the unified connector > > API > > > > > ready > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > skipping some featue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > properties > > > into > > > > > > > generic > > > > > > > > > > key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > Hive > > > DDL > > > > > (or > > > > > > > > > others, > > > > > > > > > > e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > the > > > > design > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > > collaborate > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > > inputs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > w/o > > > > being > > > > > > > > blocked > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > > defining > > > > the > > > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > syntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As commented in the doc, I think we can probably stick > > with > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > > > with general properties, without extending the syntax > too > > > > much > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > mimics the descriptor API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also to > > > make > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > > > compatible with Hive's. The one in the current proposal > > > seems > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > effort more challenging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think we > > can > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > better > > > > > > > > collaboration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there are any questions or > > > > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > > > > > > > > > > Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would be > > > great > > > > to > > > > > > > move > > > > > > > > > > > these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is somehow > > > > releated > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design but we can also start with > > the > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > > functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > release > > > and > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax that > > > skips > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > > key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > DDL > > > > could > > > > > be > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > > for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL queries > > (no > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > operations like windows). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The unified connector API is high on our priority list > > for > > > > the > > > > > > 1.8 > > > > > > > > > > > release. I will try to update the document until mid of > > > next > > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other stuff > > for > > > > the > > > > > > > last 2 > > > > > > > > > > > weeks, > > > > > > > > > > > > but we are definitely interested in moving this > > forward. > > > I > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > > finalize > > > > the > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > collaborate > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation with the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'm wondering if you folks still have the bandwidth > > > > working > > > > > on > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > this > > > > > forward. > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > >> collaborate. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > >> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > > > > > > > > > > >> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > ddl, > > > > > because > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > >> necessary, the framework determine the table > referred > > > is a > > > > > > > source > > > > > > > > > or a > > > > > > > > > > > sink > > > > > > > > > > > >> according to the context of the query using the > table. > > > it > > > > > will > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > >> convenient for use defining a table which can be > both > > a > > > > > source > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > sink, > > > > > > > > > > > >> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > > manage > > > > the > > > > > > > meta > > > > > > > > > > infos. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > > > parameters > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > table, > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > >> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > > > > > > > > > > >> intField INTEGER, > > > > > > > > > > > >> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > > > > > > > > > > >> longField BIGINT, > > > > > > > > > > > >> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > > > > > > > > > > >> ) with ( > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.startup-mode = ‘latest-offset’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.type = 'json' > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > > > > > > > > > > >> ); > > > > > > > > > > > >> Because: > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > > > > properties, > > > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > > >> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > > > mapping > > > > > how > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > >> parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > like > > > what > > > > > is > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > > > >> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > connector > > > or > > > > > > > format > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > >> different in different implementation, we can not > > > restrict > > > > > the > > > > > > > key > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > >> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > > and a > > > > map > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties scope. why not just give user a > > > > single > > > > > > map, > > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > >> put parameters in a format they like, which is also > > the > > > > > > simplest > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > >> implement DDL parser. > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > > depends > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > >> implementation of the connector, using different > > clause > > > in > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > >> misunderstanding that we can combine the connectors > > with > > > > > > > arbitrary > > > > > > > > > > > formats, > > > > > > > > > > > >> which may not work actually. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > > vastly > > > > > > increase > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > >>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > > possible > > > > to > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > complex > > > > > > > > > > > >>> extensions like for example those provided by > Apache > > > > > > Bahir[1]. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dom. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > Shuyi. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > > previously > > > > > > [1,2]. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Utilizing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > > > current > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> systematically support some of the previously > > brought > > > up > > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > > document > > > > > > > closely > > > > > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > connector > > > > API > > > > > > > [4]. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > > forward > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > alignment > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the other couple of efforts and contributing > to > > > > them! > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rong > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [4] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design of > > SQL > > > > DDL > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Flink-Hive > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > work > > > > > closely > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the directions > > of > > > > the > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > designs, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and I > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Bowen > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > the > > > > > > community. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Current > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Flink > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > > > > statements). > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> current > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > define/create > > > > table > > > > > > > > sources > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sinks > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > > Client, > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> support, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > dynamical > > > > > > creation > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > >>> table, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> type > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > its > > > > > > adoption. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > > community > > > > > > > members > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposes > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > > support > > > > in > > > > > > > Flink. > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> initial > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > > library > > > > and > > > > > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > > > > >> It > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from the > > > > > community, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >> align > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > and > > > > Flink > > > > > > > Hive > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3]. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > > > connect > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future." > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect > in > > > > your > > > > > > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." |
|
|
Hi Shuyi,
It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. Regarding to the watermark: Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including computed-column) in table schema. The computed column can be computed from existing columns using builtin functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only common scenarios. I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom timestamp extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` in SQL, do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with `TimestampExtractor` but more powerful and standard. The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the schema part defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query sees. The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or constraint on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines what watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime attribute field. If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use computed column to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern API [1] is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not contradictory to the Watermark DDL from my perspective. [1]: https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes . Best, Jark On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > > Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress here. > Below are my thoughts. > > *(1) watermark definition > IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors and > watermark strategies defined in > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > . > Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common > scenarios. > *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table > properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > (3) View DDL with properties > We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it back > later if needed. > (4) Type Definition > I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. As > for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in Calcite > type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can definitely > change if needed. > > Shuyi > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Hi Shaoxuan, > > > > Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create table is > > the another major difference. > > > > Summarize the main differences again: > > > > *(1) watermark definition > > *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > (3) View DDL with properties > > (4) Type Definition > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jark, > > > Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation of > DDL > > > looks good to me. > > > Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > > [source/sink] > > > table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" are > > the > > > major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. @Shuyi, > > It > > > would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts > > first. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I > drafted. > > > > This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > > > But some of features might be not needed in the first version of > Flink > > > SQL > > > > DDL. > > > > > > > > So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > agreement > > > ASAP > > > > based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > > > > And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > > > > > > > The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version > > in > > > my > > > > opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > > > (1) Table DDL: > > > > (1.1) Type definition > > > > (1.2) computed column definition > > > > (1.3) watermark definition > > > > (1.4) with properties > > > > (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > > > (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > > > (2) View DDL > > > > (3) Function DDL > > > > > > > > The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to > > > point > > > > out): > > > > *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > difference, > > it > > > > would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian Hueske > > > > <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > > > (1.1) Type definition: > > > > (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > > > > In most cases, the varchar length is not used because they > > are > > > > stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the > future > > > if > > > > we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > > > So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, > > and > > > > just VARCHAR in this version. > > > > (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. > > > > DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > > > If we clearly know the scale and precision of the Decimal, > > we > > > > can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we > > can > > > > support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > > > which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support custom > > > scale > > > > and precision in the future. > > > > (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in > > > doc[2])? > > > > What are the properties on the view used for? > > > > > > > > > > > > The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > > > > (1) period definition on table > > > > (2) Type DDL > > > > (3) Index DDL > > > > (4) Library DDL > > > > (5) Drop statement > > > > > > > > [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > > > [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sure Shuyu, > > > > > What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon > > as > > > > > possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and > ours. > > > > Once > > > > > Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the > those > > > > > differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > > > > > > > > > WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can > > > > design > > > > > it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We > > > > > should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of > DDL > > > > > implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > > > priority > > > > on > > > > > the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > > > > > experience of SQL_CLI. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > > > collaborate > > > > > > here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > production > > > for > > > > > > almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > > > companies, > > > > we > > > > > > can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > > > > > > > > > > > As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks > about > > > the > > > > > > current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them > > into > > > > > one, > > > > > > make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, > we > > > > should > > > > > > take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. > > What > > > > do > > > > > > you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shaoxuan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We > will > > > > > prepare > > > > > > it > > > > > > > in the next few days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lin and Jark, > > > > > > > > Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > > > > summarizing > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > DDL design into a google doc. > > > > > > > > We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. > But > > > > > having a > > > > > > > > separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > > > > > > understand/comment/discuss > > > > > > > > on your proposed DDL implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > work! > > I > > > > have > > > > > > > left > > > > > > > > > some comments in the doc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to share something more about the watermark > definition > > > > > learned > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > Alibaba. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. > For > > > > > example, > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > > > > > records, > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > accurate. > > > In > > > > > this > > > > > > > > case, > > > > > > > > > user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in > the > > > > Table > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > choose > > > > > > > > > one in different situation. > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > > together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > > > combine > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > > > > existing > > > > > > > field > > > > > > > > > used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > > > define > > > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > > > watermarks in one Table. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > > (simply > > > > > > > modified): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > watermarkDefinition: > > > > > > > > > WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > wm_strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wm_strategy: > > > > > > > > > BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > ASCENDING > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > > > “FOR” > > > > > > > keyword > > > > > > > > > defines which existing field used to generate watermark, > this > > > > field > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > > > derive > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > > > such > > > > as > > > > > > > > BOUNDED > > > > > > > > > WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > > ASCENDING. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > schema, > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > > fields > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > > > > > rowtime/watermark > > > > > > > > > definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > strategy > > > > > > > > > (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition > > can > > > > > also > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > which > > > > > > defines a > > > > > > > > > proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to working with you guys! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > Jark Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > > implementation > > > > > > > (extends > > > > > > > > > > Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years > > on > > > > > > > production > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > works well. > > > > > > > > > > I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > > > > simplicity > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > standard compliance. > > > > > > > > > > Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE tableName( > > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > > > > > > > > > [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > > > computedColumnDefinition]* > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > > > > > > > > > [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > > > > > > > > > [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > > > > > > > > > [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > > > > > > > > > withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > > tableOption > > > > [ > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > > > > columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dataType ::= > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > [ VARCHAR ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ BOOLEAN ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ TINYINT ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ SMALLINT ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ INT ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ BIGINT ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ FLOAT ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ DECIMAL ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ DOUBLE ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ DATE ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ TIME ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > > > > > > > > > | [ VARBINARY ] > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > computedColumnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > > > > columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableConstraint ::= > > > > > > > > > > { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > > > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableIndex ::= > > > > > > > > > > [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > > > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rowTimeColumn ::= > > > > > > > > > > columnName > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableOption ::= > > > > > > > > > > property=value > > > > > > > > > > offset ::= > > > > > > > > > > positive integer (unit: ms) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW viewName > > > > > > > > > > [ > > > > > > > > > > ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > AS queryStatement; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > > > > > > > > > AS 'className'; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > className ::= > > > > > > > > > > fully qualified name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > > finalize > > > > the > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > doc > > > > > > > > > > > first and start implementation w/o the unified > connector > > > API > > > > > > ready > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > skipping some featue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > > properties > > > > into > > > > > > > > generic > > > > > > > > > > > key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > > Hive > > > > DDL > > > > > > (or > > > > > > > > > > others, > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > > the > > > > > design > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > > > collaborate > > > > > on > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > > > inputs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > > w/o > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > blocked > > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > > > defining > > > > > the > > > > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > > syntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > stick > > > with > > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > > > > with general properties, without extending the syntax > > too > > > > > much > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > mimics the descriptor API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > to > > > > make > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > > > > compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > proposal > > > > seems > > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > > effort more challenging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > we > > > can > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > > better > > > > > > > > > collaboration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there are any questions or > > > > > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > > > > > > > > > > > Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > be > > > > great > > > > > to > > > > > > > > move > > > > > > > > > > > > these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > somehow > > > > > releated > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design but we can also start > with > > > the > > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > > > functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > > release > > > > and > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > that > > > > skips > > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > > > key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > > DDL > > > > > could > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > > > for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > queries > > > (no > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > > operations like windows). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The unified connector API is high on our priority > list > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > 1.8 > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I will try to update the document until mid > of > > > > next > > > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > stuff > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > > last 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > weeks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > but we are definitely interested in moving this > > > forward. > > > > I > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > > > finalize > > > > > the > > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > > collaborate > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation with the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > bandwidth > > > > > working > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > > this > > > > > > forward. > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > >> collaborate. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > > ddl, > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > >> necessary, the framework determine the table > > referred > > > > is a > > > > > > > > source > > > > > > > > > > or a > > > > > > > > > > > > sink > > > > > > > > > > > > >> according to the context of the query using the > > table. > > > > it > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > >> convenient for use defining a table which can be > > both > > > a > > > > > > source > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > sink, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > > > manage > > > > > the > > > > > > > > meta > > > > > > > > > > > infos. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > > > > parameters > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > table, > > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > >> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > > > > > > > > > > > >> intField INTEGER, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > > > > > > > > > > > >> longField BIGINT, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ) with ( > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.startup-mode = > ‘latest-offset’, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.type = 'json' > > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ); > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Because: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > > > > > properties, > > > > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > > > >> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > > > > mapping > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > > like > > > > what > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > > connector > > > > or > > > > > > > > format > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > >> different in different implementation, we can not > > > > restrict > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > key > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > >> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > > > and a > > > > > map > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties scope. why not just give > user a > > > > > single > > > > > > > map, > > > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > >> put parameters in a format they like, which is > also > > > the > > > > > > > simplest > > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > >> implement DDL parser. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > > > depends > > > > > on > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> implementation of the connector, using different > > > clause > > > > in > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > >> misunderstanding that we can combine the > connectors > > > with > > > > > > > > arbitrary > > > > > > > > > > > > formats, > > > > > > > > > > > > >> which may not work actually. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > > > vastly > > > > > > > increase > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > > > possible > > > > > to > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > complex > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> extensions like for example those provided by > > Apache > > > > > > > Bahir[1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dom. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > > Shuyi. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > > > previously > > > > > > > [1,2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Utilizing > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > > > > current > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> systematically support some of the previously > > > brought > > > > up > > > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > > > document > > > > > > > > closely > > > > > > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > > connector > > > > > API > > > > > > > > [4]. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > > > forward > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > alignment > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the other couple of efforts and > contributing > > to > > > > > them! > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rong > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3] > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > of > > > SQL > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Flink-Hive > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > > work > > > > > > closely > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > directions > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > > designs, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and I > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Bowen > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > > the > > > > > > > community. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Current > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Flink > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > > > > > statements). > > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> current > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > > define/create > > > > > table > > > > > > > > > sources > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sinks > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > > > Client, > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> support, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > > dynamical > > > > > > > creation > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> table, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> type > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > > its > > > > > > > adoption. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > > > community > > > > > > > > members > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposes > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > > > support > > > > > in > > > > > > > > Flink. > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> initial > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > > > library > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > the > > > > > > community, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > >> align > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > > and > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > Hive > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3]. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > somehow > > > > > connect > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future." > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > connect > > in > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi Jark and Shuyi,
thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should aim to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the design: 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements first. I think this topic has already enough potential for long discussions and is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as they allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation and runtime operators do not support those features. I would not introduce a arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can be a follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for these explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams have strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science team should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not accidently write back to the single source of truth. 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns approach because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and simple. However, there are downsides that we should discuss. 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema twice. The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed column. 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out there right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation to a computed column. 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does it in Hive? 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I guess this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require some new type of UDF? 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design should answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), partitioning keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to force people to declare all columns and types again even though this is usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that catalog support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, people need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. What I actually promoted having two ways of reading data: 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines the table schema (+ time attributes). CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. Regards, Timo [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > Hi Shuyi, > > It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > Regarding to the watermark: > > Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including computed-column) in > table schema. > The computed column can be computed from existing columns using builtin > functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only common > scenarios. > > I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom timestamp > extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` in SQL, > do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with `TimestampExtractor` > but more powerful and standard. > > The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the schema part > defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query sees. > The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or constraint > on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines what > watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime attribute field. > If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use computed > column > to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern API [1] > is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not contradictory to > the > Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > [1]: > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > . > > Best, > Jark > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, >> >> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress here. >> Below are my thoughts. >> >> *(1) watermark definition >> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors and >> watermark strategies defined in >> >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes >> . >> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common >> scenarios. >> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE >> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table >> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. >> (3) View DDL with properties >> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it back >> later if needed. >> (4) Type Definition >> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. As >> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in Calcite >> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can definitely >> change if needed. >> >> Shuyi >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Shaoxuan, >>> >>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create table is >>> the another major difference. >>> >>> Summarize the main differences again: >>> >>> *(1) watermark definition >>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE >>> (3) View DDL with properties >>> (4) Type Definition >>> >>> Best, >>> Jark >>> >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jark, >>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation of >> DDL >>>> looks good to me. >>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create >>> [source/sink] >>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" are >>> the >>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. @Shuyi, >>> It >>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts >>> first. >>>> Regards, >>>> Shaoxuan >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>> >>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I >> drafted. >>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. >>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version of >> Flink >>>> SQL >>>>> DDL. >>>>> >>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach >> agreement >>>> ASAP >>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. >>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. >>>>> >>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version >>> in >>>> my >>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): >>>>> (1) Table DDL: >>>>> (1.1) Type definition >>>>> (1.2) computed column definition >>>>> (1.3) watermark definition >>>>> (1.4) with properties >>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) >>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) >>>>> (2) View DDL >>>>> (3) Function DDL >>>>> >>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to >>>> point >>>>> out): >>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important >> difference, >>> it >>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian Hueske >>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. >>>>> (1.1) Type definition: >>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? >>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used because they >>> are >>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the >> future >>>> if >>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. >>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, >>> and >>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. >>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. >>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? >>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the Decimal, >>> we >>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we >>> can >>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, >>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support custom >>>> scale >>>>> and precision in the future. >>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in >>>> doc[2])? >>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: >>>>> (1) period definition on table >>>>> (2) Type DDL >>>>> (3) Index DDL >>>>> (4) Library DDL >>>>> (5) Drop statement >>>>> >>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: >>>>> >>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# >>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: >>>>> >>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Jark >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> Sure Shuyu, >>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon >>> as >>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and >> ours. >>>>> Once >>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the >> those >>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. >>>>>> >>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can >>>>> design >>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We >>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of >> DDL >>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher >>>> priority >>>>> on >>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user >>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely >>>> collaborate >>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in >> production >>>> for >>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both >>>> companies, >>>>> we >>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks >> about >>>> the >>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them >>> into >>>>>> one, >>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, >> we >>>>> should >>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. >>> What >>>>> do >>>>>>> you guys think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We >> will >>>>>> prepare >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> in the next few days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, >>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider >>>>> summarizing >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. >>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. >> But >>>>>> having a >>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to >>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss >>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome >> work! >>> I >>>>> have >>>>>>>> left >>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark >> definition >>>>>> learned >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark >>>> definition. >>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. >> For >>>>>> example, >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some >>>>>> records, >>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very >> accurate. >>>> In >>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> case, >>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in >> the >>>>> Table >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> choose >>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. >>>>>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field >>> together. >>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should >>>> combine >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which >>>>> existing >>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can >>>> define >>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba >>> (simply >>>>>>>> modified): >>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: >>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS >> wm_strategy >>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: >>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit >>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The >>>> “FOR” >>>>>>>> keyword >>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, >> this >>>>> field >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to >>>> derive >>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, >>>> such >>>>> as >>>>>>>>> BOUNDED >>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and >>> ASCENDING. >>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the >> schema, >>>> we >>>>>> can >>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing >>> fields >>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the >>>>>>> rowtime/watermark >>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” >> strategy >>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition >>> can >>>>>> also >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() >> which >>>>>>> defines a >>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL >>> implementation >>>>>>>> (extends >>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years >>> on >>>>>>>> production >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> works well. >>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping >>>>> simplicity >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. >>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( >>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* >>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, >>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* >>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] >>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] >>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] >>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS >>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( >>>> tableOption >>>>> [ >>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= >>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] >>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= >>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= >>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } >>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= >>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName >>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= >>>>>>>>>>> columnName >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= >>>>>>>>>>> property=value >>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= >>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName >>>>>>>>>>> [ >>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName >>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> className ::= >>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can >>> finalize >>>>> the >>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>> doc >>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified >> connector >>>> API >>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific >>> properties >>>>> into >>>>>>>>> generic >>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with >>> Hive >>>>> DDL >>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>>> others, >>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize >>> the >>>>>> design >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and >>>>> collaborate >>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and >>>> inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed >>> w/o >>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> blocked >>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while >>>> defining >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably >> stick >>>> with >>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax >>> too >>>>>> much >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also >> to >>>>> make >>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current >> proposal >>>>> seems >>>>>>>>> making >>>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think >> we >>>> can >>>>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for >>> better >>>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or >>>>>> suggestions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would >> be >>>>> great >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is >> somehow >>>>>> releated >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start >> with >>>> the >>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this >>> release >>>>> and >>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>>> releases. >>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax >> that >>>>> skips >>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This >>> DDL >>>>>> could >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL >> queries >>>> (no >>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority >> list >>>> for >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> 1.8 >>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid >> of >>>>> next >>>>>>>> week. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other >> stuff >>>> for >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> last 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this >>>> forward. >>>>> I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can >>>> finalize >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to >>>> collaborate >>>>> on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the >> bandwidth >>>>>> working >>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move >>> this >>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the >>> ddl, >>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table >>> referred >>>>> is a >>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>> or a >>>>>>>>>>>>> sink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the >>> table. >>>>> it >>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be >>> both >>>> a >>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> sink, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and >>>> manage >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> meta >>>>>>>>>>>> infos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as >>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> table, >>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = >> ‘latest-offset’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map >>>>>>> properties, >>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to >>>>> mapping >>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, >>> like >>>>> what >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in >>>> connector >>>>> or >>>>>>>>> format >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not >>>>> restrict >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope >>>> and a >>>>>> map >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give >> user a >>>>>> single >>>>>>>> map, >>>>>>>>>> let >>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is >> also >>>> the >>>>>>>> simplest >>>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, >>>> depends >>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different >>>> clause >>>>> in >>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the >> connectors >>>> with >>>>>>>>> arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can >>>> vastly >>>>>>>> increase >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be >>>>> possible >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by >>> Apache >>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < >>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together >>> Shuyi. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times >>>>> previously >>>>>>>> [1,2]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the >>>>> current >>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously >>>> brought >>>>> up >>>>>>>>>> features >>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the >>>>> document >>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL >>>> connector >>>>>> API >>>>>>>>> [4]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking >>>> forward >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and >> contributing >>> to >>>>>> them! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design >> of >>>> SQL >>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will >>> work >>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the >> directions >>>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>> designs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from >>> the >>>>>>>> community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT >>>>>>> statements). >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to >>> define/create >>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL >>>> Client, >>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow >>>> dynamical >>>>>>>> creation >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for >>> its >>>>>>>> adoption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other >>>>> community >>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL >>>> support >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> Flink. >>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, >>>> library >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from >> the >>>>>>> community, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] >>> and >>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>> Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will >> somehow >>>>>> connect >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow >> connect >>> in >>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your >>>>> future." >> >> -- >> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." >> |
|
|
Hi Timo and Shuyi,
thanks for your feedback. 1. Scope agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. 2. Constraints yes, this can be a follow-up issue. 3. Sources/Sinks If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we declare it using `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further question, if a TABLE t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some new requirements t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both the DDL and catalogs. Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table in-place can be a common case. e.g., ``` CREATE TABLE t1 ( col1 varchar, col2 int, col3 varchar ... ); INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 AS SELECT (some computing ...) FROM t1; ``` So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the validation purpose, we can find out other ways. 4. Time attributes As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for custom defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is more friendly for table api not the SQL. ``` /** * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a rowtime attribute. */ abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with Serializable { /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] } ``` BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more advantage in SQL scenarios. 6. Partitioning and keys Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table support can be another topic later. 5. Schema declaration Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the users and the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be handy especially one with too many table columns. Regards, Lin Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > Hi Jark and Shuyi, > > thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should aim > to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > > Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the design: > > 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements first. > I think this topic has already enough potential for long discussions and > is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE > FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > > 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, > VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as they > allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation and > runtime operators do not support those features. I would not introduce a > arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can be a > follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > > 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE > [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for these > explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams have > strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science team > should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not accidently > write back to the single source of truth. > > 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns approach > because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and simple. > However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema twice. > The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it > either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed column. > 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out there > right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a timestamp > into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation to a > computed column. > 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a > table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a special > clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does it in > Hive? > 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I guess > this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require some > new type of UDF? > > 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design should > answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), partitioning > keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? > > 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to force > people to declare all columns and types again even though this is > usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that catalog > support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, people > need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. What I > actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > > 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > > 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines the > table schema (+ time attributes). > CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to > incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > > Regards, > Timo > > [1] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > > > Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > > > Regarding to the watermark: > > > > Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including computed-column) in > > table schema. > > The computed column can be computed from existing columns using builtin > > functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > > So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only common > > scenarios. > > > > I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom timestamp > > extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > > is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` in > SQL, > > do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > > I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with `TimestampExtractor` > > but more powerful and standard. > > > > The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the schema part > > defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query sees. > > The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or > constraint > > on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines what > > watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime attribute > field. > > If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use computed > > column > > to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern API [1] > > is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not contradictory to > > the > > Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > > > [1]: > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > . > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > >> > >> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress here. > >> Below are my thoughts. > >> > >> *(1) watermark definition > >> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors and > >> watermark strategies defined in > >> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > >> . > >> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common > >> scenarios. > >> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table > >> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > >> (3) View DDL with properties > >> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it > back > >> later if needed. > >> (4) Type Definition > >> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. As > >> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in Calcite > >> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can > definitely > >> change if needed. > >> > >> Shuyi > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>> > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create table > is > >>> the another major difference. > >>> > >>> Summarize the main differences again: > >>> > >>> *(1) watermark definition > >>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >>> (3) View DDL with properties > >>> (4) Type Definition > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Jark > >>> > >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Jark, > >>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation of > >> DDL > >>>> looks good to me. > >>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > >>> [source/sink] > >>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" > are > >>> the > >>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. > @Shuyi, > >>> It > >>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts > >>> first. > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Shaoxuan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I > >> drafted. > >>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > >>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version of > >> Flink > >>>> SQL > >>>>> DDL. > >>>>> > >>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > >> agreement > >>>> ASAP > >>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > >>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > >>>>> > >>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version > >>> in > >>>> my > >>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > >>>>> (1) Table DDL: > >>>>> (1.1) Type definition > >>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > >>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > >>>>> (1.4) with properties > >>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > >>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > >>>>> (2) View DDL > >>>>> (3) Function DDL > >>>>> > >>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to > >>>> point > >>>>> out): > >>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > >> difference, > >>> it > >>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian Hueske > >>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > >>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > >>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > >>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used because > they > >>> are > >>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the > >> future > >>>> if > >>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > >>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, > >>> and > >>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > >>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. > >>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > >>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the > Decimal, > >>> we > >>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we > >>> can > >>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > >>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support > custom > >>>> scale > >>>>> and precision in the future. > >>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in > >>>> doc[2])? > >>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > >>>>> (1) period definition on table > >>>>> (2) Type DDL > >>>>> (3) Index DDL > >>>>> (4) Library DDL > >>>>> (5) Drop statement > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > >>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Jark > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > >>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon > >>> as > >>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and > >> ours. > >>>>> Once > >>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the > >> those > >>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can > >>>>> design > >>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We > >>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of > >> DDL > >>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > >>>> priority > >>>>> on > >>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > >>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > >>>> collaborate > >>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > >> production > >>>> for > >>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > >>>> companies, > >>>>> we > >>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks > >> about > >>>> the > >>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them > >>> into > >>>>>> one, > >>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, > >> we > >>>>> should > >>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. > >>> What > >>>>> do > >>>>>>> you guys think? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We > >> will > >>>>>> prepare > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> in the next few days. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > >>>>> summarizing > >>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > >>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. > >> But > >>>>>> having a > >>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > >>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > >>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > >> work! > >>> I > >>>>> have > >>>>>>>> left > >>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > >> definition > >>>>>> learned > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > >>>> definition. > >>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. > >> For > >>>>>> example, > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > >>>>>> records, > >>>>>>>>>> another > >>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > >> accurate. > >>>> In > >>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>> case, > >>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in > >> the > >>>>> Table > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> choose > >>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > >>>>>>>>>> 2. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > >>> together. > >>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > >>>> combine > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > >>>>> existing > >>>>>>>> field > >>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > >>>> define > >>>>>>>> multiple > >>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > >>> (simply > >>>>>>>> modified): > >>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > >>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > >> wm_strategy > >>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > >>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > >>>>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > >>>> “FOR” > >>>>>>>> keyword > >>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, > >> this > >>>>> field > >>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > >>>> derive > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > >>>> such > >>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > >>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > >>> ASCENDING. > >>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > >> schema, > >>>> we > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > >>> fields > >>>>>> using > >>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > >>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > >>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > >> strategy > >>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition > >>> can > >>>>>> also > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > >> which > >>>>>>> defines a > >>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > >>> implementation > >>>>>>>> (extends > >>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years > >>> on > >>>>>>>> production > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> works well. > >>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > >>>>> simplicity > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > >>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > >>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > >>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > >>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > >>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > >>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > >>>> tableOption > >>>>> [ > >>>>>> , > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > >>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > >>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > >>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> property=value > >>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > >>>>>>>>>>> [ > >>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > >>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > >>> finalize > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>> doc > >>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > >> connector > >>>> API > >>>>>>> ready > >>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > >>> properties > >>>>> into > >>>>>>>>> generic > >>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > >>> Hive > >>>>> DDL > >>>>>>> (or > >>>>>>>>>>> others, > >>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > >>> the > >>>>>> design > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > >>>>> collaborate > >>>>>> on > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > >>>> inputs. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > >>> w/o > >>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>> blocked > >>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > >>>> defining > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > >> stick > >>>> with > >>>>>>>> simple > >>>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax > >>> too > >>>>>> much > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > >> to > >>>>> make > >>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > >> proposal > >>>>> seems > >>>>>>>>> making > >>>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > >> we > >>>> can > >>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > >>> better > >>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > >>>>>> suggestions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > >> be > >>>>> great > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> move > >>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > >> somehow > >>>>>> releated > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > >> with > >>>> the > >>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > >>> release > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > >> that > >>>>> skips > >>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > >>> DDL > >>>>>> could > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> used > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > >> queries > >>>> (no > >>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > >> list > >>>> for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> 1.8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid > >> of > >>>>> next > >>>>>>>> week. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > >> stuff > >>>> for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> last 2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > >>>> forward. > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>> once > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > >>>> finalize > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > >>>> collaborate > >>>>> on > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > >> bandwidth > >>>>>> working > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > >>> this > >>>>>>> forward. > >>>>>>>>> We > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > >>> ddl, > >>>>>>> because > >>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > >>> referred > >>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>> or a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > >>> table. > >>>>> it > >>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > >>> both > >>>> a > >>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > >>>> manage > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> meta > >>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > >>>>>> parameters > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > >> ‘latest-offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > >>>>>>> properties, > >>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > >>>>> mapping > >>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>>>> user > >>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > >>> like > >>>>> what > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> done > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > >>>> connector > >>>>> or > >>>>>>>>> format > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not > >>>>> restrict > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> key > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > >>>> and a > >>>>>> map > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > >> user a > >>>>>> single > >>>>>>>> map, > >>>>>>>>>> let > >>>>>>>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > >> also > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> simplest > >>>>>>>>>> way > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > >>>> depends > >>>>>> on > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > >>>> clause > >>>>> in > >>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>> may > >>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > >> connectors > >>>> with > >>>>>>>>> arbitrary > >>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > >>>> vastly > >>>>>>>> increase > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > >>>>> possible > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > >>> Apache > >>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > >>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > >>> Shuyi. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > >>>>> previously > >>>>>>>> [1,2]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > >>>>> current > >>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > >>>> brought > >>>>> up > >>>>>>>>>> features > >>>>>>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > >>>>> document > >>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > >>>> connector > >>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>> [4]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > >>>> forward > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > >> contributing > >>> to > >>>>>> them! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > >> of > >>>> SQL > >>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > >>> work > >>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>> each > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > >> directions > >>>> of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> two > >>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > >>> the > >>>>>>>> community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > >>>>>>> statements). > >>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > >>> define/create > >>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>>> sources > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > >>>> Client, > >>>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > >>>> dynamical > >>>>>>>> creation > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > >>> its > >>>>>>>> adoption. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > >>>>> community > >>>>>>>>> members > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > >>>> support > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> Flink. > >>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > >>>> library > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> function. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > >> the > >>>>>>> community, > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > >>> and > >>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>> Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > >> somehow > >>>>>> connect > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > >> connect > >>> in > >>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > >>>>> future." > >> > >> -- > >> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > future." > >> > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin,
Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to something meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: 1. +1 on MVP DDL 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on tables that belong to a security component. Unless the table is created differently based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use these keywords to enforce permissions. 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While there might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For example, external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For instance, data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For instance, the external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may stay unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file based on file schema and return the data based on table schema. Other aspects: 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to operate on Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be compatible with Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we should be as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL Thanks, Xuefu ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design Hi Timo and Shuyi, thanks for your feedback. 1. Scope agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. 2. Constraints yes, this can be a follow-up issue. 3. Sources/Sinks If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we declare it using `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further question, if a TABLE t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some new requirements t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both the DDL and catalogs. Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table in-place can be a common case. e.g., ``` CREATE TABLE t1 ( col1 varchar, col2 int, col3 varchar ... ); INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 AS SELECT (some computing ...) FROM t1; ``` So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the validation purpose, we can find out other ways. 4. Time attributes As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for custom defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is more friendly for table api not the SQL. ``` /** * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a rowtime attribute. */ abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with Serializable { /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] } ``` BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more advantage in SQL scenarios. 6. Partitioning and keys Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table support can be another topic later. 5. Schema declaration Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the users and the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be handy especially one with too many table columns. Regards, Lin Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > Hi Jark and Shuyi, > > thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should aim > to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > > Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the design: > > 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements first. > I think this topic has already enough potential for long discussions and > is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE > FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > > 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, > VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as they > allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation and > runtime operators do not support those features. I would not introduce a > arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can be a > follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > > 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE > [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for these > explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams have > strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science team > should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not accidently > write back to the single source of truth. > > 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns approach > because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and simple. > However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema twice. > The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it > either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed column. > 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out there > right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a timestamp > into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation to a > computed column. > 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a > table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a special > clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does it in > Hive? > 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I guess > this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require some > new type of UDF? > > 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design should > answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), partitioning > keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? > > 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to force > people to declare all columns and types again even though this is > usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that catalog > support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, people > need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. What I > actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > > 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > > 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines the > table schema (+ time attributes). > CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to > incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > > Regards, > Timo > > [1] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > > > Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > > > Regarding to the watermark: > > > > Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including computed-column) in > > table schema. > > The computed column can be computed from existing columns using builtin > > functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > > So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only common > > scenarios. > > > > I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom timestamp > > extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > > is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` in > SQL, > > do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > > I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with `TimestampExtractor` > > but more powerful and standard. > > > > The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the schema part > > defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query sees. > > The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or > constraint > > on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines what > > watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime attribute > field. > > If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use computed > > column > > to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern API [1] > > is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not contradictory to > > the > > Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > > > [1]: > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > . > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > >> > >> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress here. > >> Below are my thoughts. > >> > >> *(1) watermark definition > >> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors and > >> watermark strategies defined in > >> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > >> . > >> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common > >> scenarios. > >> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table > >> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > >> (3) View DDL with properties > >> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it > back > >> later if needed. > >> (4) Type Definition > >> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. As > >> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in Calcite > >> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can > definitely > >> change if needed. > >> > >> Shuyi > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>> > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create table > is > >>> the another major difference. > >>> > >>> Summarize the main differences again: > >>> > >>> *(1) watermark definition > >>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >>> (3) View DDL with properties > >>> (4) Type Definition > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Jark > >>> > >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Jark, > >>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation of > >> DDL > >>>> looks good to me. > >>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > >>> [source/sink] > >>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" > are > >>> the > >>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. > @Shuyi, > >>> It > >>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts > >>> first. > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Shaoxuan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I > >> drafted. > >>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > >>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version of > >> Flink > >>>> SQL > >>>>> DDL. > >>>>> > >>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > >> agreement > >>>> ASAP > >>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > >>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > >>>>> > >>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version > >>> in > >>>> my > >>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > >>>>> (1) Table DDL: > >>>>> (1.1) Type definition > >>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > >>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > >>>>> (1.4) with properties > >>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > >>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > >>>>> (2) View DDL > >>>>> (3) Function DDL > >>>>> > >>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to > >>>> point > >>>>> out): > >>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > >> difference, > >>> it > >>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian Hueske > >>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > >>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > >>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > >>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used because > they > >>> are > >>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the > >> future > >>>> if > >>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > >>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, > >>> and > >>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > >>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. > >>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > >>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the > Decimal, > >>> we > >>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we > >>> can > >>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > >>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support > custom > >>>> scale > >>>>> and precision in the future. > >>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in > >>>> doc[2])? > >>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > >>>>> (1) period definition on table > >>>>> (2) Type DDL > >>>>> (3) Index DDL > >>>>> (4) Library DDL > >>>>> (5) Drop statement > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > >>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Jark > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > >>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon > >>> as > >>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and > >> ours. > >>>>> Once > >>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the > >> those > >>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can > >>>>> design > >>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We > >>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of > >> DDL > >>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > >>>> priority > >>>>> on > >>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > >>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > >>>> collaborate > >>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > >> production > >>>> for > >>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > >>>> companies, > >>>>> we > >>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks > >> about > >>>> the > >>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them > >>> into > >>>>>> one, > >>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, > >> we > >>>>> should > >>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. > >>> What > >>>>> do > >>>>>>> you guys think? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We > >> will > >>>>>> prepare > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> in the next few days. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > >>>>> summarizing > >>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > >>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. > >> But > >>>>>> having a > >>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > >>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > >>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > >> work! > >>> I > >>>>> have > >>>>>>>> left > >>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > >> definition > >>>>>> learned > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > >>>> definition. > >>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. > >> For > >>>>>> example, > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > >>>>>> records, > >>>>>>>>>> another > >>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > >> accurate. > >>>> In > >>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>> case, > >>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in > >> the > >>>>> Table > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> choose > >>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > >>>>>>>>>> 2. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > >>> together. > >>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > >>>> combine > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > >>>>> existing > >>>>>>>> field > >>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > >>>> define > >>>>>>>> multiple > >>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > >>> (simply > >>>>>>>> modified): > >>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > >>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > >> wm_strategy > >>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > >>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > >>>>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > >>>> “FOR” > >>>>>>>> keyword > >>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, > >> this > >>>>> field > >>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > >>>> derive > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > >>>> such > >>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > >>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > >>> ASCENDING. > >>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > >> schema, > >>>> we > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > >>> fields > >>>>>> using > >>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > >>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > >>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > >> strategy > >>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition > >>> can > >>>>>> also > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > >> which > >>>>>>> defines a > >>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > >>> implementation > >>>>>>>> (extends > >>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years > >>> on > >>>>>>>> production > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> works well. > >>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > >>>>> simplicity > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > >>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > >>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > >>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > >>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > >>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > >>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > >>>> tableOption > >>>>> [ > >>>>>> , > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > >>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > >>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > >>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> property=value > >>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > >>>>>>>>>>> [ > >>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > >>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > >>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > >>> finalize > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>> doc > >>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > >> connector > >>>> API > >>>>>>> ready > >>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > >>> properties > >>>>> into > >>>>>>>>> generic > >>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > >>> Hive > >>>>> DDL > >>>>>>> (or > >>>>>>>>>>> others, > >>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > >>> the > >>>>>> design > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > >>>>> collaborate > >>>>>> on > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > >>>> inputs. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > >>> w/o > >>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>> blocked > >>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > >>>> defining > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > >> stick > >>>> with > >>>>>>>> simple > >>>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax > >>> too > >>>>>> much > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > >> to > >>>>> make > >>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > >> proposal > >>>>> seems > >>>>>>>>> making > >>>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > >> we > >>>> can > >>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > >>> better > >>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > >>>>>> suggestions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > >> be > >>>>> great > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> move > >>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > >> somehow > >>>>>> releated > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > >> with > >>>> the > >>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > >>> release > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > >> that > >>>>> skips > >>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > >>> DDL > >>>>>> could > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> used > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > >> queries > >>>> (no > >>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > >> list > >>>> for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> 1.8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid > >> of > >>>>> next > >>>>>>>> week. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > >> stuff > >>>> for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> last 2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > >>>> forward. > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>> once > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > >>>> finalize > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > >>>> collaborate > >>>>> on > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > >> bandwidth > >>>>>> working > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > >>> this > >>>>>>> forward. > >>>>>>>>> We > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > >>> ddl, > >>>>>>> because > >>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > >>> referred > >>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>> or a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > >>> table. > >>>>> it > >>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > >>> both > >>>> a > >>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > >>>> manage > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> meta > >>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > >>>>>> parameters > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > >> ‘latest-offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > >>>>>>> properties, > >>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > >>>>> mapping > >>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>>>> user > >>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > >>> like > >>>>> what > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> done > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > >>>> connector > >>>>> or > >>>>>>>>> format > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not > >>>>> restrict > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> key > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > >>>> and a > >>>>>> map > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > >> user a > >>>>>> single > >>>>>>>> map, > >>>>>>>>>> let > >>>>>>>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > >> also > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> simplest > >>>>>>>>>> way > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > >>>> depends > >>>>>> on > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > >>>> clause > >>>>> in > >>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>> may > >>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > >> connectors > >>>> with > >>>>>>>>> arbitrary > >>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > >>>> vastly > >>>>>>>> increase > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > >>>>> possible > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > >>> Apache > >>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > >>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > >>> Shuyi. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > >>>>> previously > >>>>>>>> [1,2]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > >>>>> current > >>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > >>>> brought > >>>>> up > >>>>>>>>>> features > >>>>>>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > >>>>> document > >>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > >>>> connector > >>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>> [4]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > >>>> forward > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > >> contributing > >>> to > >>>>>> them! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > >> of > >>>> SQL > >>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > >>> work > >>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>> each > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > >> directions > >>>> of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> two > >>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > >>> the > >>>>>>>> community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > >>>>>>> statements). > >>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > >>> define/create > >>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>>> sources > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > >>>> Client, > >>>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > >>>> dynamical > >>>>>>>> creation > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > >>> its > >>>>>>>> adoption. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > >>>>> community > >>>>>>>>> members > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > >>>> support > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> Flink. > >>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > >>>> library > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> function. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > >> the > >>>>>>> community, > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > >>> and > >>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>> Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > >> somehow > >>>>>> connect > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > >> connect > >>> in > >>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > >>>>> future." > >> > >> -- > >> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > future." > >> > > |
|
|
Hi Timo,
Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL functionality to Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as cautious as possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a standard way, we shouldn't introduce something new. Here are some of my thoughts: 1. Scope: Agree. 2. Constraints: Agree. 4. Time attributes: 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as rowtime, no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed column to get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you mean defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an advantages, because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether to "replace the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be confused what's the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? Regarding to the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when the original timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown optimization can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the same as "replacing the existing column" in runtime. 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? That's a good point. I think computed column is just a virtual column on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write to a table with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns except computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is ignored in the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a configuration to support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you think? 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to the regular schema? Separating watermark into a special clause similar to PARTITIONED BY is also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in schema part or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It is similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes on a table in schema part. 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we need a custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only return a nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined scalar function accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used as punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a class extending the `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` and use it in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. But if scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer it here, because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in MVP, we can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. 5. Schema declaration: I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema from external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have already encountered this requirement in out company. +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive syntax while keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and reduce the learning cost for user. [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 Best, Jark On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > > Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to something > meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > > 1. +1 on MVP DDL > 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on tables that > belong to a security component. Unless the table is created differently > based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use these > keywords to enforce permissions. > 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While there > might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For example, > external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For instance, > data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For instance, the > external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may stay > unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file based on > file schema and return the data based on table schema. > > Other aspects: > > 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to operate on > Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be compatible with > Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we should be > as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > > Thanks, > Xuefu > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > Hi Timo and Shuyi, > thanks for your feedback. > > 1. Scope > agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > > 2. Constraints > yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > > 3. Sources/Sinks > If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we declare it > using > `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further question, if a > TABLE > t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some new > requirements > t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both the DDL > and catalogs. > Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table in-place > can be a common case. > e.g., > ``` > CREATE TABLE t1 ( > col1 varchar, > col2 int, > col3 varchar > ... > ); > > INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > AS > SELECT > (some computing ...) > FROM t1; > ``` > So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the validation > purpose, we can find out other ways. > > 4. Time attributes > As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for custom > defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is more > friendly for table api not the SQL. > ``` > /** > * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a rowtime > attribute. > */ > abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with > Serializable { > > /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ > override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > } > ``` > BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are > expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more advantage in > SQL scenarios. > > > 6. Partitioning and keys > Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table support > can be another topic later. > > 5. Schema declaration > Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user > convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the users and > the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some > `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be handy > especially one with too many table columns. > > Regards, > Lin > > > Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > > > Hi Jark and Shuyi, > > > > thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should aim > > to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > > > > Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the > design: > > > > 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements first. > > I think this topic has already enough potential for long discussions and > > is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE > > FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > > > > 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, > > VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as they > > allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation and > > runtime operators do not support those features. I would not introduce a > > arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can be a > > follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > > > > 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE > > [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for these > > explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams have > > strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science team > > should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not accidently > > write back to the single source of truth. > > > > 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns approach > > because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and simple. > > However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > > 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema twice. > > The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it > > either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed column. > > 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out there > > right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a timestamp > > into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation to a > > computed column. > > 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a > > table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a special > > clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does it in > > Hive? > > 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I guess > > this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require some > > new type of UDF? > > > > 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design should > > answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), partitioning > > keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? > > > > 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to force > > people to declare all columns and types again even though this is > > usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that catalog > > support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, people > > need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. What I > > actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > > > > 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > > CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > > > > 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines the > > table schema (+ time attributes). > > CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > > "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > > > Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to > > incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > > > > Regards, > > Timo > > > > [1] > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > > > > > > Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > > > > > Regarding to the watermark: > > > > > > Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including computed-column) in > > > table schema. > > > The computed column can be computed from existing columns using builtin > > > functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > > > So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only common > > > scenarios. > > > > > > I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom timestamp > > > extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > > > is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` in > > SQL, > > > do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > > > I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > `TimestampExtractor` > > > but more powerful and standard. > > > > > > The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the schema > part > > > defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query > sees. > > > The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or > > constraint > > > on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines what > > > watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime attribute > > field. > > > If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use computed > > > column > > > to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern API > [1] > > > is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not contradictory > to > > > the > > > Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > > . > > > > > > Best, > > > Jark > > > > > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > > >> > > >> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress > here. > > >> Below are my thoughts. > > >> > > >> *(1) watermark definition > > >> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors and > > >> watermark strategies defined in > > >> > > >> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > >> . > > >> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common > > >> scenarios. > > >> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > >> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table > > >> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > > >> (3) View DDL with properties > > >> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it > > back > > >> later if needed. > > >> (4) Type Definition > > >> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. > As > > >> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in > Calcite > > >> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can > > definitely > > >> change if needed. > > >> > > >> Shuyi > > >> > > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create > table > > is > > >>> the another major difference. > > >>> > > >>> Summarize the main differences again: > > >>> > > >>> *(1) watermark definition > > >>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > >>> (3) View DDL with properties > > >>> (4) Type Definition > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Jark > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi Jark, > > >>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation > of > > >> DDL > > >>>> looks good to me. > > >>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > > >>> [source/sink] > > >>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" > > are > > >>> the > > >>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. > > @Shuyi, > > >>> It > > >>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts > > >>> first. > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I > > >> drafted. > > >>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > >>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version of > > >> Flink > > >>>> SQL > > >>>>> DDL. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > > >> agreement > > >>>> ASAP > > >>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > > >>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first > version > > >>> in > > >>>> my > > >>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > >>>>> (1) Table DDL: > > >>>>> (1.1) Type definition > > >>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > > >>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > > >>>>> (1.4) with properties > > >>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > >>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > >>>>> (2) View DDL > > >>>>> (3) Function DDL > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome > to > > >>>> point > > >>>>> out): > > >>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > > >> difference, > > >>> it > > >>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian > Hueske > > >>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > >>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > > >>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > > >>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used because > > they > > >>> are > > >>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the > > >> future > > >>>> if > > >>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > >>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the > future, > > >>> and > > >>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > > >>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. > > >>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > >>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the > > Decimal, > > >>> we > > >>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, > we > > >>> can > > >>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > >>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support > > custom > > >>>> scale > > >>>>> and precision in the future. > > >>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in > > >>>> doc[2])? > > >>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > > >>>>> (1) period definition on table > > >>>>> (2) Type DDL > > >>>>> (3) Index DDL > > >>>>> (4) Library DDL > > >>>>> (5) Drop statement > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > >>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > >>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>> Jark > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > > >>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as > soon > > >>> as > > >>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and > > >> ours. > > >>>>> Once > > >>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the > > >> those > > >>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we > can > > >>>>> design > > >>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. > We > > >>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of > > >> DDL > > >>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > > >>>> priority > > >>>>> on > > >>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > > >>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > > >>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > > >> production > > >>>> for > > >>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > > >>>> companies, > > >>>>> we > > >>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks > > >> about > > >>>> the > > >>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them > > >>> into > > >>>>>> one, > > >>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, > > >> we > > >>>>> should > > >>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. > > >>> What > > >>>>> do > > >>>>>>> you guys think? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We > > >> will > > >>>>>> prepare > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> in the next few days. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > > >>>>> summarizing > > >>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > > >>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. > > >> But > > >>>>>> having a > > >>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > >>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > > >>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > > >> work! > > >>> I > > >>>>> have > > >>>>>>>> left > > >>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > > >> definition > > >>>>>> learned > > >>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 1. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > > >>>> definition. > > >>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. > > >> For > > >>>>>> example, > > >>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > > >>>>>> records, > > >>>>>>>>>> another > > >>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > > >> accurate. > > >>>> In > > >>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>> case, > > >>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in > > >> the > > >>>>> Table > > >>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>> choose > > >>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > > >>>>>>>>>> 2. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > > >>> together. > > >>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > > >>>> combine > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > > >>>>> existing > > >>>>>>>> field > > >>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > > >>>> define > > >>>>>>>> multiple > > >>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > > >>> (simply > > >>>>>>>> modified): > > >>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > > >>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > > >> wm_strategy > > >>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > > >>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > >>>>>>>>>> | > > >>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > > >>>> “FOR” > > >>>>>>>> keyword > > >>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, > > >> this > > >>>>> field > > >>>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > > >>>> derive > > >>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > > >>>> such > > >>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > > >>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > > >>> ASCENDING. > > >>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > > >> schema, > > >>>> we > > >>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > > >>> fields > > >>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > >>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > > >>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > > >> strategy > > >>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition > > >>> can > > >>>>>> also > > >>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > > >> which > > >>>>>>> defines a > > >>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > > >>> implementation > > >>>>>>>> (extends > > >>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years > > >>> on > > >>>>>>>> production > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> works well. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > > >>>>> simplicity > > >>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > > >>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > >>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > >>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > > >>>>>> ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > >>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > >>>> tableOption > > >>>>> [ > > >>>>>> , > > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> { > > >>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> } > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > >>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > >>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> columnName > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> property=value > > >>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > > >>>>>>>>>>> [ > > >>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>> ] > > >>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > >>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > > >>> finalize > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>> doc > > >>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > > >> connector > > >>>> API > > >>>>>>> ready > > >>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > > >>> properties > > >>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>> generic > > >>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > > >>> Hive > > >>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>> (or > > >>>>>>>>>>> others, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > > >>> the > > >>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > >>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > > >>>> inputs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > > >>> w/o > > >>>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>> blocked > > >>>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > > >>>> defining > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > > >> stick > > >>>> with > > >>>>>>>> simple > > >>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax > > >>> too > > >>>>>> much > > >>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > > >> to > > >>>>> make > > >>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > > >> proposal > > >>>>> seems > > >>>>>>>>> making > > >>>>>>>>>>> our > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > > >> we > > >>>> can > > >>>>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > > >>> better > > >>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > > >>>>>> suggestions. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > > >> be > > >>>>> great > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> move > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > > >> somehow > > >>>>>> releated > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > > >> with > > >>>> the > > >>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > > >>> release > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>> next > > >>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > > >> that > > >>>>> skips > > >>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > > >>> DDL > > >>>>>> could > > >>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>> used > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > > >> queries > > >>>> (no > > >>>>>> time > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > > >> list > > >>>> for > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> 1.8 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid > > >> of > > >>>>> next > > >>>>>>>> week. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > > >> stuff > > >>>> for > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> last 2 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > > >>>> forward. > > >>>>> I > > >>>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>> once > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > > >>>> finalize > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > >>>> collaborate > > >>>>> on > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > > >> bandwidth > > >>>>>> working > > >>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>> this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > > >>> this > > >>>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>>>>> We > > >>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > > >>> ddl, > > >>>>>>> because > > >>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > > >>> referred > > >>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>>>> or a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > > >>> table. > > >>>>> it > > >>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > > >>> both > > >>>> a > > >>>>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > > >>>> manage > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> meta > > >>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > >>>>>> parameters > > >>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>> table, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > > >> ‘latest-offset’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > >>>>>>> properties, > > >>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > > >>>>> mapping > > >>>>>>> how > > >>>>>>>>>> user > > >>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > > >>> like > > >>>>> what > > >>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>> done > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > >>>> connector > > >>>>> or > > >>>>>>>>> format > > >>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not > > >>>>> restrict > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> key > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > > >>>> and a > > >>>>>> map > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > > >> user a > > >>>>>> single > > >>>>>>>> map, > > >>>>>>>>>> let > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> them > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > > >> also > > >>>> the > > >>>>>>>> simplest > > >>>>>>>>>> way > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > > >>>> depends > > >>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > > >>>> clause > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>> may > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > > >> connectors > > >>>> with > > >>>>>>>>> arbitrary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > > >>>> vastly > > >>>>>>>> increase > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > >>>>> possible > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>> complex > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > > >>> Apache > > >>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > >>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > > >>> Shuyi. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > >>>>> previously > > >>>>>>>> [1,2]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > > >>>>> current > > >>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > > >>>> brought > > >>>>> up > > >>>>>>>>>> features > > >>>>>>>>>>>> such > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > >>>>> document > > >>>>>>>>> closely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > >>>> connector > > >>>>>> API > > >>>>>>>>> [4]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > > >>>> forward > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > > >> contributing > > >>> to > > >>>>>> them! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > > >> of > > >>>> SQL > > >>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > > >>> work > > >>>>>>> closely > > >>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>> each > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > > >> directions > > >>>> of > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> two > > >>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > > >>> the > > >>>>>>>> community. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > >>>>>>> statements). > > >>>>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > > >>> define/create > > >>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>>>> sources > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > > >>>> Client, > > >>>>>>>> without > > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > >>>> dynamical > > >>>>>>>> creation > > >>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > > >>> its > > >>>>>>>> adoption. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > >>>>> community > > >>>>>>>>> members > > >>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > > >>>> support > > >>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>> Flink. > > >>>>>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > > >>>> library > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> function. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > > >> the > > >>>>>>> community, > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > > >>> and > > >>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>> Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > > >> somehow > > >>>>>> connect > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > >> connect > > >>> in > > >>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > >>>>> future." > > >> > > >> -- > > >> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > future." > > >> > > > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi everyone,
great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. I'm open for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of use cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to cover all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another example, that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if append, retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the big WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have very custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it can be created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific source/sink) declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, yes we would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a problem? One also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is not only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, not every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a JDBC sink is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in the design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in the making/are on our roadmap for this release. 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. I just wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are we ok with a syntax like ... CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not excatly match but this is true for both directions: table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" table schema. 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical and future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an intermediate layer on top of Flink's DDL. 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the TimestampExtractor interface as this is also important for better separation of connector and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark generation. 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. How does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps that are nested in the schema? 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This is like 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the stream record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. So we need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use (possibly computed as well)? 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to the regular schema? @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the feeling that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual schema with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a new WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to this point. Thanks everyone, Timo [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > Hi Timo, > > Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > > First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL functionality to > Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as cautious as > possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a standard > way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > > Here are some of my thoughts: > > 1. Scope: Agree. > 2. Constraints: Agree. > 4. Time attributes: > 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as rowtime, > no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed column to > get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you mean > defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an advantages, > because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether to "replace > the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be confused what's > the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? Regarding to > the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when the original > timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown optimization > can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the same as > "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > > 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? > That's a good point. I think computed column is just a virtual column > on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write to a table > with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns except > computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is ignored in > the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write out a > timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a configuration to > support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the timestmap in > StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you think? > > 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to > the regular schema? > Separating watermark into a special clause similar to PARTITIONED BY is > also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in schema part > or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark > definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It is > similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes on a table > in schema part. > > 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? > In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we need a > custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only return a > nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined scalar function > accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used as > punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a class > extending the > `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` and use it > in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. But if > scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer it here, > because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in MVP, we > can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > > 5. Schema declaration: > I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema from > external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have already > encountered this requirement in out company. > > > +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive syntax while > keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and reduce the > learning cost for user. > > [1]: > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > > Best, > Jark > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, >> >> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to something >> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: >> >> 1. +1 on MVP DDL >> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on tables that >> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created differently >> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use these >> keywords to enforce permissions. >> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While there >> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For example, >> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For instance, >> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For instance, the >> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may stay >> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file based on >> file schema and return the data based on table schema. >> >> Other aspects: >> >> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to operate on >> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be compatible with >> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we should be >> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL >> >> Thanks, >> Xuefu >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> >> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 >> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >> >> Hi Timo and Shuyi, >> thanks for your feedback. >> >> 1. Scope >> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. >> >> 2. Constraints >> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. >> >> 3. Sources/Sinks >> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we declare it >> using >> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further question, if a >> TABLE >> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some new >> requirements >> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both the DDL >> and catalogs. >> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table in-place >> can be a common case. >> e.g., >> ``` >> CREATE TABLE t1 ( >> col1 varchar, >> col2 int, >> col3 varchar >> ... >> ); >> >> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 >> AS >> SELECT >> (some computing ...) >> FROM t1; >> ``` >> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the validation >> purpose, we can find out other ways. >> >> 4. Time attributes >> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an >> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for custom >> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is more >> friendly for table api not the SQL. >> ``` >> /** >> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a rowtime >> attribute. >> */ >> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with >> Serializable { >> >> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ >> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = >> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] >> } >> ``` >> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are >> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more advantage in >> SQL scenarios. >> >> >> 6. Partitioning and keys >> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table support >> can be another topic later. >> >> 5. Schema declaration >> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user >> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. >> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the users and >> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, >> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some >> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. >> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be handy >> especially one with too many table columns. >> >> Regards, >> Lin >> >> >> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： >> >>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, >>> >>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should aim >>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. >>> >>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the >> design: >>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements first. >>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long discussions and >>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE >>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. >>> >>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, >>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as they >>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation and >>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not introduce a >>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can be a >>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. >>> >>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE >>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for these >>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams have >>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science team >>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not accidently >>> write back to the single source of truth. >>> >>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns approach >>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and simple. >>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. >>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema twice. >>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it >>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed column. >>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out there >>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a timestamp >>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation to a >>> computed column. >>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a >>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a special >>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does it in >>> Hive? >>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I guess >>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require some >>> new type of UDF? >>> >>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design should >>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), partitioning >>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? >>> >>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to force >>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this is >>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that catalog >>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, people >>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. What I >>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: >>> >>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. >>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) >>> >>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines the >>> table schema (+ time attributes). >>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = >>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") >>> >>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to >>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Timo >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf >>> >>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: >>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>> >>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. >>>> >>>> Regarding to the watermark: >>>> >>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including computed-column) in >>>> table schema. >>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns using builtin >>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). >>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only common >>>> scenarios. >>>> >>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom timestamp >>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` >>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` in >>> SQL, >>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? >>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with >> `TimestampExtractor` >>>> but more powerful and standard. >>>> >>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the schema >> part >>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query >> sees. >>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or >>> constraint >>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines what >>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime attribute >>> field. >>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use computed >>>> column >>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern API >> [1] >>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not contradictory >> to >>>> the >>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. >>>> >>>> [1]: >>>> >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes >>>> . >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Jark >>>> >>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress >> here. >>>>> Below are my thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> *(1) watermark definition >>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors and >>>>> watermark strategies defined in >>>>> >>>>> >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes >>>>> . >>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common >>>>> scenarios. >>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE >>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table >>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. >>>>> (3) View DDL with properties >>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it >>> back >>>>> later if needed. >>>>> (4) Type Definition >>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. >> As >>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in >> Calcite >>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can >>> definitely >>>>> change if needed. >>>>> >>>>> Shuyi >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create >> table >>> is >>>>>> the another major difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: >>>>>> >>>>>> *(1) watermark definition >>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE >>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties >>>>>> (4) Type Definition >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Jark >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Jark, >>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation >> of >>>>> DDL >>>>>>> looks good to me. >>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create >>>>>> [source/sink] >>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" >>> are >>>>>> the >>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. >>> @Shuyi, >>>>>> It >>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts >>>>>> first. >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I >>>>> drafted. >>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. >>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version of >>>>> Flink >>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>> DDL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach >>>>> agreement >>>>>>> ASAP >>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. >>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first >> version >>>>>> in >>>>>>> my >>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): >>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: >>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition >>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition >>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition >>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties >>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) >>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) >>>>>>>> (2) View DDL >>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome >> to >>>>>>> point >>>>>>>> out): >>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important >>>>> difference, >>>>>> it >>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian >> Hueske >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. >>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: >>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? >>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used because >>> they >>>>>> are >>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the >>>>> future >>>>>>> if >>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. >>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the >> future, >>>>>> and >>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. >>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. >>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? >>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the >>> Decimal, >>>>>> we >>>>>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, >> we >>>>>> can >>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, >>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support >>> custom >>>>>>> scale >>>>>>>> and precision in the future. >>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in >>>>>>> doc[2])? >>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: >>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table >>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL >>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL >>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL >>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# >>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, >>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as >> soon >>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and >>>>> ours. >>>>>>>> Once >>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the >>>>> those >>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we >> can >>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. >> We >>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of >>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher >>>>>>> priority >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user >>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely >>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in >>>>> production >>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both >>>>>>> companies, >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks >>>>> about >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them >>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> one, >>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, >>>>> we >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. >>>>>> What >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>> you guys think? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We >>>>> will >>>>>>>>> prepare >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider >>>>>>>> summarizing >>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. >>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. >>>>> But >>>>>>>>> having a >>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to >>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss >>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome >>>>> work! >>>>>> I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> left >>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark >>>>> definition >>>>>>>>> learned >>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark >>>>>>> definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. >>>>> For >>>>>>>>> example, >>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some >>>>>>>>> records, >>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very >>>>> accurate. >>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> case, >>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in >>>>> the >>>>>>>> Table >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose >>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field >>>>>> together. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should >>>>>>> combine >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which >>>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can >>>>>>> define >>>>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba >>>>>> (simply >>>>>>>>>>> modified): >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: >>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS >>>>> wm_strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: >>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit >>>>>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The >>>>>>> “FOR” >>>>>>>>>>> keyword >>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, >>>>> this >>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to >>>>>>> derive >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, >>>>>>> such >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED >>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and >>>>>> ASCENDING. >>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the >>>>> schema, >>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing >>>>>> fields >>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the >>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” >>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition >>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() >>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> defines a >>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL >>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>> (extends >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years >>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> production >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping >>>>>>>> simplicity >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, >>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* >>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( >>>>>>> tableOption >>>>>>>> [ >>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can >>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>> doc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified >>>>> connector >>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific >>>>>> properties >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>> generic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with >>>>>> Hive >>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and >>>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and >>>>>>> inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed >>>>>> w/o >>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while >>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably >>>>> stick >>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax >>>>>> too >>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also >>>>> to >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current >>>>> proposal >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>>>> making >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think >>>>> we >>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for >>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or >>>>>>>>> suggestions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would >>>>> be >>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is >>>>> somehow >>>>>>>>> releated >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start >>>>> with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this >>>>>> release >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax >>>>> that >>>>>>>> skips >>>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This >>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL >>>>> queries >>>>>>> (no >>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority >>>>> list >>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid >>>>> of >>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>> week. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other >>>>> stuff >>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this >>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can >>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to >>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the >>>>> bandwidth >>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move >>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the >>>>>> ddl, >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table >>>>>> referred >>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the >>>>>> table. >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be >>>>>> both >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and >>>>>>> manage >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> meta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as >>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = >>>>> ‘latest-offset’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map >>>>>>>>>> properties, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to >>>>>>>> mapping >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, >>>>>> like >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in >>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> format >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not >>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope >>>>>>> and a >>>>>>>>> map >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give >>>>> user a >>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>>>> map, >>>>>>>>>>>>> let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is >>>>> also >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> simplest >>>>>>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, >>>>>>> depends >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different >>>>>>> clause >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the >>>>> connectors >>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can >>>>>>> vastly >>>>>>>>>>> increase >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be >>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by >>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together >>>>>> Shuyi. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times >>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the >>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously >>>>>>> brought >>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>>> features >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the >>>>>>>> document >>>>>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL >>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking >>>>>>> forward >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and >>>>> contributing >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> them! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design >>>>> of >>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will >>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the >>>>> directions >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT >>>>>>>>>> statements). >>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to >>>>>> define/create >>>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL >>>>>>> Client, >>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow >>>>>>> dynamical >>>>>>>>>>> creation >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for >>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>> adoption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other >>>>>>>> community >>>>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL >>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, >>>>>>> library >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> community, >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>> Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will >>>>> somehow >>>>>>>>> connect >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow >>>>> connect >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your >>>>>>>> future." >>>>> -- >>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your >>> future." >>> |
|
|
Hi Timo,
Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: 3. Sources/Sinks: "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not." This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can perform a quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for the syntax. For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some or all of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can derive the availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or specific table properties in WITH clause. Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords for the MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. 6. Partitioning and keys Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and partitioned table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc later[1]. 5. Schema declaration "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the primary key constraint already references two columns but types unseen. And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema derivation as a follow-up extension ? Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： > Hi everyone, > > great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: > > @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. I'm open > for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of use > cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to cover > all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another example, > that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if append, > retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target > system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the big > WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor > approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have very > custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". > > 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it can be > created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific source/sink) > declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, yes we > would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a problem? One > also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is not > only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, not > every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a JDBC sink > is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI session, > people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to know > upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. > > 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in the > design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in the > making/are on our roadmap for this release. > > 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. I just > wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare computed > columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are we ok > with a syntax like ... > CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? > @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not excatly > match but this is true for both directions: > table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" table > schema. > > 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we > should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very > batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical and > future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an intermediate > layer on top of Flink's DDL. > > 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the TimestampExtractor > interface as this is also important for better separation of connector > and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark generation. > > 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: > @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. How > does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps that > are nested in the schema? > > 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: > I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This is like > 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. > @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka > message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the stream > record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. So we > need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use (possibly > computed as well)? > > 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to > the regular schema? > @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the feeling > that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual schema > with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about > timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a new > WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to this > point. > > Thanks everyone, > Timo > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 > > > > Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > > Hi Timo, > > > > Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > > > > First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL functionality to > > Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as cautious > as > > possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a standard > > way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > > > > Here are some of my thoughts: > > > > 1. Scope: Agree. > > 2. Constraints: Agree. > > 4. Time attributes: > > 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > > If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > rowtime, > > no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed column > to > > get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you mean > > defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an advantages, > > because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether to > "replace > > the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be confused > what's > > the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? Regarding > to > > the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when the > original > > timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown > optimization > > can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the same as > > "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > > > > 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? > > That's a good point. I think computed column is just a virtual > column > > on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write to a > table > > with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns except > > computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is ignored in > > the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write out a > > timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a configuration to > > support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the timestmap in > > StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you think? > > > > 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next > to > > the regular schema? > > Separating watermark into a special clause similar to PARTITIONED > BY is > > also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in schema part > > or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark > > definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It is > > similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes on a table > > in schema part. > > > > 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? > > In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we need a > > custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only return a > > nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > > watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined scalar > function > > accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used as > > punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a class > > extending the > > `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` and use > it > > in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. But if > > scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer it here, > > because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in MVP, we > > can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > > > > 5. Schema declaration: > > I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema from > > external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have already > > encountered this requirement in out company. > > > > > > +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive syntax while > > keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and reduce > the > > learning cost for user. > > > > [1]: > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > >> > >> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to something > >> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > >> > >> 1. +1 on MVP DDL > >> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on tables that > >> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created differently > >> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use these > >> keywords to enforce permissions. > >> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While there > >> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For example, > >> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For instance, > >> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For instance, the > >> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may stay > >> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file based on > >> file schema and return the data based on table schema. > >> > >> Other aspects: > >> > >> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to operate on > >> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be compatible > with > >> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we should > be > >> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Xuefu > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > >> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > >> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >> > >> Hi Timo and Shuyi, > >> thanks for your feedback. > >> > >> 1. Scope > >> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > >> > >> 2. Constraints > >> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > >> > >> 3. Sources/Sinks > >> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we declare it > >> using > >> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further question, > if a > >> TABLE > >> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some new > >> requirements > >> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both the > DDL > >> and catalogs. > >> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table > in-place > >> can be a common case. > >> e.g., > >> ``` > >> CREATE TABLE t1 ( > >> col1 varchar, > >> col2 int, > >> col3 varchar > >> ... > >> ); > >> > >> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > >> AS > >> SELECT > >> (some computing ...) > >> FROM t1; > >> ``` > >> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the validation > >> purpose, we can find out other ways. > >> > >> 4. Time attributes > >> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > >> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for > custom > >> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is more > >> friendly for table api not the SQL. > >> ``` > >> /** > >> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a rowtime > >> attribute. > >> */ > >> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with > >> Serializable { > >> > >> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ > >> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > >> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > >> } > >> ``` > >> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are > >> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more > advantage in > >> SQL scenarios. > >> > >> > >> 6. Partitioning and keys > >> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table > support > >> can be another topic later. > >> > >> 5. Schema declaration > >> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user > >> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > >> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the users > and > >> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > >> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some > >> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > >> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be > handy > >> especially one with too many table columns. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Lin > >> > >> > >> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > >> > >>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, > >>> > >>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should aim > >>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > >>> > >>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the > >> design: > >>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements first. > >>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long discussions > and > >>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE > >>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > >>> > >>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, > >>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as they > >>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation and > >>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not introduce > a > >>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can be > a > >>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > >>> > >>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE > >>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for these > >>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams have > >>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science team > >>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not accidently > >>> write back to the single source of truth. > >>> > >>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns approach > >>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and simple. > >>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > >>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema twice. > >>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it > >>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed column. > >>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out there > >>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a timestamp > >>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation to a > >>> computed column. > >>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a > >>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a special > >>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does it > in > >>> Hive? > >>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I guess > >>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require some > >>> new type of UDF? > >>> > >>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design should > >>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), partitioning > >>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? > >>> > >>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to force > >>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this is > >>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that > catalog > >>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, people > >>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. What I > >>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > >>> > >>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > >>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > >>> > >>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines the > >>> table schema (+ time attributes). > >>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > >>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") > >>> > >>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to > >>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Timo > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > >>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > >>> > >>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > >>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>> > >>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > >>>> > >>>> Regarding to the watermark: > >>>> > >>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including computed-column) > in > >>>> table schema. > >>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns using > builtin > >>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > >>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only common > >>>> scenarios. > >>>> > >>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom timestamp > >>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > >>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` in > >>> SQL, > >>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > >>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > >> `TimestampExtractor` > >>>> but more powerful and standard. > >>>> > >>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the schema > >> part > >>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query > >> sees. > >>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or > >>> constraint > >>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines what > >>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime attribute > >>> field. > >>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use > computed > >>>> column > >>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern API > >> [1] > >>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not contradictory > >> to > >>>> the > >>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. > >>>> > >>>> [1]: > >>>> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > >>>> . > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Jark > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress > >> here. > >>>>> Below are my thoughts. > >>>>> > >>>>> *(1) watermark definition > >>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors > and > >>>>> watermark strategies defined in > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > >>>>> . > >>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common > >>>>> scenarios. > >>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table > >>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > >>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > >>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it > >>> back > >>>>> later if needed. > >>>>> (4) Type Definition > >>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. > >> As > >>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in > >> Calcite > >>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can > >>> definitely > >>>>> change if needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Shuyi > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create > >> table > >>> is > >>>>>> the another major difference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > >>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > >>>>>> (4) Type Definition > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Jark > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Jark, > >>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation > >> of > >>>>> DDL > >>>>>>> looks good to me. > >>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > >>>>>> [source/sink] > >>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" > >>> are > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. > >>> @Shuyi, > >>>>>> It > >>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts > >>>>>> first. > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I > >>>>> drafted. > >>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > >>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version of > >>>>> Flink > >>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>> DDL. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > >>>>> agreement > >>>>>>> ASAP > >>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > >>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first > >> version > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>> my > >>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > >>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: > >>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition > >>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > >>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > >>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties > >>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > >>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > >>>>>>>> (2) View DDL > >>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome > >> to > >>>>>>> point > >>>>>>>> out): > >>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > >>>>> difference, > >>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian > >> Hueske > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > >>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > >>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > >>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used because > >>> they > >>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the > >>>>> future > >>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > >>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the > >> future, > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > >>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, > e.g. > >>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > >>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the > >>> Decimal, > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, > >> we > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > >>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support > >>> custom > >>>>>>> scale > >>>>>>>> and precision in the future. > >>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed > in > >>>>>>> doc[2])? > >>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > >>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table > >>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL > >>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL > >>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL > >>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > >>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > >>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as > >> soon > >>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and > >>>>> ours. > >>>>>>>> Once > >>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the > >>>>> those > >>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we > >> can > >>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. > >> We > >>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of > >>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > >>>>>>> priority > >>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > >>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > >>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > >>>>> production > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > >>>>>>> companies, > >>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks > >>>>> about > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them > >>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>> one, > >>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, > >>>>> we > >>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. > >>>>>> What > >>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>> you guys think? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We > >>>>> will > >>>>>>>>> prepare > >>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > >>>>>>>> summarizing > >>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. > >>>>> But > >>>>>>>>> having a > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > >>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > >>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > >>>>> work! > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>> left > >>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > >>>>> definition > >>>>>>>>> learned > >>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > >>>>>>> definition. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. > >>>>> For > >>>>>>>>> example, > >>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > >>>>>>>>> records, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > >>>>> accurate. > >>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>> case, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Table > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > >>>>>> together. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > >>>>>>> combine > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > >>>>>>>> existing > >>>>>>>>>>> field > >>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > >>>>>>> define > >>>>>>>>>>> multiple > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > >>>>>> (simply > >>>>>>>>>>> modified): > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > >>>>> wm_strategy > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > >>>>>>>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > >>>>>>> “FOR” > >>>>>>>>>>> keyword > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, > >>>>> this > >>>>>>>> field > >>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > >>>>>>> derive > >>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > >>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > >>>>>> ASCENDING. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > >>>>> schema, > >>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > >>>>>> fields > >>>>>>>>> using > >>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > >>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > >>>>> strategy > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > >>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>> defines a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > >>>>>> implementation > >>>>>>>>>>> (extends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years > >>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>> production > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > >>>>>>>> simplicity > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > >>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > >>>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > >>>>>>> tableOption > >>>>>>>> [ > >>>>>>>>> , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > >>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > >>>>> connector > >>>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>>> ready > >>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > >>>>>> properties > >>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>>>> generic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > >>>>>> Hive > >>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>> (or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > >>>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > >>>>>>> inputs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > >>>>>> w/o > >>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > >>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > >>>>> stick > >>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> simple > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax > >>>>>> too > >>>>>>>>> much > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > >>>>> proposal > >>>>>>>> seems > >>>>>>>>>>>> making > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > >>>>> we > >>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > >>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > >>>>>>>>> suggestions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > >>>>> be > >>>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> move > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > >>>>> somehow > >>>>>>>>> releated > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > >>>>> with > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > >>>>>> release > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > >>>>> that > >>>>>>>> skips > >>>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > >>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>> could > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> used > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > >>>>> queries > >>>>>>> (no > >>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > >>>>> list > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>> week. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > >>>>> stuff > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > >>>>>>> forward. > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>> once > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > >>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > >>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > >>>>> bandwidth > >>>>>>>>> working > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > >>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>> forward. > >>>>>>>>>>>> We > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > >>>>>> ddl, > >>>>>>>>>> because > >>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > >>>>>> referred > >>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > >>>>>> table. > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > >>>>>> both > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > >>>>>>> manage > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> meta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > >>>>>>>>> parameters > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > >>>>> ‘latest-offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > >>>>>>>>>> properties, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > >>>>>>>> mapping > >>>>>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>>>>>>> user > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > >>>>>> like > >>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> done > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > >>>>>>> connector > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>> format > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not > >>>>>>>> restrict > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> key > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > >>>>>>> and a > >>>>>>>>> map > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > >>>>> user a > >>>>>>>>> single > >>>>>>>>>>> map, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> let > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > >>>>> also > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> simplest > >>>>>>>>>>>>> way > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > >>>>>>> depends > >>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > >>>>>>> clause > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>> may > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > >>>>> connectors > >>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > >>>>>>> vastly > >>>>>>>>>>> increase > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > >>>>>>>> possible > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > >>>>>> Apache > >>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > >>>>>> Shuyi. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > >>>>>>>> previously > >>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > >>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > >>>>>>> brought > >>>>>>>> up > >>>>>>>>>>>>> features > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > >>>>>>>> document > >>>>>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > >>>>>>> connector > >>>>>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > >>>>>>> forward > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > >>>>> contributing > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> them! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > >>>>> of > >>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > >>>>>> work > >>>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > >>>>> directions > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> two > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > >>>>>>>>>> statements). > >>>>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > >>>>>> define/create > >>>>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sources > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > >>>>>>> Client, > >>>>>>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > >>>>>>> dynamical > >>>>>>>>>>> creation > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > >>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>> adoption. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > >>>>>>>> community > >>>>>>>>>>>> members > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > >>>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > >>>>>>> library > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> community, > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > >>>>> somehow > >>>>>>>>> connect > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > >>>>> connect > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > >>>>>>>> future." > >>>>> -- > >>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > >>> future." > >>> > > |
|
|
Hi Timo,
Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex problem. I think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do not need to specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The query can choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted into an append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an exception can be thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write retractions/upserts to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on the table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag encoding, but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we have stream source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink also include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the tags on the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table itself, user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag can be omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE TABLE in the first version, and add it back in the future when we really need it? It keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider clearly. 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as time attribute and use what generate strategy. When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` AS OFFSET '5' SECOND. If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it like this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only one time attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we enable `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be write to Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is the time attribute in the stream. 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, PRIMARY KEY keywords. @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark syntax ? For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS "OFFSET" VS ... Cheers, Jark On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Timo, > Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: > > 3. Sources/Sinks: > "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to list all > source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO > here or not." > This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all > supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can perform a > quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for the > syntax. > For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some or all > of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can derive the > availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or > specific table properties in WITH clause. > Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords for the > MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. > > 6. Partitioning and keys > Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and partitioned > table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add > partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc > later[1]. > > 5. Schema declaration > "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" constraints > but without columns > CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " > > From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the primary key > constraint already references two columns but types unseen. > And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema > derivation as a follow-up extension ? > > > > > Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： > > > Hi everyone, > > > > great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: > > > > @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. I'm open > > for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of use > > cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to cover > > all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another example, > > that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if append, > > retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target > > system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the big > > WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor > > approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have very > > custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". > > > > 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it can be > > created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific source/sink) > > declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, yes we > > would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a problem? One > > also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is not > > only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, not > > every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a JDBC sink > > is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI session, > > people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to know > > upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. > > > > 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in the > > design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in the > > making/are on our roadmap for this release. > > > > 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. I just > > wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare computed > > columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are we ok > > with a syntax like ... > > CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? > > @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not excatly > > match but this is true for both directions: > > table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" table > > schema. > > > > 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we > > should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very > > batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical and > > future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an intermediate > > layer on top of Flink's DDL. > > > > 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the TimestampExtractor > > interface as this is also important for better separation of connector > > and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark generation. > > > > 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: > > @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > > rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. How > > does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps that > > are nested in the schema? > > > > 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: > > I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This is like > > 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. > > @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka > > message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the stream > > record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. So we > > need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use (possibly > > computed as well)? > > > > 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to > > the regular schema? > > @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the feeling > > that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual schema > > with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about > > timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a new > > WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to this > > point. > > > > Thanks everyone, > > Timo > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 > > > > > > > > Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > > > Hi Timo, > > > > > > Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > > > > > > First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL functionality to > > > Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as > cautious > > as > > > possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a > standard > > > way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > > > > > > Here are some of my thoughts: > > > > > > 1. Scope: Agree. > > > 2. Constraints: Agree. > > > 4. Time attributes: > > > 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > > > If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > > rowtime, > > > no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed column > > to > > > get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you mean > > > defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an advantages, > > > because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether to > > "replace > > > the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be confused > > what's > > > the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? > Regarding > > to > > > the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when the > > original > > > timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown > > optimization > > > can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the same as > > > "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > > > > > > 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? > > > That's a good point. I think computed column is just a virtual > > column > > > on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write to a > > table > > > with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns > except > > > computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is ignored > in > > > the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write out a > > > timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a configuration > to > > > support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the timestmap > in > > > StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you think? > > > > > > 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause > next > > to > > > the regular schema? > > > Separating watermark into a special clause similar to PARTITIONED > > BY is > > > also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in schema > part > > > or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark > > > definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It is > > > similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes on a > table > > > in schema part. > > > > > > 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? > > > In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we need a > > > custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only return > a > > > nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > > > watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined scalar > > function > > > accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used as > > > punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a class > > > extending the > > > `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` and use > > it > > > in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. But if > > > scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer it > here, > > > because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in MVP, > we > > > can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > > > > > > 5. Schema declaration: > > > I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema from > > > external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have already > > > encountered this requirement in out company. > > > > > > > > > +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive syntax > while > > > keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and reduce > > the > > > learning cost for user. > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > > > > > > Best, > > > Jark > > > > > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > > >> > > >> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to > something > > >> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > > >> > > >> 1. +1 on MVP DDL > > >> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on tables > that > > >> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created > differently > > >> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use these > > >> keywords to enforce permissions. > > >> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While > there > > >> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For > example, > > >> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For > instance, > > >> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For instance, > the > > >> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may stay > > >> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file based > on > > >> file schema and return the data based on table schema. > > >> > > >> Other aspects: > > >> > > >> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to operate on > > >> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be compatible > > with > > >> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we > should > > be > > >> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Xuefu > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > > >> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > > >> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >> > > >> Hi Timo and Shuyi, > > >> thanks for your feedback. > > >> > > >> 1. Scope > > >> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > > >> > > >> 2. Constraints > > >> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > > >> > > >> 3. Sources/Sinks > > >> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we declare > it > > >> using > > >> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further question, > > if a > > >> TABLE > > >> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some > new > > >> requirements > > >> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both > the > > DDL > > >> and catalogs. > > >> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table > > in-place > > >> can be a common case. > > >> e.g., > > >> ``` > > >> CREATE TABLE t1 ( > > >> col1 varchar, > > >> col2 int, > > >> col3 varchar > > >> ... > > >> ); > > >> > > >> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > > >> AS > > >> SELECT > > >> (some computing ...) > > >> FROM t1; > > >> ``` > > >> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the validation > > >> purpose, we can find out other ways. > > >> > > >> 4. Time attributes > > >> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > > >> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for > > custom > > >> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is more > > >> friendly for table api not the SQL. > > >> ``` > > >> /** > > >> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a rowtime > > >> attribute. > > >> */ > > >> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with > > >> Serializable { > > >> > > >> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ > > >> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > > >> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > > >> } > > >> ``` > > >> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are > > >> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more > > advantage in > > >> SQL scenarios. > > >> > > >> > > >> 6. Partitioning and keys > > >> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table > > support > > >> can be another topic later. > > >> > > >> 5. Schema declaration > > >> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user > > >> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > > >> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the users > > and > > >> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > > >> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some > > >> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > > >> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be > > handy > > >> especially one with too many table columns. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Lin > > >> > > >> > > >> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > > >> > > >>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, > > >>> > > >>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should > aim > > >>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > > >>> > > >>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the > > >> design: > > >>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements > first. > > >>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long discussions > > and > > >>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE > > >>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > > >>> > > >>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, > > >>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as they > > >>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation and > > >>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not > introduce > > a > > >>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can > be > > a > > >>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > > >>> > > >>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE > > >>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for these > > >>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams have > > >>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science > team > > >>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not > accidently > > >>> write back to the single source of truth. > > >>> > > >>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns approach > > >>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and > simple. > > >>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > > >>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema > twice. > > >>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it > > >>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed column. > > >>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out there > > >>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a timestamp > > >>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation to a > > >>> computed column. > > >>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a > > >>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a > special > > >>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does it > > in > > >>> Hive? > > >>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I guess > > >>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require > some > > >>> new type of UDF? > > >>> > > >>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design should > > >>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), partitioning > > >>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? > > >>> > > >>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to force > > >>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this is > > >>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that > > catalog > > >>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, people > > >>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. > What I > > >>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > > >>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > > >>> > > >>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines > the > > >>> table schema (+ time attributes). > > >>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > > >>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > >>> > > >>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to > > >>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Timo > > >>> > > >>> [1] > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > > >>> > > >>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > > >>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>> > > >>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regarding to the watermark: > > >>>> > > >>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including computed-column) > > in > > >>>> table schema. > > >>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns using > > builtin > > >>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > > >>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only common > > >>>> scenarios. > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom > timestamp > > >>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > > >>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` > in > > >>> SQL, > > >>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > > >>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > > >> `TimestampExtractor` > > >>>> but more powerful and standard. > > >>>> > > >>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the schema > > >> part > > >>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query > > >> sees. > > >>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or > > >>> constraint > > >>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines what > > >>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime attribute > > >>> field. > > >>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use > > computed > > >>>> column > > >>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern > API > > >> [1] > > >>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not > contradictory > > >> to > > >>>> the > > >>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > >>>> > > >>>> [1]: > > >>>> > > >> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > >>>> . > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> Jark > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress > > >> here. > > >>>>> Below are my thoughts. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > >>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors > > and > > >>>>> watermark strategies defined in > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > >>>>> . > > >>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the > common > > >>>>> scenarios. > > >>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > >>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the > table > > >>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > > >>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > >>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add > it > > >>> back > > >>>>> later if needed. > > >>>>> (4) Type Definition > > >>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future > versions. > > >> As > > >>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in > > >> Calcite > > >>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can > > >>> definitely > > >>>>> change if needed. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create > > >> table > > >>> is > > >>>>>> the another major difference. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > >>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > >>>>>> (4) Type Definition > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Hi Jark, > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round > implementation > > >> of > > >>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>> looks good to me. > > >>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > > >>>>>> [source/sink] > > >>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create > table" > > >>> are > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. > > >>> @Shuyi, > > >>>>>> It > > >>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two > parts > > >>>>>> first. > > >>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I > > >>>>> drafted. > > >>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > >>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version of > > >>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>> DDL. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > > >>>>> agreement > > >>>>>>> ASAP > > >>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi > proposed. > > >>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first > > >> version > > >>>>>> in > > >>>>>>> my > > >>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > >>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: > > >>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition > > >>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > > >>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > > >>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties > > >>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > >>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > >>>>>>>> (2) View DDL > > >>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, > welcome > > >> to > > >>>>>>> point > > >>>>>>>> out): > > >>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > > >>>>> difference, > > >>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian > > >> Hueske > > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > >>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > > >>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > > >>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used > because > > >>> they > > >>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the > > >>>>> future > > >>>>>>> if > > >>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > >>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the > > >> future, > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > > >>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, > > e.g. > > >>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > >>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the > > >>> Decimal, > > >>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. > IMO, > > >> we > > >>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > >>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support > > >>> custom > > >>>>>>> scale > > >>>>>>>> and precision in the future. > > >>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL > (proposed > > in > > >>>>>>> doc[2])? > > >>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > > >>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table > > >>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL > > >>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL > > >>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL > > >>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > >>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < > [hidden email]> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > > >>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as > > >> soon > > >>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and > > >>>>> ours. > > >>>>>>>> Once > > >>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the > > >>>>> those > > >>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we > > >> can > > >>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working > on. > > >> We > > >>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final design > of > > >>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > > >>>>>>> priority > > >>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the > user > > >>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email] > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > > >>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > > >>>>> production > > >>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > > >>>>>>> companies, > > >>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks > > >>>>> about > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge > them > > >>>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>> one, > > >>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. > Also, > > >>>>> we > > >>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the > design. > > >>>>>> What > > >>>>>>>> do > > >>>>>>>>>> you guys think? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We > > >>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>> prepare > > >>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > > >>>>>>>> summarizing > > >>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. > > >>>>> But > > >>>>>>>>> having a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > >>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > > >>>>> work! > > >>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>> left > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > > >>>>> definition > > >>>>>>>>> learned > > >>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > > >>>>>>> definition. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. > > >>>>> For > > >>>>>>>>> example, > > >>>>>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in > some > > >>>>>>>>> records, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > > >>>>> accurate. > > >>>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>> case, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Table > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > > >>>>>> together. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > > >>>>>>> combine > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > > >>>>>>>> existing > > >>>>>>>>>>> field > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > > >>>>>>> define > > >>>>>>>>>>> multiple > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > > >>>>>> (simply > > >>>>>>>>>>> modified): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > > >>>>> wm_strategy > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> | > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > > >>>>>>> “FOR” > > >>>>>>>>>>> keyword > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, > > >>>>> this > > >>>>>>>> field > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > > >>>>>>> derive > > >>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > > >>>>>>> such > > >>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > > >>>>>> ASCENDING. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > > >>>>> schema, > > >>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > > >>>>>> fields > > >>>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > >>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > > >>>>> strategy > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition > > >>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > > >>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>> defines a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > > >>>>>> implementation > > >>>>>>>>>>> (extends > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years > > >>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>> production > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > > >>>>>>>> simplicity > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > >>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > > >>>>>>>>> ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > >>>>>>> tableOption > > >>>>>>>> [ > > >>>>>>>>> , > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > > >>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > > >>>>> connector > > >>>>>>> API > > >>>>>>>>>> ready > > >>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > > >>>>>> properties > > >>>>>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>>>>> generic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > > >>>>>> Hive > > >>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>> (or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > >>>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > > >>>>>>> inputs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > > >>>>>> w/o > > >>>>>>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > > >>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > > >>>>> stick > > >>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>> simple > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax > > >>>>>> too > > >>>>>>>>> much > > >>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > > >>>>> proposal > > >>>>>>>> seems > > >>>>>>>>>>>> making > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > > >>>>> we > > >>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > > >>>>>> better > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > > >>>>>>>>> suggestions. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > > >>>>> be > > >>>>>>>> great > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> move > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > > >>>>> somehow > > >>>>>>>>> releated > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > > >>>>> with > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > > >>>>>> release > > >>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>> next > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>>> skips > > >>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > > >>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>> could > > >>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> used > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > > >>>>> queries > > >>>>>>> (no > > >>>>>>>>> time > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > > >>>>> list > > >>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> next > > >>>>>>>>>>> week. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > > >>>>> stuff > > >>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > > >>>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> once > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > > >>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > >>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > > >>>>> bandwidth > > >>>>>>>>> working > > >>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > > >>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > > >>>>>> ddl, > > >>>>>>>>>> because > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > > >>>>>> referred > > >>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > > >>>>>> table. > > >>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > > >>>>>> both > > >>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > > >>>>>>> manage > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> meta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > >>>>>>>>> parameters > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > > >>>>> ‘latest-offset’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > >>>>>>>>>> properties, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > > >>>>>>>> mapping > > >>>>>>>>>> how > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> user > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > > >>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>> what > > >>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>> done > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > >>>>>>> connector > > >>>>>>>> or > > >>>>>>>>>>>> format > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not > > >>>>>>>> restrict > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> key > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > > >>>>>>> and a > > >>>>>>>>> map > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > > >>>>> user a > > >>>>>>>>> single > > >>>>>>>>>>> map, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> let > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > > >>>>> also > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> simplest > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> way > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > > >>>>>>> depends > > >>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > > >>>>>>> clause > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>> may > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > > >>>>> connectors > > >>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > > >>>>>>> vastly > > >>>>>>>>>>> increase > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > >>>>>>>> possible > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > > >>>>>> Apache > > >>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > > >>>>>> Shuyi. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > >>>>>>>> previously > > >>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > > >>>>>>>> current > > >>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > > >>>>>>> brought > > >>>>>>>> up > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> features > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > >>>>>>>> document > > >>>>>>>>>>>> closely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > >>>>>>> connector > > >>>>>>>>> API > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > > >>>>>>> forward > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > > >>>>> contributing > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> them! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > > >>>>>> work > > >>>>>>>>>> closely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > > >>>>> directions > > >>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> two > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> community. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > >>>>>>>>>> statements). > > >>>>>>>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > > >>>>>> define/create > > >>>>>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sources > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > > >>>>>>> Client, > > >>>>>>>>>>> without > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > >>>>>>> dynamical > > >>>>>>>>>>> creation > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > > >>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>>>> adoption. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > >>>>>>>> community > > >>>>>>>>>>>> members > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > > >>>>>>> support > > >>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > > >>>>>>> library > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>> community, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > > >>>>> somehow > > >>>>>>>>> connect > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > >>>>> connect > > >>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > your > > >>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > >>> future." > > >>> > > > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi all,
Thanks for the discussion. I'd like to share my point of view as well. 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: 4.a) I agree with Lin and Jark's proposal. Declaring a watermark on an attribute declares it as an event-time attribute. 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka). We could use a special function like (ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()). This function will indicate that we read the timestamp directly from the system (and not the data). We can also write the field back to the system when emitting the table (violating the rule that computed fields are not emitted). 4c) I would treat WATERMARK similar to a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE KEY constraint and therefore keep it in the schema definition. 4d) For custom watermark strategies, a simple expressions or ScalarFunctions won't be sufficient. Sophisticated approaches could collect histograms, etc. But I think we can leave that out for later. 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH As you said, there are two things to consider here: permission and availability of a TableSource/TableSink. I think that neither should be a reason to add a keyword at such a sensitive position. However, I also see Timo's point that it would be good to know up-front how a table can be used without trying to instantiate a TableSource/Sink for a query. Maybe we can extend the TableFactory such that it provides information about which sources/sinks it can provide. 7. Table Update Mode Something that we definitely need to consider is how tables are ingested, i.e., append, retract or upsert. Especially, since upsert and retraction need a meta-data column that indicates whether an event is an insert (or upsert) or a delete change. This column needs to be identified somehow, most likely as part of the input format. Ideally, this column should not be part of the table schema (as it would be always true). Emitting tables is not so much of an issue as the properties of the table tell use what to do (append-only/update, unique key y/n). Best, Fabian Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu <[hidden email]>: > Hi Timo, > > Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: > > Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex problem. I > think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do not need to > specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The query can > choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted into an > append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an exception can be > thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write retractions/upserts > to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on the > table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag encoding, > but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. > > 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the > append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we have stream > source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink also > include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the tags on > the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table itself, > user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an > exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag can be > omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE TABLE in > the first version, and add it back in the future when we really need it? It > keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider clearly. > > 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as time > attribute and use what generate strategy. > When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` AS OFFSET > '5' SECOND. > If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it like > this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND > > 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header > Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only one time > attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we enable > `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be write to > Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is the time > attribute in the stream. > > 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, PRIMARY > KEY keywords. > > @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark syntax ? > For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS "OFFSET" > VS ... > > > Cheers, > Jark > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Hi Timo, > > Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: > > > > 3. Sources/Sinks: > > "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to list > all > > source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an INSERT > INTO > > here or not." > > This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all > > supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can perform a > > quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for the > > syntax. > > For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some or > all > > of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can derive the > > availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or > > specific table properties in WITH clause. > > Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords for > the > > MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. > > > > 6. Partitioning and keys > > Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and > partitioned > > table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add > > partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc > > later[1]. > > > > 5. Schema declaration > > "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" > constraints > > but without columns > > CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " > > > > From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the primary key > > constraint already references two columns but types unseen. > > And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema > > derivation as a follow-up extension ? > > > > > > > > > > Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: > > > > > > @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. I'm > open > > > for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of use > > > cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to cover > > > all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another example, > > > that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if append, > > > retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target > > > system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the big > > > WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor > > > approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have very > > > custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". > > > > > > 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it can be > > > created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific source/sink) > > > declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, yes we > > > would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a problem? One > > > also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is not > > > only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, not > > > every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a JDBC > sink > > > is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI session, > > > people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to know > > > upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. > > > > > > 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in the > > > design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in the > > > making/are on our roadmap for this release. > > > > > > 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. I > just > > > wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare computed > > > columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are we ok > > > with a syntax like ... > > > CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? > > > @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not excatly > > > match but this is true for both directions: > > > table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" table > > > schema. > > > > > > 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we > > > should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very > > > batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical and > > > future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an intermediate > > > layer on top of Flink's DDL. > > > > > > 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the TimestampExtractor > > > interface as this is also important for better separation of connector > > > and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark > generation. > > > > > > 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: > > > @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > > > rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. How > > > does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps that > > > are nested in the schema? > > > > > > 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: > > > I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This is > like > > > 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. > > > @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka > > > message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the stream > > > record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. So > we > > > need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use (possibly > > > computed as well)? > > > > > > 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to > > > the regular schema? > > > @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the feeling > > > that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual schema > > > with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about > > > timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a new > > > WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to this > > > point. > > > > > > Thanks everyone, > > > Timo > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > > > > Hi Timo, > > > > > > > > Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > > > > > > > > First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL functionality to > > > > Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as > > cautious > > > as > > > > possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a > > standard > > > > way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > > > > > > > > Here are some of my thoughts: > > > > > > > > 1. Scope: Agree. > > > > 2. Constraints: Agree. > > > > 4. Time attributes: > > > > 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > > > > If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > > > rowtime, > > > > no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed > column > > > to > > > > get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you mean > > > > defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an advantages, > > > > because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether to > > > "replace > > > > the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be confused > > > what's > > > > the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? > > Regarding > > > to > > > > the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when the > > > original > > > > timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown > > > optimization > > > > can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the same as > > > > "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > > > > > > > > 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? > > > > That's a good point. I think computed column is just a virtual > > > column > > > > on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write to a > > > table > > > > with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns > > except > > > > computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is ignored > > in > > > > the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write out > a > > > > timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a > configuration > > to > > > > support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the timestmap > > in > > > > StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you > think? > > > > > > > > 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause > > next > > > to > > > > the regular schema? > > > > Separating watermark into a special clause similar to > PARTITIONED > > > BY is > > > > also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in schema > > part > > > > or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark > > > > definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It is > > > > similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes on a > > table > > > > in schema part. > > > > > > > > 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? > > > > In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we need > a > > > > custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only > return > > a > > > > nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > > > > watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined scalar > > > function > > > > accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used as > > > > punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a class > > > > extending the > > > > `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` and > use > > > it > > > > in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. But if > > > > scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer it > > here, > > > > because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in MVP, > > we > > > > can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > > > > > > > > 5. Schema declaration: > > > > I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema from > > > > external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have already > > > > encountered this requirement in out company. > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive syntax > > while > > > > keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and > reduce > > > the > > > > learning cost for user. > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu <[hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to > > something > > > >> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > > > >> > > > >> 1. +1 on MVP DDL > > > >> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on tables > > that > > > >> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created > > differently > > > >> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use > these > > > >> keywords to enforce permissions. > > > >> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While > > there > > > >> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For > > example, > > > >> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For > > instance, > > > >> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For instance, > > the > > > >> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may stay > > > >> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file > based > > on > > > >> file schema and return the data based on table schema. > > > >> > > > >> Other aspects: > > > >> > > > >> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to operate > on > > > >> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be > compatible > > > with > > > >> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we > > should > > > be > > > >> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Xuefu > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > > > >> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > > > >> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > >> > > > >> Hi Timo and Shuyi, > > > >> thanks for your feedback. > > > >> > > > >> 1. Scope > > > >> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > > > >> > > > >> 2. Constraints > > > >> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > > > >> > > > >> 3. Sources/Sinks > > > >> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we > declare > > it > > > >> using > > > >> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further > question, > > > if a > > > >> TABLE > > > >> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some > > new > > > >> requirements > > > >> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both > > the > > > DDL > > > >> and catalogs. > > > >> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table > > > in-place > > > >> can be a common case. > > > >> e.g., > > > >> ``` > > > >> CREATE TABLE t1 ( > > > >> col1 varchar, > > > >> col2 int, > > > >> col3 varchar > > > >> ... > > > >> ); > > > >> > > > >> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > > > >> AS > > > >> SELECT > > > >> (some computing ...) > > > >> FROM t1; > > > >> ``` > > > >> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the > validation > > > >> purpose, we can find out other ways. > > > >> > > > >> 4. Time attributes > > > >> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > > > >> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for > > > custom > > > >> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is > more > > > >> friendly for table api not the SQL. > > > >> ``` > > > >> /** > > > >> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a > rowtime > > > >> attribute. > > > >> */ > > > >> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with > > > >> Serializable { > > > >> > > > >> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ > > > >> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > > > >> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > > > >> } > > > >> ``` > > > >> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are > > > >> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more > > > advantage in > > > >> SQL scenarios. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 6. Partitioning and keys > > > >> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table > > > support > > > >> can be another topic later. > > > >> > > > >> 5. Schema declaration > > > >> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user > > > >> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > > > >> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the > users > > > and > > > >> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > > > >> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some > > > >> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > > > >> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be > > > handy > > > >> especially one with too many table columns. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Lin > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, > > > >>> > > > >>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should > > aim > > > >>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > > > >>> > > > >>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the > > > >> design: > > > >>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements > > first. > > > >>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long > discussions > > > and > > > >>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE > > > >>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > > > >>> > > > >>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, > > > >>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as > they > > > >>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation > and > > > >>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not > > introduce > > > a > > > >>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can > > be > > > a > > > >>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > > > >>> > > > >>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE > > > >>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for > these > > > >>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams > have > > > >>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science > > team > > > >>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not > > accidently > > > >>> write back to the single source of truth. > > > >>> > > > >>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns > approach > > > >>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and > > simple. > > > >>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > > > >>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema > > twice. > > > >>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it > > > >>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed > column. > > > >>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out > there > > > >>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a > timestamp > > > >>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation > to a > > > >>> computed column. > > > >>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a > > > >>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a > > special > > > >>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does > it > > > in > > > >>> Hive? > > > >>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I > guess > > > >>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require > > some > > > >>> new type of UDF? > > > >>> > > > >>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design > should > > > >>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), > partitioning > > > >>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? > > > >>> > > > >>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to > force > > > >>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this is > > > >>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that > > > catalog > > > >>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, > people > > > >>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. > > What I > > > >>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > > > >>> > > > >>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > > > >>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > > > >>> > > > >>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines > > the > > > >>> table schema (+ time attributes). > > > >>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > > > >>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > > >>> > > > >>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to > > > >>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > > > >>> > > > >>> Regards, > > > >>> Timo > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > > > >>> > > > >>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > > > >>>> Hi Shuyi, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Regarding to the watermark: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including > computed-column) > > > in > > > >>>> table schema. > > > >>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns using > > > builtin > > > >>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > > > >>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only > common > > > >>>> scenarios. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom > > timestamp > > > >>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > > > >>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` > > in > > > >>> SQL, > > > >>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > > > >>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > > > >> `TimestampExtractor` > > > >>>> but more powerful and standard. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the > schema > > > >> part > > > >>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query > > > >> sees. > > > >>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or > > > >>> constraint > > > >>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines > what > > > >>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime > attribute > > > >>> field. > > > >>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use > > > computed > > > >>>> column > > > >>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern > > API > > > >> [1] > > > >>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not > > contradictory > > > >> to > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> [1]: > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > > >>>> . > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Best, > > > >>>> Jark > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great > progress > > > >> here. > > > >>>>> Below are my thoughts. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > > >>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime > extractors > > > and > > > >>>>> watermark strategies defined in > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > > >>>>> . > > > >>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the > > common > > > >>>>> scenarios. > > > >>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > > >>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the > > table > > > >>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > > > >>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > > >>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add > > it > > > >>> back > > > >>>>> later if needed. > > > >>>>> (4) Type Definition > > > >>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future > > versions. > > > >> As > > > >>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in > > > >> Calcite > > > >>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can > > > >>> definitely > > > >>>>> change if needed. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Shuyi > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create > > > >> table > > > >>> is > > > >>>>>> the another major difference. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > > >>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > > >>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > > >>>>>> (4) Type Definition > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>> Jark > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email] > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> Hi Jark, > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round > > implementation > > > >> of > > > >>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>> looks good to me. > > > >>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > > > >>>>>> [source/sink] > > > >>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create > > table" > > > >>> are > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. > > > >>> @Shuyi, > > > >>>>>> It > > > >>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two > > parts > > > >>>>>> first. > > > >>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I > > > >>>>> drafted. > > > >>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > > >>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version > of > > > >>>>> Flink > > > >>>>>>> SQL > > > >>>>>>>> DDL. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > > > >>>>> agreement > > > >>>>>>> ASAP > > > >>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi > > proposed. > > > >>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first > > > >> version > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>> my > > > >>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > > >>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: > > > >>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition > > > >>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > > > >>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > > > >>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties > > > >>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > > >>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > > >>>>>>>> (2) View DDL > > > >>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, > > welcome > > > >> to > > > >>>>>>> point > > > >>>>>>>> out): > > > >>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > > > >>>>> difference, > > > >>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian > > > >> Hueske > > > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > > >>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > > > >>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > > > >>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used > > because > > > >>> they > > > >>>>>> are > > > >>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in > the > > > >>>>> future > > > >>>>>>> if > > > >>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > > >>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the > > > >> future, > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > > > >>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, > > > e.g. > > > >>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > > >>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the > > > >>> Decimal, > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. > > IMO, > > > >> we > > > >>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > > >>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And > support > > > >>> custom > > > >>>>>>> scale > > > >>>>>>>> and precision in the future. > > > >>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL > > (proposed > > > in > > > >>>>>>> doc[2])? > > > >>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > > > >>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table > > > >>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL > > > >>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL > > > >>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL > > > >>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > > >>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>>>> Jark > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < > > [hidden email]> > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > > > >>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma > as > > > >> soon > > > >>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal > and > > > >>>>> ours. > > > >>>>>>>> Once > > > >>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on > the > > > >>>>> those > > > >>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, > we > > > >> can > > > >>>>>>>> design > > > >>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working > > on. > > > >> We > > > >>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final > design > > of > > > >>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a > higher > > > >>>>>>> priority > > > >>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the > > user > > > >>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen < > [hidden email] > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > > > >>>>>>> collaborate > > > >>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > > > >>>>> production > > > >>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > > > >>>>>>> companies, > > > >>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks > > > >>>>> about > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge > > them > > > >>>>>> into > > > >>>>>>>>> one, > > > >>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. > > Also, > > > >>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>> should > > > >>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the > > design. > > > >>>>>> What > > > >>>>>>>> do > > > >>>>>>>>>> you guys think? > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We > > > >>>>> will > > > >>>>>>>>> prepare > > > >>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > 下午9:17写道： > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > > > >>>>>>>> summarizing > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>>>>>>> having a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email] > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > > > >>>>> work! > > > >>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>> have > > > >>>>>>>>>>> left > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > > > >>>>> definition > > > >>>>>>>>> learned > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> from > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > > > >>>>>>> definition. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime > field. > > > >>>>> For > > > >>>>>>>>> example, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> one > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in > > some > > > >>>>>>>>> records, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > > > >>>>> accurate. > > > >>>>>>> In > > > >>>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> case, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks > in > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> Table > > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > > > >>>>>> together. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > > > >>>>>>> combine > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. > which > > > >>>>>>>> existing > > > >>>>>>>>>>> field > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > > > >>>>>>> define > > > >>>>>>>>>>> multiple > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > > > >>>>>> (simply > > > >>>>>>>>>>> modified): > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > > > >>>>> wm_strategy > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> | > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. > The > > > >>>>>>> “FOR” > > > >>>>>>>>>>> keyword > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, > > > >>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>> field > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column > to > > > >>>>>>> derive > > > >>>>>>>>>> from > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark > strategy, > > > >>>>>>> such > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > > > >>>>>> ASCENDING. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > > > >>>>> schema, > > > >>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > > > >>>>>> fields > > > >>>>>>>>> using > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > > >>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > > > >>>>> strategy > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field > definition > > > >>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>> also > > > >>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > > > >>>>> which > > > >>>>>>>>>> defines a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > > > >>>>>> implementation > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (extends > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two > years > > > >>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>> production > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > > > >>>>>>>> simplicity > > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > > >>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > > > >>>>>>>>> ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > > >>>>>>> tableOption > > > >>>>>>>> [ > > > >>>>>>>>> , > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > 上午3:28写道： > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > > > >>>>>> finalize > > > >>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > > > >>>>> connector > > > >>>>>>> API > > > >>>>>>>>>> ready > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > > > >>>>>> properties > > > >>>>>>>> into > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> generic > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > > > >>>>>> Hive > > > >>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>> (or > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>> design > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > > >>>>>>>> collaborate > > > >>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > > > >>>>>>> inputs. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > > > >>>>>> w/o > > > >>>>>>>>> being > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > > > >>>>>>> defining > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > > > >>>>> stick > > > >>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>> simple > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax > > > >>>>>> too > > > >>>>>>>>> much > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>> make > > > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > > > >>>>> proposal > > > >>>>>>>> seems > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> making > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > > > >>>>> we > > > >>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > > > >>>>>> better > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > > > >>>>>>>>> suggestions. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>> great > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> move > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > > > >>>>> somehow > > > >>>>>>>>> releated > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> basic > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > > > >>>>>> release > > > >>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>> next > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > > > >>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>> skips > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > > > >>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>> could > > > >>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> used > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > > > >>>>> queries > > > >>>>>>> (no > > > >>>>>>>>> time > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > > > >>>>> list > > > >>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>> next > > > >>>>>>>>>>> week. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > > > >>>>> stuff > > > >>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > > > >>>>>>> forward. > > > >>>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>> think > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> once > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > > > >>>>>>> finalize > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > > >>>>>>> collaborate > > > >>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > > > >>>>> bandwidth > > > >>>>>>>>> working > > > >>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > > > >>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>> forward. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > > > >>>>>> ddl, > > > >>>>>>>>>> because > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > > > >>>>>> referred > > > >>>>>>>> is a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> source > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > > > >>>>>> table. > > > >>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>> will > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > > > >>>>>> both > > > >>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>> source > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > > > >>>>>>> manage > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> meta > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > > >>>>>>>>> parameters > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > > > >>>>> ‘latest-offset’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > > >>>>>>>>>> properties, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > > > >>>>>>>> mapping > > > >>>>>>>>>> how > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> user > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > > > >>>>>> like > > > >>>>>>>> what > > > >>>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> done > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > > >>>>>>> connector > > > >>>>>>>> or > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> format > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not > > > >>>>>>>> restrict > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> key > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > > > >>>>>>> and a > > > >>>>>>>>> map > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > > > >>>>> user a > > > >>>>>>>>> single > > > >>>>>>>>>>> map, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> let > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > > > >>>>> also > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> simplest > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> way > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > > > >>>>>>> depends > > > >>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > > > >>>>>>> clause > > > >>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> may > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > > > >>>>> connectors > > > >>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > > > >>>>>>> vastly > > > >>>>>>>>>>> increase > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > > >>>>>>>> possible > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > > > >>>>>> Apache > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > > > >>>>>> Shuyi. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > > >>>>>>>> previously > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > > > >>>>>>>> current > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > > > >>>>>>> brought > > > >>>>>>>> up > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> features > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > > >>>>>>>> document > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> closely > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > > >>>>>>> connector > > > >>>>>>>>> API > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > > > >>>>>>> forward > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > > > >>>>> contributing > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>> them! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>>>> SQL > > > >>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > > > >>>>>> work > > > >>>>>>>>>> closely > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > > > >>>>> directions > > > >>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> two > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> community. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > > >>>>>>>>>> statements). > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> its > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > > > >>>>>> define/create > > > >>>>>>>>> table > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sources > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > > > >>>>>>> Client, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> without > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > > >>>>>>> dynamical > > > >>>>>>>>>>> creation > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > > > >>>>>> its > > > >>>>>>>>>>> adoption. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > > >>>>>>>> community > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> members > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > > > >>>>>>> support > > > >>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > > > >>>>>>> library > > > >>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> community, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>> Flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > > > >>>>> somehow > > > >>>>>>>>> connect > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > > >>>>> connect > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>> your > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > > your > > > >>>>>>>> future." > > > >>>>> -- > > > >>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > > >>> future." > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi all,
I think we are making good progress. Thanks for all the feedback so far. 3. Sources/Sinks: It seems that I can not find supporters for explicit SOURCE/SINK declaration so I'm fine with not using those keywords. @Fabian: Maybe we don't haven have to change the TableFactory interface but just provide some helper functions in the TableFactoryService. This would solve the availability problem, but the permission problem would still not be solved. If you are fine with it, we could introduce a property instead? 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: We should find an agreement on this as it requires changes to the TableFactory interface. We should minimize changes to this interface because it is user-facing. Especially, if format schema and table schema differ, the need for such a functionality is very important. Our goal is to connect to existing infrastructure. For example, if we are using Avro and the existing Avro format has enums but Flink SQL does not support enums, it would be helpful to let the Avro format derive a table schema. Otherwise your need to declare both schemas which leads to CREATE TABLE statements of 400 lines+. I think the mentioned query: CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") is fine and should only be valid if the schema contains no non-computed columns. 7. Table Update Mode: After thinking about it again, I agree. The mode of the sinks can be derived from the query and the existence of a PRIMARY KEY declaration. But Fabian raised a very good point. How do we deal with sources? Shall we introduce a new keywords similar to WATERMARKS such that a upsert/retract flag is not part of the visible schema? 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? @Jark: Thanks for the explanation of the WATERMARK clause semantics. This is a nice way of marking existing fields. This sounds good to me. 4c) WATERMARK as constraint I'm fine with leaving the WATERMARK clause in the schema definition. 4d) Custom watermark strategies: I would already think about custom watermark strategies as the current descriptor design already supports this. ScalarFunction's don't work as a PeriodicWatermarkAssigner has different semantics. Why not simply entering the a full class name here as it is done in the current design? 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka) @Fabian: Yes, your suggestion sounds good to me. This behavior would be similar to our current `timestamps: from-source` design. Once our discussion has found a conclusion, I would like to volunteer and summarize the outcome of this mailing thread. It nicely aligns with the update work on the connector improvements document (that I wanted to do anyway) and the ongoing external catalog discussion. Furthermore, I would also want to propose how to change existing interfaces by keeping the DDL, connector improvements, and external catalog support in mind. Would that be ok for you? Thanks, Timo Am 07.12.18 um 14:48 schrieb Fabian Hueske: > Hi all, > > Thanks for the discussion. > I'd like to share my point of view as well. > > 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > 4.a) I agree with Lin and Jark's proposal. Declaring a watermark on an > attribute declares it as an event-time attribute. > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka). We could use > a special function like (ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()). This function will > indicate that we read the timestamp directly from the system (and not the > data). We can also write the field back to the system when emitting the > table (violating the rule that computed fields are not emitted). > 4c) I would treat WATERMARK similar to a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE KEY > constraint and therefore keep it in the schema definition. > 4d) For custom watermark strategies, a simple expressions or > ScalarFunctions won't be sufficient. Sophisticated approaches could collect > histograms, etc. But I think we can leave that out for later. > > 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > As you said, there are two things to consider here: permission and > availability of a TableSource/TableSink. > I think that neither should be a reason to add a keyword at such a > sensitive position. > However, I also see Timo's point that it would be good to know up-front how > a table can be used without trying to instantiate a TableSource/Sink for a > query. > Maybe we can extend the TableFactory such that it provides information > about which sources/sinks it can provide. > > 7. Table Update Mode > Something that we definitely need to consider is how tables are ingested, > i.e., append, retract or upsert. > Especially, since upsert and retraction need a meta-data column that > indicates whether an event is an insert (or upsert) or a delete change. > This column needs to be identified somehow, most likely as part of the > input format. Ideally, this column should not be part of the table schema > (as it would be always true). > Emitting tables is not so much of an issue as the properties of the table > tell use what to do (append-only/update, unique key y/n). > > Best, > Fabian > > > Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu <[hidden email]>: > >> Hi Timo, >> >> Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: >> >> Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex problem. I >> think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do not need to >> specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The query can >> choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted into an >> append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an exception can be >> thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write retractions/upserts >> to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on the >> table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag encoding, >> but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. >> >> 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the >> append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we have stream >> source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink also >> include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the tags on >> the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table itself, >> user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an >> exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag can be >> omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE TABLE in >> the first version, and add it back in the future when we really need it? It >> keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider clearly. >> >> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? >> The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as time >> attribute and use what generate strategy. >> When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` AS OFFSET >> '5' SECOND. >> If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it like >> this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND >> >> 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header >> Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only one time >> attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we enable >> `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be write to >> Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is the time >> attribute in the stream. >> >> 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, PRIMARY >> KEY keywords. >> >> @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark syntax ? >> For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS "OFFSET" >> VS ... >> >> >> Cheers, >> Jark >> >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Timo, >>> Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: >>> >>> 3. Sources/Sinks: >>> "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to list >> all >>> source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an INSERT >> INTO >>> here or not." >>> This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all >>> supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can perform a >>> quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for the >>> syntax. >>> For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some or >> all >>> of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can derive the >>> availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or >>> specific table properties in WITH clause. >>> Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords for >> the >>> MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. >>> >>> 6. Partitioning and keys >>> Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and >> partitioned >>> table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add >>> partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc >>> later[1]. >>> >>> 5. Schema declaration >>> "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" >> constraints >>> but without columns >>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, >>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " >>> >>> From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the primary key >>> constraint already references two columns but types unseen. >>> And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema >>> derivation as a follow-up extension ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: >>>> >>>> @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. I'm >> open >>>> for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of use >>>> cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to cover >>>> all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another example, >>>> that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if append, >>>> retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target >>>> system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the big >>>> WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor >>>> approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have very >>>> custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". >>>> >>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it can be >>>> created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific source/sink) >>>> declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, yes we >>>> would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a problem? One >>>> also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is not >>>> only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, not >>>> every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a JDBC >> sink >>>> is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI session, >>>> people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to know >>>> upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. >>>> >>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in the >>>> design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in the >>>> making/are on our roadmap for this release. >>>> >>>> 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. I >> just >>>> wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare computed >>>> columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are we ok >>>> with a syntax like ... >>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, >>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? >>>> @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not excatly >>>> match but this is true for both directions: >>>> table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" table >>>> schema. >>>> >>>> 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we >>>> should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very >>>> batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical and >>>> future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an intermediate >>>> layer on top of Flink's DDL. >>>> >>>> 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the TimestampExtractor >>>> interface as this is also important for better separation of connector >>>> and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark >> generation. >>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: >>>> @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as >>>> rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. How >>>> does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps that >>>> are nested in the schema? >>>> >>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: >>>> I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This is >> like >>>> 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. >>>> @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka >>>> message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the stream >>>> record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. So >> we >>>> need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use (possibly >>>> computed as well)? >>>> >>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to >>>> the regular schema? >>>> @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the feeling >>>> that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual schema >>>> with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about >>>> timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a new >>>> WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to this >>>> point. >>>> >>>> Thanks everyone, >>>> Timo >>>> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: >>>>> Hi Timo, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. >>>>> >>>>> First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL functionality to >>>>> Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as >>> cautious >>>> as >>>>> possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a >>> standard >>>>> way, we shouldn't introduce something new. >>>>> >>>>> Here are some of my thoughts: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Scope: Agree. >>>>> 2. Constraints: Agree. >>>>> 4. Time attributes: >>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. >>>>> If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as >>>> rowtime, >>>>> no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed >> column >>>> to >>>>> get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you mean >>>>> defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an advantages, >>>>> because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether to >>>> "replace >>>>> the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be confused >>>> what's >>>>> the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? >>> Regarding >>>> to >>>>> the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when the >>>> original >>>>> timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown >>>> optimization >>>>> can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the same as >>>>> "replacing the existing column" in runtime. >>>>> >>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? >>>>> That's a good point. I think computed column is just a virtual >>>> column >>>>> on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write to a >>>> table >>>>> with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns >>> except >>>>> computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is ignored >>> in >>>>> the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write out >> a >>>>> timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a >> configuration >>> to >>>>> support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the timestmap >>> in >>>>> StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you >> think? >>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause >>> next >>>> to >>>>> the regular schema? >>>>> Separating watermark into a special clause similar to >> PARTITIONED >>>> BY is >>>>> also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in schema >>> part >>>>> or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark >>>>> definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It is >>>>> similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes on a >>> table >>>>> in schema part. >>>>> >>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? >>>>> In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we need >> a >>>>> custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only >> return >>> a >>>>> nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS >>>>> watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined scalar >>>> function >>>>> accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used as >>>>> punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a class >>>>> extending the >>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` and >> use >>>> it >>>>> in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. But if >>>>> scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer it >>> here, >>>>> because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in MVP, >>> we >>>>> can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. >>>>> >>>>> 5. Schema declaration: >>>>> I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema from >>>>> external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have already >>>>> encountered this requirement in out company. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive syntax >>> while >>>>> keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and >> reduce >>>> the >>>>> learning cost for user. >>>>> >>>>> [1]: >>>>> >> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 >>>>> Best, >>>>> Jark >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to >>> something >>>>>> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. +1 on MVP DDL >>>>>> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on tables >>> that >>>>>> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created >>> differently >>>>>> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use >> these >>>>>> keywords to enforce permissions. >>>>>> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While >>> there >>>>>> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For >>> example, >>>>>> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For >>> instance, >>>>>> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For instance, >>> the >>>>>> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may stay >>>>>> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file >> based >>> on >>>>>> file schema and return the data based on table schema. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other aspects: >>>>>> >>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to operate >> on >>>>>> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be >> compatible >>>> with >>>>>> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we >>> should >>>> be >>>>>> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> >>>>>> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 >>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> >>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Timo and Shuyi, >>>>>> thanks for your feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Scope >>>>>> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Constraints >>>>>> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks >>>>>> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we >> declare >>> it >>>>>> using >>>>>> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further >> question, >>>> if a >>>>>> TABLE >>>>>> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some >>> new >>>>>> requirements >>>>>> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both >>> the >>>> DDL >>>>>> and catalogs. >>>>>> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table >>>> in-place >>>>>> can be a common case. >>>>>> e.g., >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> CREATE TABLE t1 ( >>>>>> col1 varchar, >>>>>> col2 int, >>>>>> col3 varchar >>>>>> ... >>>>>> ); >>>>>> >>>>>> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 >>>>>> AS >>>>>> SELECT >>>>>> (some computing ...) >>>>>> FROM t1; >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the >> validation >>>>>> purpose, we can find out other ways. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Time attributes >>>>>> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an >>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for >>>> custom >>>>>> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is >> more >>>>>> friendly for table api not the SQL. >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> /** >>>>>> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a >> rowtime >>>>>> attribute. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with >>>>>> Serializable { >>>>>> >>>>>> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ >>>>>> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = >>>>>> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] >>>>>> } >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are >>>>>> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more >>>> advantage in >>>>>> SQL scenarios. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys >>>>>> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table >>>> support >>>>>> can be another topic later. >>>>>> >>>>>> 5. Schema declaration >>>>>> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user >>>>>> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. >>>>>> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the >> users >>>> and >>>>>> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, >>>>>> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some >>>>>> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. >>>>>> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be >>>> handy >>>>>> especially one with too many table columns. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Lin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should >>> aim >>>>>>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the >>>>>> design: >>>>>>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements >>> first. >>>>>>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long >> discussions >>>> and >>>>>>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE >>>>>>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, >>>>>>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as >> they >>>>>>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation >> and >>>>>>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not >>> introduce >>>> a >>>>>>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can >>> be >>>> a >>>>>>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE >>>>>>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for >> these >>>>>>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams >> have >>>>>>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science >>> team >>>>>>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not >>> accidently >>>>>>> write back to the single source of truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns >> approach >>>>>>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and >>> simple. >>>>>>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. >>>>>>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema >>> twice. >>>>>>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it >>>>>>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed >> column. >>>>>>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out >> there >>>>>>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a >> timestamp >>>>>>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation >> to a >>>>>>> computed column. >>>>>>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a >>>>>>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a >>> special >>>>>>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does >> it >>>> in >>>>>>> Hive? >>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I >> guess >>>>>>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require >>> some >>>>>>> new type of UDF? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design >> should >>>>>>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), >> partitioning >>>>>>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to >> force >>>>>>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this is >>>>>>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that >>>> catalog >>>>>>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, >> people >>>>>>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. >>> What I >>>>>>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines >>> the >>>>>>> table schema (+ time attributes). >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = >>>>>>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to >>>>>>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf >>>>>>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: >>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding to the watermark: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including >> computed-column) >>>> in >>>>>>>> table schema. >>>>>>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns using >>>> builtin >>>>>>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). >>>>>>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only >> common >>>>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom >>> timestamp >>>>>>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` >>>>>>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` >>> in >>>>>>> SQL, >>>>>>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? >>>>>>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with >>>>>> `TimestampExtractor` >>>>>>>> but more powerful and standard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the >> schema >>>>>> part >>>>>>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query >>>>>> sees. >>>>>>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or >>>>>>> constraint >>>>>>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines >> what >>>>>>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime >> attribute >>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use >>>> computed >>>>>>>> column >>>>>>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern >>> API >>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not >>> contradictory >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1]: >>>>>>>> >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great >> progress >>>>>> here. >>>>>>>>> Below are my thoughts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition >>>>>>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime >> extractors >>>> and >>>>>>>>> watermark strategies defined in >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the >>> common >>>>>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the >>> table >>>>>>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. >>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties >>>>>>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add >>> it >>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>> later if needed. >>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition >>>>>>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future >>> versions. >>>>>> As >>>>>>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in >>>>>> Calcite >>>>>>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can >>>>>>> definitely >>>>>>>>> change if needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create >>>>>> table >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> the another major difference. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition >>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties >>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email] >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark, >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round >>> implementation >>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>> looks good to me. >>>>>>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create >>>>>>>>>> [source/sink] >>>>>>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create >>> table" >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. >>>>>>> @Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two >>> parts >>>>>>>>>> first. >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I >>>>>>>>> drafted. >>>>>>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. >>>>>>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version >> of >>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach >>>>>>>>> agreement >>>>>>>>>>> ASAP >>>>>>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi >>> proposed. >>>>>>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first >>>>>> version >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, >>> welcome >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>>>>>> out): >>>>>>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important >>>>>>>>> difference, >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian >>>>>> Hueske >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: >>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? >>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used >>> because >>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in >> the >>>>>>>>> future >>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. >>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the >>>>>> future, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. >>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, >>>> e.g. >>>>>>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? >>>>>>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of the >>>>>>> Decimal, >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. >>> IMO, >>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, >>>>>>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And >> support >>>>>>> custom >>>>>>>>>>> scale >>>>>>>>>>>> and precision in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL >>> (proposed >>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> doc[2])? >>>>>>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL >>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL >>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < >>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, >>>>>>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma >> as >>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal >> and >>>>>>>>> ours. >>>>>>>>>>>> Once >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on >> the >>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, >> we >>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working >>> on. >>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final >> design >>> of >>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a >> higher >>>>>>>>>>> priority >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the >>> user >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen < >> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely >>>>>>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in >>>>>>>>> production >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both >>>>>>>>>>> companies, >>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge >>> them >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>>> one, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. >>> Also, >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the >>> design. >>>>>>>>>> What >>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you guys think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We >>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>> prepare >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 >> 下午9:17写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider >>>>>>>>>>>> summarizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. >>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>>>>> having a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome >>>>>>>>> work! >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark >>>>>>>>> definition >>>>>>>>>>>>> learned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark >>>>>>>>>>> definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime >> field. >>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>>>>> example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in >>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>> records, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very >>>>>>>>> accurate. >>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks >> in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> Table >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field >>>>>>>>>> together. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should >>>>>>>>>>> combine >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. >> which >>>>>>>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can >>>>>>>>>>> define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba >>>>>>>>>> (simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS >>>>>>>>> wm_strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. >> The >>>>>>>>>>> “FOR” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column >> to >>>>>>>>>>> derive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark >> strategy, >>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and >>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the >>>>>>>>> schema, >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing >>>>>>>>>> fields >>>>>>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” >>>>>>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field >> definition >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL >>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (extends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two >> years >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping >>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, >>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* >>>>>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption >>>>>>>>>>>> [ >>>>>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 >> 上午3:28写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can >>>>>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified >>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific >>>>>>>>>> properties >>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with >>>>>>>>>> Hive >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and >>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and >>>>>>>>>>> inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed >>>>>>>>>> w/o >>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while >>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably >>>>>>>>> stick >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax >>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current >>>>>>>>> proposal >>>>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for >>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is >>>>>>>>> somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>> releated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this >>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> skips >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This >>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL >>>>>>>>> queries >>>>>>>>>>> (no >>>>>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority >>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other >>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this >>>>>>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can >>>>>>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to >>>>>>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the >>>>>>>>> bandwidth >>>>>>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the >>>>>>>>>> ddl, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table >>>>>>>>>> referred >>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the >>>>>>>>>> table. >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be >>>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and >>>>>>>>>>> manage >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as >>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = >>>>>>>>> ‘latest-offset’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to >>>>>>>>>>>> mapping >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in >>>>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not >>>>>>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope >>>>>>>>>>> and a >>>>>>>>>>>>> map >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give >>>>>>>>> user a >>>>>>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, >>>>>>>>>>> depends >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different >>>>>>>>>>> clause >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the >>>>>>>>> connectors >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can >>>>>>>>>>> vastly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be >>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by >>>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times >>>>>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the >>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously >>>>>>>>>>> brought >>>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the >>>>>>>>>>>> document >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL >>>>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking >>>>>>>>>>> forward >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and >>>>>>>>> contributing >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> them! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the >>>>>>>>> directions >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to >>>>>>>>>> define/create >>>>>>>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL >>>>>>>>>>> Client, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow >>>>>>>>>>> dynamical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adoption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other >>>>>>>>>>>> community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL >>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, >>>>>>>>>>> library >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will >>>>>>>>> somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>> connect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow >>>>>>>>> connect >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in >>> your >>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your >>>>>>> future." >>>>>>> >>>> |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi all,
Thanks a lot for the great discussion. I think we can continue the discussion here while carving out a MVP so that the community can start working on. Based on the discussion so far, I try to summarize what we will do for the MVP: MVP 1. support CREATE TABLE 2. support exisiting data type in Flink SQL, ignore nullability and precision 3. support table comments and column comments 4. support table constraint PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE 5. support table properties using key-value pairs 6. support partitioned by 7. support computed column 8. support from-field and from-source timestamp extractors 9. support PERIODIC-ASCENDING, PERIODIC-BOUNDED, FROM-SOURCE watermark strategies. 10. support a table property to allow explicit enforcement of read/write(source/sink) permission of a table I try to put up the DDL grammar ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ug1-aVBSCxZQk58kR-yaK2ETCgL3zg0eDUVGCnW2V9E/edit?usp=sharing) based on the MVP features above and the previous design docs. Please take a look and comment on it. Also, I summarize the future Improvement on CREATE TABLE as the followings: 1. support table update mode 2. support data type nullability and precision 3. support row/map/array data type 4. support custom timestamp extractor and watermark strategy 5. support schema derivation 6. support system versioned temporal table 7. support table index I suggest we first agree on the MVP feature list and the MVP grammar. And then we can either continue the discussion of the future improvements here, or create separate JIRAs for each item and discuss further in the JIRA. What do you guys think? Shuyi On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think we are making good progress. Thanks for all the feedback so far. > > 3. Sources/Sinks: > It seems that I can not find supporters for explicit SOURCE/SINK > declaration so I'm fine with not using those keywords. > @Fabian: Maybe we don't haven have to change the TableFactory interface > but just provide some helper functions in the TableFactoryService. This > would solve the availability problem, but the permission problem would > still not be solved. If you are fine with it, we could introduce a > property instead? > > 5. Schema declaration: > @Lin: We should find an agreement on this as it requires changes to the > TableFactory interface. We should minimize changes to this interface > because it is user-facing. Especially, if format schema and table schema > differ, the need for such a functionality is very important. Our goal is > to connect to existing infrastructure. For example, if we are using Avro > and the existing Avro format has enums but Flink SQL does not support > enums, it would be helpful to let the Avro format derive a table schema. > Otherwise your need to declare both schemas which leads to CREATE TABLE > statements of 400 lines+. > I think the mentioned query: > CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") > is fine and should only be valid if the schema contains no non-computed > columns. > > 7. Table Update Mode: > After thinking about it again, I agree. The mode of the sinks can be > derived from the query and the existence of a PRIMARY KEY declaration. > But Fabian raised a very good point. How do we deal with sources? Shall > we introduce a new keywords similar to WATERMARKS such that a > upsert/retract flag is not part of the visible schema? > > 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > @Jark: Thanks for the explanation of the WATERMARK clause semantics. > This is a nice way of marking existing fields. This sounds good to me. > > 4c) WATERMARK as constraint > I'm fine with leaving the WATERMARK clause in the schema definition. > > 4d) Custom watermark strategies: > I would already think about custom watermark strategies as the current > descriptor design already supports this. ScalarFunction's don't work as > a PeriodicWatermarkAssigner has different semantics. Why not simply > entering the a full class name here as it is done in the current design? > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka) > @Fabian: Yes, your suggestion sounds good to me. This behavior would be > similar to our current `timestamps: from-source` design. > > Once our discussion has found a conclusion, I would like to volunteer > and summarize the outcome of this mailing thread. It nicely aligns with > the update work on the connector improvements document (that I wanted to > do anyway) and the ongoing external catalog discussion. Furthermore, I > would also want to propose how to change existing interfaces by keeping > the DDL, connector improvements, and external catalog support in mind. > Would that be ok for you? > > Thanks, > Timo > > > > Am 07.12.18 um 14:48 schrieb Fabian Hueske: > > Hi all, > > > > Thanks for the discussion. > > I'd like to share my point of view as well. > > > > 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > > 4.a) I agree with Lin and Jark's proposal. Declaring a watermark on an > > attribute declares it as an event-time attribute. > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka). We could > use > > a special function like (ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()). This function will > > indicate that we read the timestamp directly from the system (and not the > > data). We can also write the field back to the system when emitting the > > table (violating the rule that computed fields are not emitted). > > 4c) I would treat WATERMARK similar to a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE KEY > > constraint and therefore keep it in the schema definition. > > 4d) For custom watermark strategies, a simple expressions or > > ScalarFunctions won't be sufficient. Sophisticated approaches could > collect > > histograms, etc. But I think we can leave that out for later. > > > > 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > > As you said, there are two things to consider here: permission and > > availability of a TableSource/TableSink. > > I think that neither should be a reason to add a keyword at such a > > sensitive position. > > However, I also see Timo's point that it would be good to know up-front > how > > a table can be used without trying to instantiate a TableSource/Sink for > a > > query. > > Maybe we can extend the TableFactory such that it provides information > > about which sources/sinks it can provide. > > > > 7. Table Update Mode > > Something that we definitely need to consider is how tables are ingested, > > i.e., append, retract or upsert. > > Especially, since upsert and retraction need a meta-data column that > > indicates whether an event is an insert (or upsert) or a delete change. > > This column needs to be identified somehow, most likely as part of the > > input format. Ideally, this column should not be part of the table schema > > (as it would be always true). > > Emitting tables is not so much of an issue as the properties of the table > > tell use what to do (append-only/update, unique key y/n). > > > > Best, > > Fabian > > > > > > Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu <[hidden email]>: > > > >> Hi Timo, > >> > >> Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: > >> > >> Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex problem. I > >> think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do not > need to > >> specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The query > can > >> choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted into > an > >> append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an exception > can be > >> thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write > retractions/upserts > >> to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on the > >> table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag > encoding, > >> but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. > >> > >> 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the > >> append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we have > stream > >> source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink also > >> include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the tags on > >> the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table > itself, > >> user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an > >> exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag can be > >> omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE TABLE > in > >> the first version, and add it back in the future when we really need > it? It > >> keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider clearly. > >> > >> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > >> The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as time > >> attribute and use what generate strategy. > >> When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` AS > OFFSET > >> '5' SECOND. > >> If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it like > >> this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND > >> > >> 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header > >> Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only one > time > >> attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we enable > >> `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be > write to > >> Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is the > time > >> attribute in the stream. > >> > >> 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, > PRIMARY > >> KEY keywords. > >> > >> @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark > syntax ? > >> For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS > "OFFSET" > >> VS ... > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Jark > >> > >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Timo, > >>> Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: > >>> > >>> 3. Sources/Sinks: > >>> "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to list > >> all > >>> source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an INSERT > >> INTO > >>> here or not." > >>> This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all > >>> supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can perform a > >>> quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for the > >>> syntax. > >>> For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some or > >> all > >>> of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can derive > the > >>> availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or > >>> specific table properties in WITH clause. > >>> Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords for > >> the > >>> MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. > >>> > >>> 6. Partitioning and keys > >>> Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and > >> partitioned > >>> table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add > >>> partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc > >>> later[1]. > >>> > >>> 5. Schema declaration > >>> "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" > >> constraints > >>> but without columns > >>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > >>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " > >>> > >>> From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the primary key > >>> constraint already references two columns but types unseen. > >>> And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema > >>> derivation as a follow-up extension ? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： > >>> > >>>> Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>> great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: > >>>> > >>>> @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. I'm > >> open > >>>> for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of use > >>>> cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to > cover > >>>> all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another > example, > >>>> that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if append, > >>>> retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target > >>>> system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the big > >>>> WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor > >>>> approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have very > >>>> custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". > >>>> > >>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it can > be > >>>> created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific source/sink) > >>>> declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, yes we > >>>> would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a problem? > One > >>>> also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is not > >>>> only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, not > >>>> every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a JDBC > >> sink > >>>> is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI session, > >>>> people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to know > >>>> upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. > >>>> > >>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in the > >>>> design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in the > >>>> making/are on our roadmap for this release. > >>>> > >>>> 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. I > >> just > >>>> wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare computed > >>>> columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are we > ok > >>>> with a syntax like ... > >>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > >>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? > >>>> @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not excatly > >>>> match but this is true for both directions: > >>>> table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" table > >>>> schema. > >>>> > >>>> 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we > >>>> should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very > >>>> batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical and > >>>> future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an intermediate > >>>> layer on top of Flink's DDL. > >>>> > >>>> 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the > TimestampExtractor > >>>> interface as this is also important for better separation of connector > >>>> and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark > >> generation. > >>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: > >>>> @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > >>>> rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. How > >>>> does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps that > >>>> are nested in the schema? > >>>> > >>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: > >>>> I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This is > >> like > >>>> 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. > >>>> @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka > >>>> message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the stream > >>>> record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. So > >> we > >>>> need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use (possibly > >>>> computed as well)? > >>>> > >>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next to > >>>> the regular schema? > >>>> @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the feeling > >>>> that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual schema > >>>> with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about > >>>> timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a new > >>>> WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to > this > >>>> point. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks everyone, > >>>> Timo > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > >>>>> Hi Timo, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > >>>>> > >>>>> First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL functionality to > >>>>> Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as > >>> cautious > >>>> as > >>>>> possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a > >>> standard > >>>>> way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here are some of my thoughts: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Scope: Agree. > >>>>> 2. Constraints: Agree. > >>>>> 4. Time attributes: > >>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > >>>>> If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > >>>> rowtime, > >>>>> no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed > >> column > >>>> to > >>>>> get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you mean > >>>>> defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an advantages, > >>>>> because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether to > >>>> "replace > >>>>> the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be confused > >>>> what's > >>>>> the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? > >>> Regarding > >>>> to > >>>>> the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when the > >>>> original > >>>>> timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown > >>>> optimization > >>>>> can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the same as > >>>>> "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > >>>>> > >>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? > >>>>> That's a good point. I think computed column is just a virtual > >>>> column > >>>>> on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write to a > >>>> table > >>>>> with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns > >>> except > >>>>> computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is ignored > >>> in > >>>>> the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write out > >> a > >>>>> timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a > >> configuration > >>> to > >>>>> support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the timestmap > >>> in > >>>>> StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you > >> think? > >>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause > >>> next > >>>> to > >>>>> the regular schema? > >>>>> Separating watermark into a special clause similar to > >> PARTITIONED > >>>> BY is > >>>>> also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in schema > >>> part > >>>>> or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark > >>>>> definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It is > >>>>> similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes on a > >>> table > >>>>> in schema part. > >>>>> > >>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? > >>>>> In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we need > >> a > >>>>> custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only > >> return > >>> a > >>>>> nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > >>>>> watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined scalar > >>>> function > >>>>> accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used as > >>>>> punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a class > >>>>> extending the > >>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` and > >> use > >>>> it > >>>>> in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. But if > >>>>> scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer it > >>> here, > >>>>> because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in MVP, > >>> we > >>>>> can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > >>>>> > >>>>> 5. Schema declaration: > >>>>> I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema from > >>>>> external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have already > >>>>> encountered this requirement in out company. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive syntax > >>> while > >>>>> keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and > >> reduce > >>>> the > >>>>> learning cost for user. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1]: > >>>>> > >> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Jark > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu <[hidden email]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to > >>> something > >>>>>> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. +1 on MVP DDL > >>>>>> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on tables > >>> that > >>>>>> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created > >>> differently > >>>>>> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use > >> these > >>>>>> keywords to enforce permissions. > >>>>>> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While > >>> there > >>>>>> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For > >>> example, > >>>>>> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For > >>> instance, > >>>>>> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For instance, > >>> the > >>>>>> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may stay > >>>>>> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file > >> based > >>> on > >>>>>> file schema and return the data based on table schema. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Other aspects: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to operate > >> on > >>>>>> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be > >> compatible > >>>> with > >>>>>> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we > >>> should > >>>> be > >>>>>> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > >>>>>> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > >>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > >>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Timo and Shuyi, > >>>>>> thanks for your feedback. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. Scope > >>>>>> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. Constraints > >>>>>> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks > >>>>>> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we > >> declare > >>> it > >>>>>> using > >>>>>> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further > >> question, > >>>> if a > >>>>>> TABLE > >>>>>> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for some > >>> new > >>>>>> requirements > >>>>>> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating both > >>> the > >>>> DDL > >>>>>> and catalogs. > >>>>>> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table > >>>> in-place > >>>>>> can be a common case. > >>>>>> e.g., > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> CREATE TABLE t1 ( > >>>>>> col1 varchar, > >>>>>> col2 int, > >>>>>> col3 varchar > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>> ); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > >>>>>> AS > >>>>>> SELECT > >>>>>> (some computing ...) > >>>>>> FROM t1; > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the > >> validation > >>>>>> purpose, we can find out other ways. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4. Time attributes > >>>>>> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > >>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` for > >>>> custom > >>>>>> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is > >> more > >>>>>> friendly for table api not the SQL. > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> /** > >>>>>> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a > >> rowtime > >>>>>> attribute. > >>>>>> */ > >>>>>> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with > >>>>>> Serializable { > >>>>>> > >>>>>> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ > >>>>>> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > >>>>>> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor are > >>>>>> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more > >>>> advantage in > >>>>>> SQL scenarios. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys > >>>>>> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table > >>>> support > >>>>>> can be another topic later. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 5. Schema declaration > >>>>>> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user > >>>>>> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > >>>>>> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the > >> users > >>>> and > >>>>>> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > >>>>>> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize some > >>>>>> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > >>>>>> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can be > >>>> handy > >>>>>> especially one with too many table columns. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Lin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we should > >>> aim > >>>>>>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in the > >>>>>> design: > >>>>>>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements > >>> first. > >>>>>>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long > >> discussions > >>>> and > >>>>>>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE > >>>>>>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like nullability, > >>>>>>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as > >> they > >>>>>>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation > >> and > >>>>>>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not > >>> introduce > >>>> a > >>>>>>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This can > >>> be > >>>> a > >>>>>>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs CREATE > >>>>>>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for > >> these > >>>>>>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams > >> have > >>>>>>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data science > >>> team > >>>>>>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not > >>> accidently > >>>>>>> write back to the single source of truth. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns > >> approach > >>>>>>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and > >>> simple. > >>>>>>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > >>>>>>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema > >>> twice. > >>>>>>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as it > >>>>>>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed > >> column. > >>>>>>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out > >> there > >>>>>>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a > >> timestamp > >>>>>>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation > >> to a > >>>>>>> computed column. > >>>>>>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of a > >>>>>>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a > >>> special > >>>>>>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY does > >> it > >>>> in > >>>>>>> Hive? > >>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I > >> guess > >>>>>>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would require > >>> some > >>>>>>> new type of UDF? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design > >> should > >>>>>>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), > >> partitioning > >>>>>>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to > >> force > >>>>>>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this is > >>>>>>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that > >>>> catalog > >>>>>>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, > >> people > >>>>>>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. > >>> What I > >>>>>>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema defines > >>> the > >>>>>>> table schema (+ time attributes). > >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > >>>>>>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to > >>>>>>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > >>>>>>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > >>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regarding to the watermark: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including > >> computed-column) > >>>> in > >>>>>>>> table schema. > >>>>>>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns using > >>>> builtin > >>>>>>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > >>>>>>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only > >> common > >>>>>>>> scenarios. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom > >>> timestamp > >>>>>>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > >>>>>>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support `TimestampExtractor` > >>> in > >>>>>>> SQL, > >>>>>>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > >>>>>>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > >>>>>> `TimestampExtractor` > >>>>>>>> but more powerful and standard. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the > >> schema > >>>>>> part > >>>>>>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the query > >>>>>> sees. > >>>>>>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or > >>>>>>> constraint > >>>>>>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines > >> what > >>>>>>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime > >> attribute > >>>>>>> field. > >>>>>>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use > >>>> computed > >>>>>>>> column > >>>>>>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor Pattern > >>> API > >>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not > >>> contradictory > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1]: > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > >>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great > >> progress > >>>>>> here. > >>>>>>>>> Below are my thoughts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > >>>>>>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime > >> extractors > >>>> and > >>>>>>>>> watermark strategies defined in > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > >>>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the > >>> common > >>>>>>>>> scenarios. > >>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the > >>> table > >>>>>>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > >>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > >>>>>>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add > >>> it > >>>>>>> back > >>>>>>>>> later if needed. > >>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > >>>>>>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future > >>> versions. > >>>>>> As > >>>>>>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in > >>>>>> Calcite > >>>>>>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can > >>>>>>> definitely > >>>>>>>>> change if needed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create > >>>>>> table > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> the another major difference. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > >>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > >>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email] > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark, > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round > >>> implementation > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>> looks good to me. > >>>>>>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > >>>>>>>>>> [source/sink] > >>>>>>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create > >>> table" > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. > >>>>>>> @Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two > >>> parts > >>>>>>>>>> first. > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I > >>>>>>>>> drafted. > >>>>>>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > >>>>>>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first version > >> of > >>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > >>>>>>>>> agreement > >>>>>>>>>>> ASAP > >>>>>>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi > >>> proposed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first > >>>>>> version > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> my > >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, > >>> welcome > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> point > >>>>>>>>>>>> out): > >>>>>>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > >>>>>>>>> difference, > >>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> @Fabian > >>>>>> Hueske > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > >>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) > ? > >>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used > >>> because > >>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in > >> the > >>>>>>>>> future > >>>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > >>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in > the > >>>>>> future, > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > >>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and > precision, > >>>> e.g. > >>>>>>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > >>>>>>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of > the > >>>>>>> Decimal, > >>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. > >>> IMO, > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > >>>>>>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And > >> support > >>>>>>> custom > >>>>>>>>>>> scale > >>>>>>>>>>>> and precision in the future. > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL > >>> (proposed > >>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> doc[2])? > >>>>>>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < > >>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma > >> as > >>>>>> soon > >>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal > >> and > >>>>>>>>> ours. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Once > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on > >> the > >>>>>>>>> those > >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, > >> we > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working > >>> on. > >>>>>> We > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final > >> design > >>> of > >>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a > >> higher > >>>>>>>>>>> priority > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the > >>> user > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen < > >> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > >>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > >>>>>>>>> production > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > >>>>>>>>>>> companies, > >>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks > >>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge > >>> them > >>>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. > >>> Also, > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the > >>> design. > >>>>>>>>>> What > >>>>>>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you guys think? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We > >>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>> prepare > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > >> 下午9:17写道： > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > >>>>>>>>>>>> summarizing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. > >>>>>>>>> But > >>>>>>>>>>>>> having a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > >>>>>>>>> work! > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > >>>>>>>>> definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>> learned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > >>>>>>>>>>> definition. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime > >> field. > >>>>>>>>> For > >>>>>>>>>>>>> example, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing in > >>> some > >>>>>>>>>>>>> records, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > >>>>>>>>> accurate. > >>>>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks > >> in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Table > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > >>>>>>>>>> together. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > >>>>>>>>>>> combine > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. > >> which > >>>>>>>>>>>> existing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > >>>>>>>>>>> define > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > >>>>>>>>>> (simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > >>>>>>>>> wm_strategy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. > >> The > >>>>>>>>>>> “FOR” > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate watermark, > >>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>> field > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column > >> to > >>>>>>>>>>> derive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark > >> strategy, > >>>>>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > >>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > >>>>>>>>> schema, > >>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > >>>>>>>>>> fields > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > >>>>>>>>> strategy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field > >> definition > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > >>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > >>>>>>>>>> implementation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (extends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two > >> years > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > >>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn > AS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption > >>>>>>>>>>>> [ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > >> 上午3:28写道： > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > >>>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > >>>>>>>>> connector > >>>>>>>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > >>>>>>>>>> properties > >>>>>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > >>>>>>>>>> Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > >>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > >>>>>>>>>>> inputs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > >>>>>>>>>> w/o > >>>>>>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > >>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > >>>>>>>>> stick > >>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the syntax > >>>>>>>>>> too > >>>>>>>>>>>>> much > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > >>>>>>>>> proposal > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > >>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > >>>>>>>>> somehow > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > >>>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>> skips > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>> could > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > >>>>>>>>> queries > >>>>>>>>>>> (no > >>>>>>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > >>>>>>>>> list > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > >>>>>>>>> stuff > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > >>>>>>>>>>> forward. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > >>>>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > >>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > >>>>>>>>> bandwidth > >>>>>>>>>>>>> working > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > >>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > >>>>>>>>>> ddl, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > >>>>>>>>>> referred > >>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > >>>>>>>>>> table. > >>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > >>>>>>>>>> both > >>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > >>>>>>>>>>> manage > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > >>>>>>>>> ‘latest-offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > >>>>>>>>>>>> mapping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > >>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > >>>>>>>>>>> connector > >>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not > >>>>>>>>>>>> restrict > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > >>>>>>>>>>> and a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> map > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > >>>>>>>>> user a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > >>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > >>>>>>>>>>> depends > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > >>>>>>>>>>> clause > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > >>>>>>>>> connectors > >>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > >>>>>>>>>>> vastly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > >>>>>>>>>>>> possible > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > >>>>>>>>>> Apache > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > >>>>>>>>>>>> previously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > >>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > >>>>>>>>>>> brought > >>>>>>>>>>>> up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > >>>>>>>>>>>> document > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > >>>>>>>>>>> connector > >>>>>>>>>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > >>>>>>>>>>> forward > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > >>>>>>>>> contributing > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> them! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > >>>>>>>>>> work > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > >>>>>>>>> directions > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > >>>>>>>>>> define/create > >>>>>>>>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > >>>>>>>>>>> Client, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > >>>>>>>>>>> dynamical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > >>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adoption. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > >>>>>>>>>>>> community > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > >>>>>>>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > >>>>>>>>>>> library > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > >>>>>>>>> somehow > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connect > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > >>>>>>>>> connect > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > >>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > >>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>> > >>>> > > -- "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." |
|
|
hi all,
Thanks for your valuable input! 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: 4.b) @Fabian As you mentioned using a computed columns `ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()` for writing out to kafka table sink will violate the rule that computed fields are not emitted. Since the timestamp column in kafka's header area is a specific materialization protocol, why don't we treat it as an connector property? For an example: ``` CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( id bigint, ts timestamp, msg varchar ) WITH ( type=kafka, header.timestamp=ts ,... ); ``` 4d) For custom watermark strategies @Fabian Agree with you that opening another topic about this feature later. 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH I think the permissions and availabilities are two separately things, permissions can be managed well by using GRANT/INVOKE(you can call it DCL) solutions which commonly used in different DBs. The permission part can be an new topic for later discussion, what do you think? For the availabilities, @Fabian @Timo I've another question, does instantiate a TableSource/Sink cost much or has some other downsides? IMO, create a new source/sink object via the construct seems not costly. When receiving a DDL we should associate it with the catalog object (reusing an existence or create a new one). Am I lost something important? 5. Schema declaration: @Timo yes, your concern about the user convenience is very important. But I haven't seen a clear way to solve this so far. Do we put it later and wait for more inputs from the community? Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月8日周六 下午4:27写道： > Hi all, > > Thanks a lot for the great discussion. I think we can continue the > discussion here while carving out a MVP so that the community can start > working on. Based on the discussion so far, I try to summarize what we will > do for the MVP: > > MVP > > 1. support CREATE TABLE > 2. support exisiting data type in Flink SQL, ignore nullability and > precision > 3. support table comments and column comments > 4. support table constraint PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE > 5. support table properties using key-value pairs > 6. support partitioned by > 7. support computed column > 8. support from-field and from-source timestamp extractors > 9. support PERIODIC-ASCENDING, PERIODIC-BOUNDED, FROM-SOURCE watermark > strategies. > 10. support a table property to allow explicit enforcement of > read/write(source/sink) permission of a table > > I try to put up the DDL grammar ( > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ug1-aVBSCxZQk58kR-yaK2ETCgL3zg0eDUVGCnW2V9E/edit?usp=sharing > ) > based on the MVP features above and the previous design docs. Please take a > look and comment on it. > > > Also, I summarize the future Improvement on CREATE TABLE as the followings: > > 1. support table update mode > 2. support data type nullability and precision > 3. support row/map/array data type > 4. support custom timestamp extractor and watermark strategy > 5. support schema derivation > 6. support system versioned temporal table > 7. support table index > > I suggest we first agree on the MVP feature list and the MVP grammar. And > then we can either continue the discussion of the future improvements here, > or create separate JIRAs for each item and discuss further in the JIRA. > What do you guys think? > > Shuyi > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I think we are making good progress. Thanks for all the feedback so far. > > > > 3. Sources/Sinks: > > It seems that I can not find supporters for explicit SOURCE/SINK > > declaration so I'm fine with not using those keywords. > > @Fabian: Maybe we don't haven have to change the TableFactory interface > > but just provide some helper functions in the TableFactoryService. This > > would solve the availability problem, but the permission problem would > > still not be solved. If you are fine with it, we could introduce a > > property instead? > > > > 5. Schema declaration: > > @Lin: We should find an agreement on this as it requires changes to the > > TableFactory interface. We should minimize changes to this interface > > because it is user-facing. Especially, if format schema and table schema > > differ, the need for such a functionality is very important. Our goal is > > to connect to existing infrastructure. For example, if we are using Avro > > and the existing Avro format has enums but Flink SQL does not support > > enums, it would be helpful to let the Avro format derive a table schema. > > Otherwise your need to declare both schemas which leads to CREATE TABLE > > statements of 400 lines+. > > I think the mentioned query: > > CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > is fine and should only be valid if the schema contains no non-computed > > columns. > > > > 7. Table Update Mode: > > After thinking about it again, I agree. The mode of the sinks can be > > derived from the query and the existence of a PRIMARY KEY declaration. > > But Fabian raised a very good point. How do we deal with sources? Shall > > we introduce a new keywords similar to WATERMARKS such that a > > upsert/retract flag is not part of the visible schema? > > > > 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > > @Jark: Thanks for the explanation of the WATERMARK clause semantics. > > This is a nice way of marking existing fields. This sounds good to me. > > > > 4c) WATERMARK as constraint > > I'm fine with leaving the WATERMARK clause in the schema definition. > > > > 4d) Custom watermark strategies: > > I would already think about custom watermark strategies as the current > > descriptor design already supports this. ScalarFunction's don't work as > > a PeriodicWatermarkAssigner has different semantics. Why not simply > > entering the a full class name here as it is done in the current design? > > > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka) > > @Fabian: Yes, your suggestion sounds good to me. This behavior would be > > similar to our current `timestamps: from-source` design. > > > > Once our discussion has found a conclusion, I would like to volunteer > > and summarize the outcome of this mailing thread. It nicely aligns with > > the update work on the connector improvements document (that I wanted to > > do anyway) and the ongoing external catalog discussion. Furthermore, I > > would also want to propose how to change existing interfaces by keeping > > the DDL, connector improvements, and external catalog support in mind. > > Would that be ok for you? > > > > Thanks, > > Timo > > > > > > > > Am 07.12.18 um 14:48 schrieb Fabian Hueske: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thanks for the discussion. > > > I'd like to share my point of view as well. > > > > > > 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > > > 4.a) I agree with Lin and Jark's proposal. Declaring a watermark on an > > > attribute declares it as an event-time attribute. > > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka). We could > > use > > > a special function like (ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()). This function will > > > indicate that we read the timestamp directly from the system (and not > the > > > data). We can also write the field back to the system when emitting the > > > table (violating the rule that computed fields are not emitted). > > > 4c) I would treat WATERMARK similar to a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE KEY > > > constraint and therefore keep it in the schema definition. > > > 4d) For custom watermark strategies, a simple expressions or > > > ScalarFunctions won't be sufficient. Sophisticated approaches could > > collect > > > histograms, etc. But I think we can leave that out for later. > > > > > > 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > > > As you said, there are two things to consider here: permission and > > > availability of a TableSource/TableSink. > > > I think that neither should be a reason to add a keyword at such a > > > sensitive position. > > > However, I also see Timo's point that it would be good to know up-front > > how > > > a table can be used without trying to instantiate a TableSource/Sink > for > > a > > > query. > > > Maybe we can extend the TableFactory such that it provides information > > > about which sources/sinks it can provide. > > > > > > 7. Table Update Mode > > > Something that we definitely need to consider is how tables are > ingested, > > > i.e., append, retract or upsert. > > > Especially, since upsert and retraction need a meta-data column that > > > indicates whether an event is an insert (or upsert) or a delete change. > > > This column needs to be identified somehow, most likely as part of the > > > input format. Ideally, this column should not be part of the table > schema > > > (as it would be always true). > > > Emitting tables is not so much of an issue as the properties of the > table > > > tell use what to do (append-only/update, unique key y/n). > > > > > > Best, > > > Fabian > > > > > > > > > Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu <[hidden email]>: > > > > > >> Hi Timo, > > >> > > >> Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: > > >> > > >> Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex > problem. I > > >> think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do not > > need to > > >> specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The query > > can > > >> choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted > into > > an > > >> append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an exception > > can be > > >> thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write > > retractions/upserts > > >> to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on the > > >> table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag > > encoding, > > >> but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. > > >> > > >> 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the > > >> append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we have > > stream > > >> source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink > also > > >> include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the tags > on > > >> the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table > > itself, > > >> user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an > > >> exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag can > be > > >> omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE > TABLE > > in > > >> the first version, and add it back in the future when we really need > > it? It > > >> keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider > clearly. > > >> > > >> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > > >> The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as time > > >> attribute and use what generate strategy. > > >> When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` AS > > OFFSET > > >> '5' SECOND. > > >> If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it > like > > >> this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND > > >> > > >> 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header > > >> Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only one > > time > > >> attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we enable > > >> `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be > > write to > > >> Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is the > > time > > >> attribute in the stream. > > >> > > >> 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, > > PRIMARY > > >> KEY keywords. > > >> > > >> @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark > > syntax ? > > >> For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS > > "OFFSET" > > >> VS ... > > >> > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Jark > > >> > > >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Timo, > > >>> Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: > > >>> > > >>> 3. Sources/Sinks: > > >>> "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to > list > > >> all > > >>> source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an > INSERT > > >> INTO > > >>> here or not." > > >>> This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all > > >>> supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can perform > a > > >>> quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for > the > > >>> syntax. > > >>> For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some > or > > >> all > > >>> of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can derive > > the > > >>> availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or > > >>> specific table properties in WITH clause. > > >>> Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords > for > > >> the > > >>> MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. > > >>> > > >>> 6. Partitioning and keys > > >>> Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and > > >> partitioned > > >>> table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add > > >>> partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc > > >>> later[1]. > > >>> > > >>> 5. Schema declaration > > >>> "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" > > >> constraints > > >>> but without columns > > >>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > >>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " > > >>> > > >>> From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the primary > key > > >>> constraint already references two columns but types unseen. > > >>> And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema > > >>> derivation as a follow-up extension ? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： > > >>> > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>> > > >>>> great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: > > >>>> > > >>>> @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. I'm > > >> open > > >>>> for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of use > > >>>> cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to > > cover > > >>>> all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another > > example, > > >>>> that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if append, > > >>>> retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target > > >>>> system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the > big > > >>>> WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor > > >>>> approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have very > > >>>> custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". > > >>>> > > >>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it can > > be > > >>>> created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific > source/sink) > > >>>> declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, yes > we > > >>>> would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a problem? > > One > > >>>> also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is not > > >>>> only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, not > > >>>> every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a JDBC > > >> sink > > >>>> is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI > session, > > >>>> people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to > know > > >>>> upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. > > >>>> > > >>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in the > > >>>> design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in the > > >>>> making/are on our roadmap for this release. > > >>>> > > >>>> 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. I > > >> just > > >>>> wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare computed > > >>>> columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are we > > ok > > >>>> with a syntax like ... > > >>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > >>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? > > >>>> @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not excatly > > >>>> match but this is true for both directions: > > >>>> table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" > table > > >>>> schema. > > >>>> > > >>>> 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we > > >>>> should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very > > >>>> batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical and > > >>>> future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an intermediate > > >>>> layer on top of Flink's DDL. > > >>>> > > >>>> 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the > > TimestampExtractor > > >>>> interface as this is also important for better separation of > connector > > >>>> and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark > > >> generation. > > >>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: > > >>>> @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > > >>>> rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. How > > >>>> does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps > that > > >>>> are nested in the schema? > > >>>> > > >>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: > > >>>> I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This is > > >> like > > >>>> 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. > > >>>> @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka > > >>>> message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the stream > > >>>> record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. > So > > >> we > > >>>> need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use (possibly > > >>>> computed as well)? > > >>>> > > >>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause next > to > > >>>> the regular schema? > > >>>> @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the > feeling > > >>>> that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual schema > > >>>> with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about > > >>>> timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a > new > > >>>> WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to > > this > > >>>> point. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks everyone, > > >>>> Timo > > >>>> > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > > >>>>> Hi Timo, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL functionality > to > > >>>>> Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as > > >>> cautious > > >>>> as > > >>>>> possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a > > >>> standard > > >>>>> way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Here are some of my thoughts: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 1. Scope: Agree. > > >>>>> 2. Constraints: Agree. > > >>>>> 4. Time attributes: > > >>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > > >>>>> If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > > >>>> rowtime, > > >>>>> no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed > > >> column > > >>>> to > > >>>>> get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you > mean > > >>>>> defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an > advantages, > > >>>>> because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether to > > >>>> "replace > > >>>>> the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be confused > > >>>> what's > > >>>>> the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? > > >>> Regarding > > >>>> to > > >>>>> the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when the > > >>>> original > > >>>>> timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown > > >>>> optimization > > >>>>> can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the same > as > > >>>>> "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header? > > >>>>> That's a good point. I think computed column is just a > virtual > > >>>> column > > >>>>> on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write to > a > > >>>> table > > >>>>> with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns > > >>> except > > >>>>> computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is > ignored > > >>> in > > >>>>> the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write > out > > >> a > > >>>>> timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a > > >> configuration > > >>> to > > >>>>> support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the > timestmap > > >>> in > > >>>>> StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you > > >> think? > > >>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special > clause > > >>> next > > >>>> to > > >>>>> the regular schema? > > >>>>> Separating watermark into a special clause similar to > > >> PARTITIONED > > >>>> BY is > > >>>>> also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in > schema > > >>> part > > >>>>> or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark > > >>>>> definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It > is > > >>>>> similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes on a > > >>> table > > >>>>> in schema part. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? > > >>>>> In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we > need > > >> a > > >>>>> custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only > > >> return > > >>> a > > >>>>> nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > > >>>>> watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined scalar > > >>>> function > > >>>>> accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used > as > > >>>>> punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a > class > > >>>>> extending the > > >>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` and > > >> use > > >>>> it > > >>>>> in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. But > if > > >>>>> scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer it > > >>> here, > > >>>>> because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in > MVP, > > >>> we > > >>>>> can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 5. Schema declaration: > > >>>>> I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema > from > > >>>>> external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have > already > > >>>>> encountered this requirement in out company. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive syntax > > >>> while > > >>>>> keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and > > >> reduce > > >>>> the > > >>>>> learning cost for user. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1]: > > >>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > > >>>>> Best, > > >>>>> Jark > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu <[hidden email] > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to > > >>> something > > >>>>>> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. +1 on MVP DDL > > >>>>>> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on > tables > > >>> that > > >>>>>> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created > > >>> differently > > >>>>>> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use > > >> these > > >>>>>> keywords to enforce permissions. > > >>>>>> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. While > > >>> there > > >>>>>> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For > > >>> example, > > >>>>>> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For > > >>> instance, > > >>>>>> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For > instance, > > >>> the > > >>>>>> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may > stay > > >>>>>> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file > > >> based > > >>> on > > >>>>>> file schema and return the data based on table schema. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Other aspects: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to > operate > > >> on > > >>>>>> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be > > >> compatible > > >>>> with > > >>>>>> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we > > >>> should > > >>>> be > > >>>>>> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > > >>>>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > > >>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi Timo and Shuyi, > > >>>>>> thanks for your feedback. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. Scope > > >>>>>> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 2. Constraints > > >>>>>> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks > > >>>>>> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we > > >> declare > > >>> it > > >>>>>> using > > >>>>>> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further > > >> question, > > >>>> if a > > >>>>>> TABLE > > >>>>>> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for > some > > >>> new > > >>>>>> requirements > > >>>>>> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating > both > > >>> the > > >>>> DDL > > >>>>>> and catalogs. > > >>>>>> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one table > > >>>> in-place > > >>>>>> can be a common case. > > >>>>>> e.g., > > >>>>>> ``` > > >>>>>> CREATE TABLE t1 ( > > >>>>>> col1 varchar, > > >>>>>> col2 int, > > >>>>>> col3 varchar > > >>>>>> ... > > >>>>>> ); > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > > >>>>>> AS > > >>>>>> SELECT > > >>>>>> (some computing ...) > > >>>>>> FROM t1; > > >>>>>> ``` > > >>>>>> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the > > >> validation > > >>>>>> purpose, we can find out other ways. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 4. Time attributes > > >>>>>> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > > >>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` > for > > >>>> custom > > >>>>>> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class is > > >> more > > >>>>>> friendly for table api not the SQL. > > >>>>>> ``` > > >>>>>> /** > > >>>>>> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a > > >> rowtime > > >>>>>> attribute. > > >>>>>> */ > > >>>>>> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] with > > >>>>>> Serializable { > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ > > >>>>>> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > > >>>>>> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > > >>>>>> } > > >>>>>> ``` > > >>>>>> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor > are > > >>>>>> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more > > >>>> advantage in > > >>>>>> SQL scenarios. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys > > >>>>>> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned table > > >>>> support > > >>>>>> can be another topic later. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 5. Schema declaration > > >>>>>> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user > > >>>>>> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > > >>>>>> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the > > >> users > > >>>> and > > >>>>>> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > > >>>>>> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize > some > > >>>>>> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > > >>>>>> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file can > be > > >>>> handy > > >>>>>> especially one with too many table columns. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>> Lin > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we > should > > >>> aim > > >>>>>>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in > the > > >>>>>> design: > > >>>>>>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE statements > > >>> first. > > >>>>>>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long > > >> discussions > > >>>> and > > >>>>>>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and CREATE > > >>>>>>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like > nullability, > > >>>>>>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future as > > >> they > > >>>>>>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the translation > > >> and > > >>>>>>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not > > >>> introduce > > >>>> a > > >>>>>>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This > can > > >>> be > > >>>> a > > >>>>>>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs > CREATE > > >>>>>>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for > > >> these > > >>>>>>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, teams > > >> have > > >>>>>>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data > science > > >>> team > > >>>>>>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not > > >>> accidently > > >>>>>>> write back to the single source of truth. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns > > >> approach > > >>>>>>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and > > >>> simple. > > >>>>>>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > > >>>>>>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the schema > > >>> twice. > > >>>>>>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as > it > > >>>>>>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed > > >> column. > > >>>>>>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out > > >> there > > >>>>>>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a > > >> timestamp > > >>>>>>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse operation > > >> to a > > >>>>>>> computed column. > > >>>>>>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part of > a > > >>>>>>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a > > >>> special > > >>>>>>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY > does > > >> it > > >>>> in > > >>>>>>> Hive? > > >>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I > > >> guess > > >>>>>>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would > require > > >>> some > > >>>>>>> new type of UDF? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design > > >> should > > >>>>>>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), > > >> partitioning > > >>>>>>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table > schema? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to > > >> force > > >>>>>>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this is > > >>>>>>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know that > > >>>> catalog > > >>>>>>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, > > >> people > > >>>>>>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL. > > >>> What I > > >>>>>>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > > >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema > defines > > >>> the > > >>>>>>> table schema (+ time attributes). > > >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > > >>>>>>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try to > > >>>>>>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>> Timo > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > > >>>>>>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > > >>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Regarding to the watermark: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including > > >> computed-column) > > >>>> in > > >>>>>>>> table schema. > > >>>>>>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns using > > >>>> builtin > > >>>>>>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > > >>>>>>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only > > >> common > > >>>>>>>> scenarios. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom > > >>> timestamp > > >>>>>>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > > >>>>>>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support > `TimestampExtractor` > > >>> in > > >>>>>>> SQL, > > >>>>>>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`? > > >>>>>>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > > >>>>>> `TimestampExtractor` > > >>>>>>>> but more powerful and standard. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the > > >> schema > > >>>>>> part > > >>>>>>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the > query > > >>>>>> sees. > > >>>>>>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition or > > >>>>>>> constraint > > >>>>>>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only defines > > >> what > > >>>>>>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime > > >> attribute > > >>>>>>> field. > > >>>>>>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use > > >>>> computed > > >>>>>>>> column > > >>>>>>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor > Pattern > > >>> API > > >>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not > > >>> contradictory > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> [1]: > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > >>>>>>>> . > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great > > >> progress > > >>>>>> here. > > >>>>>>>>> Below are my thoughts. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > >>>>>>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime > > >> extractors > > >>>> and > > >>>>>>>>> watermark strategies defined in > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > >>>>>>>>> . > > >>>>>>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the > > >>> common > > >>>>>>>>> scenarios. > > >>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the > > >>> table > > >>>>>>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > > >>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > >>>>>>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and > add > > >>> it > > >>>>>>> back > > >>>>>>>>> later if needed. > > >>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > > >>>>>>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future > > >>> versions. > > >>>>>> As > > >>>>>>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar > in > > >>>>>> Calcite > > >>>>>>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can > > >>>>>>> definitely > > >>>>>>>>> change if needed. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on > create > > >>>>>> table > > >>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>> the another major difference. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > >>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > >>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang < > [hidden email] > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round > > >>> implementation > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>> looks good to me. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > > >>>>>>>>>> [source/sink] > > >>>>>>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create > > >>> table" > > >>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals > FMPOV. > > >>>>>>> @Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>> It > > >>>>>>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two > > >>> parts > > >>>>>>>>>> first. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin > and I > > >>>>>>>>> drafted. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first > version > > >> of > > >>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach > > >>>>>>>>> agreement > > >>>>>>>>>>> ASAP > > >>>>>>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi > > >>> proposed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the > first > > >>>>>> version > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> my > > >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, > > >>> welcome > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> point > > >>>>>>>>>>>> out): > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > > >>>>>>>>> difference, > > >>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > @Fabian > > >>>>>> Hueske > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. > VARCHAR(128) > > ? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not used > > >>> because > > >>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in > > >> the > > >>>>>>>>> future > > >>>>>>>>>>> if > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in > > the > > >>>>>> future, > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and > > precision, > > >>>> e.g. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision of > > the > > >>>>>>> Decimal, > > >>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. > > >>> IMO, > > >>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And > > >> support > > >>>>>>> custom > > >>>>>>>>>>> scale > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and precision in the future. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL > > >>> (proposed > > >>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> doc[2])? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < > > >>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma > > >> as > > >>>>>> soon > > >>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your proposal > > >> and > > >>>>>>>>> ours. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Once > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on > > >> the > > >>>>>>>>> those > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal > topic, > > >> we > > >>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already > working > > >>> on. > > >>>>>> We > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final > > >> design > > >>> of > > >>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a > > >> higher > > >>>>>>>>>>> priority > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for > the > > >>> user > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen < > > >> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > > >>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > > >>>>>>>>> production > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from > both > > >>>>>>>>>>> companies, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that > talks > > >>>>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and > merge > > >>> them > > >>>>>>>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. > > >>> Also, > > >>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the > > >>> design. > > >>>>>>>>>> What > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you guys think? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <[hidden email] > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. > We > > >>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> prepare > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > > >> 下午9:17写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please > consider > > >>>>>>>>>>>> summarizing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's > proposal. > > >>>>>>>>> But > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> having a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu < > [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome > > >>>>>>>>> work! > > >>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > > >>>>>>>>> definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> learned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > > >>>>>>>>>>> definition. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime > > >> field. > > >>>>>>>>> For > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> example, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but missing > in > > >>> some > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> records, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very > > >>>>>>>>> accurate. > > >>>>>>>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with > watermarks > > >> in > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Table > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > > >>>>>>>>>> together. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we > should > > >>>>>>>>>>> combine > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. > > >> which > > >>>>>>>>>>>> existing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we > can > > >>>>>>>>>>> define > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > > >>>>>>>>>> (simply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > > >>>>>>>>> wm_strategy > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. > > >> The > > >>>>>>>>>>> “FOR” > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate > watermark, > > >>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>> field > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column > > >> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> derive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark > > >> strategy, > > >>>>>>>>>>> such > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > > >>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > > >>>>>>>>> schema, > > >>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > > >>>>>>>>>> fields > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > > >>>>>>>>> strategy > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field > > >> definition > > >>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() > > >>>>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > 下午6:33写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > > >>>>>>>>>> implementation > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (extends > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two > > >> years > > >>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > > >>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn > > AS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> , > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > > >> 上午3:28写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > > >>>>>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > > >>>>>>>>> connector > > >>>>>>>>>>> API > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > > >>>>>>>>>> properties > > >>>>>>>>>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration > with > > >>>>>>>>>> Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and > finalize > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > >>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > > >>>>>>>>>>> inputs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually > proceed > > >>>>>>>>>> w/o > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > > >>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > > >>>>>>>>> stick > > >>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the > syntax > > >>>>>>>>>> too > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> much > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > > >>>>>>>>> proposal > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think > > >>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > > >>>>>>>>>> better > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would > > >>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>> great > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > > >>>>>>>>> somehow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releated > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > > >>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > > >>>>>>>>>> release > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> next > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > > >>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>> skips > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> could > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > > >>>>>>>>> queries > > >>>>>>>>>>> (no > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> time > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > > >>>>>>>>> list > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until mid > > >>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> next > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > > >>>>>>>>> stuff > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > > >>>>>>>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > > >>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > >>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > > >>>>>>>>> bandwidth > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> working > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > > >>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > > >>>>>>>>>> ddl, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > > >>>>>>>>>> referred > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > > >>>>>>>>>> table. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > > >>>>>>>>>> both > > >>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > > >>>>>>>>>>> manage > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > > >>>>>>>>> ‘latest-offset’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> mapping > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > > >>>>>>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > >>>>>>>>>>> connector > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can not > > >>>>>>>>>>>> restrict > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> map > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > > >>>>>>>>> user a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > > >>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplest > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > > >>>>>>>>>>> depends > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > > >>>>>>>>>>> clause > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > > >>>>>>>>> connectors > > >>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > > >>>>>>>>>>> vastly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > >>>>>>>>>>>> possible > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > > >>>>>>>>>> Apache > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > > >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > >>>>>>>>>>>> previously > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > > >>>>>>>>>>> brought > > >>>>>>>>>>>> up > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> document > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>> connector > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> API > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > > >>>>>>>>>>> forward > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > > >>>>>>>>> contributing > > >>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> them! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design > > >>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > > >>>>>>>>>> work > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > > >>>>>>>>> directions > > >>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > > >>>>>>>>>> define/create > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>> Client, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > >>>>>>>>>>> dynamical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > > >>>>>>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adoption. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > >>>>>>>>>>>> community > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>> support > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > > >>>>>>>>>>> library > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > > >>>>>>>>> somehow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connect > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > >>>>>>>>> connect > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect > in > > >>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > your > > >>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > > > > -- > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." > |
|
|
Hi all,
It's great to see we have an agreement on MVP. 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems. I would treat the field as a physical column not a virtual column. If we treat it as computed column, it will be confused that the behavior is different when it is a source or sink. When it is a physical column, the behavior could be unified. Then the problem is how to mapping from the field to kafka message timestamp? One is Lin proposed above and is also used in KSQL[1]. Another idea is introducing a HEADER column which strictly map by name to the fields in message header. For example, CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( id bigint, ts timestamp HEADER, msg varchar ) WITH ( type=kafka ,... ); This is used in Alibaba but not included in the DDL draft. It will further extend the SQL syntax, which is we should be cautious about. What do you think about this two solutions? 4.d) Custom watermark strategies: @Timo, I don't have a strong opinion on this. 3) SOURCE/SINK/BOTH Agree with Lin, GRANT/INVOKE [SELECT|UPDATE] ON TABLE is a clean and standard way to manage the permission, which is also adopted by HIVE[2] and many databases. [1]: https://docs.confluent.io/current/ksql/docs/tutorials/examples.html [2]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=45876173#Hivedeprecatedauthorizationmode/LegacyMode-Grant/RevokePrivileges @Timo, it's great if someone can conclude the discussion and summarize into a FLIP. @Shuyi, Thanks a lot for putting it all together. The google doc looks good to me, and I left some minor comments there. Regarding to the FLIP, I have some suggestions: 1. The FLIP can contain MILESTONE1 and FUTURE WORKS. 2. The MILESTONE1 is the MVP. It describes the MVP DDL syntax. 3. Separate FUTURE WORKS into two parts: UNDER DISCUSSION and ADOPTED. We can derive MILESTONE2 from this easily when it is ready. I summarized the Future Works based on Shuyi's work: Adopted: (Should detailed described here...) 1. support data type nullability and precision. 2. comment on table and columns. Under Discussion: (Should briefly describe some options...) 1. Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems. 2. support custom watermark strategy. 3. support table update mode 4. support row/map/array data type 5. support schema derivation 6. support system versioned temporal table 7. support table index We can continue the further discussion here, also can separate to an other DISCUSS topic if it is a sophisticated problem such as Table Update Mode, Temporal Table. Best, Jark On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 11:54, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > hi all, > Thanks for your valuable input! > > 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > 4.b) @Fabian As you mentioned using a computed columns `ts AS > SYSTEMROWTIME()` > for writing out to kafka table sink will violate the rule that computed > fields are not emitted. > Since the timestamp column in kafka's header area is a specific > materialization protocol, > why don't we treat it as an connector property? For an example: > ``` > CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > id bigint, > ts timestamp, > msg varchar > ) WITH ( > type=kafka, > header.timestamp=ts > ,... > ); > ``` > > 4d) For custom watermark strategies > @Fabian Agree with you that opening another topic about this feature later. > > 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > I think the permissions and availabilities are two separately things, > permissions > can be managed well by using GRANT/INVOKE(you can call it DCL) solutions > which > commonly used in different DBs. The permission part can be an new topic for > later discussion, what do you think? > > For the availabilities, @Fabian @Timo I've another question, > does instantiate a TableSource/Sink cost much or has some other downsides? > IMO, create a new source/sink object via the construct seems not costly. > When receiving a DDL we should associate it with the catalog object > (reusing an existence or create a new one). > Am I lost something important? > > 5. Schema declaration: > @Timo yes, your concern about the user convenience is very important. But > I haven't seen a clear way to solve this so far. > Do we put it later and wait for more inputs from the community? > > Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月8日周六 下午4:27写道： > > > Hi all, > > > > Thanks a lot for the great discussion. I think we can continue the > > discussion here while carving out a MVP so that the community can start > > working on. Based on the discussion so far, I try to summarize what we > will > > do for the MVP: > > > > MVP > > > > 1. support CREATE TABLE > > 2. support exisiting data type in Flink SQL, ignore nullability and > > precision > > 3. support table comments and column comments > > 4. support table constraint PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE > > 5. support table properties using key-value pairs > > 6. support partitioned by > > 7. support computed column > > 8. support from-field and from-source timestamp extractors > > 9. support PERIODIC-ASCENDING, PERIODIC-BOUNDED, FROM-SOURCE watermark > > strategies. > > 10. support a table property to allow explicit enforcement of > > read/write(source/sink) permission of a table > > > > I try to put up the DDL grammar ( > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ug1-aVBSCxZQk58kR-yaK2ETCgL3zg0eDUVGCnW2V9E/edit?usp=sharing > > ) > > based on the MVP features above and the previous design docs. Please > take a > > look and comment on it. > > > > > > Also, I summarize the future Improvement on CREATE TABLE as the > followings: > > > > 1. support table update mode > > 2. support data type nullability and precision > > 3. support row/map/array data type > > 4. support custom timestamp extractor and watermark strategy > > 5. support schema derivation > > 6. support system versioned temporal table > > 7. support table index > > > > I suggest we first agree on the MVP feature list and the MVP grammar. And > > then we can either continue the discussion of the future improvements > here, > > or create separate JIRAs for each item and discuss further in the JIRA. > > What do you guys think? > > > > Shuyi > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I think we are making good progress. Thanks for all the feedback so > far. > > > > > > 3. Sources/Sinks: > > > It seems that I can not find supporters for explicit SOURCE/SINK > > > declaration so I'm fine with not using those keywords. > > > @Fabian: Maybe we don't haven have to change the TableFactory interface > > > but just provide some helper functions in the TableFactoryService. This > > > would solve the availability problem, but the permission problem would > > > still not be solved. If you are fine with it, we could introduce a > > > property instead? > > > > > > 5. Schema declaration: > > > @Lin: We should find an agreement on this as it requires changes to the > > > TableFactory interface. We should minimize changes to this interface > > > because it is user-facing. Especially, if format schema and table > schema > > > differ, the need for such a functionality is very important. Our goal > is > > > to connect to existing infrastructure. For example, if we are using > Avro > > > and the existing Avro format has enums but Flink SQL does not support > > > enums, it would be helpful to let the Avro format derive a table > schema. > > > Otherwise your need to declare both schemas which leads to CREATE TABLE > > > statements of 400 lines+. > > > I think the mentioned query: > > > CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > > is fine and should only be valid if the schema contains no non-computed > > > columns. > > > > > > 7. Table Update Mode: > > > After thinking about it again, I agree. The mode of the sinks can be > > > derived from the query and the existence of a PRIMARY KEY declaration. > > > But Fabian raised a very good point. How do we deal with sources? Shall > > > we introduce a new keywords similar to WATERMARKS such that a > > > upsert/retract flag is not part of the visible schema? > > > > > > 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > > > @Jark: Thanks for the explanation of the WATERMARK clause semantics. > > > This is a nice way of marking existing fields. This sounds good to me. > > > > > > 4c) WATERMARK as constraint > > > I'm fine with leaving the WATERMARK clause in the schema definition. > > > > > > 4d) Custom watermark strategies: > > > I would already think about custom watermark strategies as the current > > > descriptor design already supports this. ScalarFunction's don't work as > > > a PeriodicWatermarkAssigner has different semantics. Why not simply > > > entering the a full class name here as it is done in the current > design? > > > > > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka) > > > @Fabian: Yes, your suggestion sounds good to me. This behavior would be > > > similar to our current `timestamps: from-source` design. > > > > > > Once our discussion has found a conclusion, I would like to volunteer > > > and summarize the outcome of this mailing thread. It nicely aligns with > > > the update work on the connector improvements document (that I wanted > to > > > do anyway) and the ongoing external catalog discussion. Furthermore, I > > > would also want to propose how to change existing interfaces by keeping > > > the DDL, connector improvements, and external catalog support in mind. > > > Would that be ok for you? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 07.12.18 um 14:48 schrieb Fabian Hueske: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the discussion. > > > > I'd like to share my point of view as well. > > > > > > > > 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > > > > 4.a) I agree with Lin and Jark's proposal. Declaring a watermark on > an > > > > attribute declares it as an event-time attribute. > > > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka). We > could > > > use > > > > a special function like (ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()). This function will > > > > indicate that we read the timestamp directly from the system (and not > > the > > > > data). We can also write the field back to the system when emitting > the > > > > table (violating the rule that computed fields are not emitted). > > > > 4c) I would treat WATERMARK similar to a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE KEY > > > > constraint and therefore keep it in the schema definition. > > > > 4d) For custom watermark strategies, a simple expressions or > > > > ScalarFunctions won't be sufficient. Sophisticated approaches could > > > collect > > > > histograms, etc. But I think we can leave that out for later. > > > > > > > > 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > > > > As you said, there are two things to consider here: permission and > > > > availability of a TableSource/TableSink. > > > > I think that neither should be a reason to add a keyword at such a > > > > sensitive position. > > > > However, I also see Timo's point that it would be good to know > up-front > > > how > > > > a table can be used without trying to instantiate a TableSource/Sink > > for > > > a > > > > query. > > > > Maybe we can extend the TableFactory such that it provides > information > > > > about which sources/sinks it can provide. > > > > > > > > 7. Table Update Mode > > > > Something that we definitely need to consider is how tables are > > ingested, > > > > i.e., append, retract or upsert. > > > > Especially, since upsert and retraction need a meta-data column that > > > > indicates whether an event is an insert (or upsert) or a delete > change. > > > > This column needs to be identified somehow, most likely as part of > the > > > > input format. Ideally, this column should not be part of the table > > schema > > > > (as it would be always true). > > > > Emitting tables is not so much of an issue as the properties of the > > table > > > > tell use what to do (append-only/update, unique key y/n). > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Fabian > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu <[hidden email] > >: > > > > > > > >> Hi Timo, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: > > > >> > > > >> Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex > > problem. I > > > >> think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do not > > > need to > > > >> specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The > query > > > can > > > >> choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted > > into > > > an > > > >> append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an exception > > > can be > > > >> thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write > > > retractions/upserts > > > >> to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on > the > > > >> table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag > > > encoding, > > > >> but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. > > > >> > > > >> 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the > > > >> append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we have > > > stream > > > >> source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink > > also > > > >> include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the > tags > > on > > > >> the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table > > > itself, > > > >> user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an > > > >> exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag can > > be > > > >> omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE > > TABLE > > > in > > > >> the first version, and add it back in the future when we really need > > > it? It > > > >> keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider > > clearly. > > > >> > > > >> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > > > >> The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as time > > > >> attribute and use what generate strategy. > > > >> When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` AS > > > OFFSET > > > >> '5' SECOND. > > > >> If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it > > like > > > >> this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND > > > >> > > > >> 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header > > > >> Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only > one > > > time > > > >> attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we > enable > > > >> `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be > > > write to > > > >> Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is > the > > > time > > > >> attribute in the stream. > > > >> > > > >> 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, > > > PRIMARY > > > >> KEY keywords. > > > >> > > > >> @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark > > > syntax ? > > > >> For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS > > > "OFFSET" > > > >> VS ... > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Jark > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Timo, > > > >>> Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: > > > >>> > > > >>> 3. Sources/Sinks: > > > >>> "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to > > list > > > >> all > > > >>> source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an > > INSERT > > > >> INTO > > > >>> here or not." > > > >>> This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all > > > >>> supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can > perform > > a > > > >>> quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for > > the > > > >>> syntax. > > > >>> For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some > > or > > > >> all > > > >>> of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can > derive > > > the > > > >>> availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or > > > >>> specific table properties in WITH clause. > > > >>> Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords > > for > > > >> the > > > >>> MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. > > > >>> > > > >>> 6. Partitioning and keys > > > >>> Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and > > > >> partitioned > > > >>> table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add > > > >>> partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc > > > >>> later[1]. > > > >>> > > > >>> 5. Schema declaration > > > >>> "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" > > > >> constraints > > > >>> but without columns > > > >>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > > >>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " > > > >>> > > > >>> From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the primary > > key > > > >>> constraint already references two columns but types unseen. > > > >>> And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema > > > >>> derivation as a follow-up extension ? > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. > I'm > > > >> open > > > >>>> for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of > use > > > >>>> cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to > > > cover > > > >>>> all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another > > > example, > > > >>>> that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if > append, > > > >>>> retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target > > > >>>> system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the > > big > > > >>>> WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor > > > >>>> approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have > very > > > >>>> custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it > can > > > be > > > >>>> created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific > > source/sink) > > > >>>> declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, > yes > > we > > > >>>> would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a > problem? > > > One > > > >>>> also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is > not > > > >>>> only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, > not > > > >>>> every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a > JDBC > > > >> sink > > > >>>> is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI > > session, > > > >>>> people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to > > know > > > >>>> upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in > the > > > >>>> design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in > the > > > >>>> making/are on our roadmap for this release. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. > I > > > >> just > > > >>>> wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare > computed > > > >>>> columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are > we > > > ok > > > >>>> with a syntax like ... > > > >>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > > >>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? > > > >>>> @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not > excatly > > > >>>> match but this is true for both directions: > > > >>>> table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" > > table > > > >>>> schema. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we > > > >>>> should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very > > > >>>> batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical > and > > > >>>> future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an > intermediate > > > >>>> layer on top of Flink's DDL. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the > > > TimestampExtractor > > > >>>> interface as this is also important for better separation of > > connector > > > >>>> and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark > > > >> generation. > > > >>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: > > > >>>> @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > > > >>>> rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. > How > > > >>>> does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps > > that > > > >>>> are nested in the schema? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: > > > >>>> I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This > is > > > >> like > > > >>>> 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. > > > >>>> @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka > > > >>>> message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the > stream > > > >>>> record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. > > So > > > >> we > > > >>>> need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use > (possibly > > > >>>> computed as well)? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause > next > > to > > > >>>> the regular schema? > > > >>>> @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the > > feeling > > > >>>> that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual > schema > > > >>>> with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about > > > >>>> timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a > > new > > > >>>> WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to > > > this > > > >>>> point. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks everyone, > > > >>>> Timo > > > >>>> > > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > > > >>>>> Hi Timo, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL > functionality > > to > > > >>>>> Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as > > > >>> cautious > > > >>>> as > > > >>>>> possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a > > > >>> standard > > > >>>>> way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Here are some of my thoughts: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1. Scope: Agree. > > > >>>>> 2. Constraints: Agree. > > > >>>>> 4. Time attributes: > > > >>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > > > >>>>> If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it > as > > > >>>> rowtime, > > > >>>>> no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed > > > >> column > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>> get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you > > mean > > > >>>>> defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an > > advantages, > > > >>>>> because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether > to > > > >>>> "replace > > > >>>>> the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be > confused > > > >>>> what's > > > >>>>> the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? > > > >>> Regarding > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>> the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when > the > > > >>>> original > > > >>>>> timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown > > > >>>> optimization > > > >>>>> can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the > same > > as > > > >>>>> "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message > header? > > > >>>>> That's a good point. I think computed column is just a > > virtual > > > >>>> column > > > >>>>> on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write > to > > a > > > >>>> table > > > >>>>> with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns > > > >>> except > > > >>>>> computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is > > ignored > > > >>> in > > > >>>>> the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write > > out > > > >> a > > > >>>>> timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a > > > >> configuration > > > >>> to > > > >>>>> support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the > > timestmap > > > >>> in > > > >>>>> StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you > > > >> think? > > > >>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special > > clause > > > >>> next > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>> the regular schema? > > > >>>>> Separating watermark into a special clause similar to > > > >> PARTITIONED > > > >>>> BY is > > > >>>>> also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in > > schema > > > >>> part > > > >>>>> or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark > > > >>>>> definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It > > is > > > >>>>> similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes > on a > > > >>> table > > > >>>>> in schema part. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark > strategy? > > > >>>>> In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we > > need > > > >> a > > > >>>>> custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only > > > >> return > > > >>> a > > > >>>>> nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > > > >>>>> watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined > scalar > > > >>>> function > > > >>>>> accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used > > as > > > >>>>> punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a > > class > > > >>>>> extending the > > > >>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` > and > > > >> use > > > >>>> it > > > >>>>> in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. > But > > if > > > >>>>> scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer > it > > > >>> here, > > > >>>>> because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in > > MVP, > > > >>> we > > > >>>>> can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 5. Schema declaration: > > > >>>>> I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema > > from > > > >>>>> external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have > > already > > > >>>>> encountered this requirement in out company. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive > syntax > > > >>> while > > > >>>>> keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and > > > >> reduce > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> learning cost for user. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> [1]: > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > > > >>>>> Best, > > > >>>>> Jark > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu < > [hidden email] > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to > > > >>> something > > > >>>>>> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 1. +1 on MVP DDL > > > >>>>>> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on > > tables > > > >>> that > > > >>>>>> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created > > > >>> differently > > > >>>>>> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use > > > >> these > > > >>>>>> keywords to enforce permissions. > > > >>>>>> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. > While > > > >>> there > > > >>>>>> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For > > > >>> example, > > > >>>>>> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For > > > >>> instance, > > > >>>>>> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For > > instance, > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may > > stay > > > >>>>>> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file > > > >> based > > > >>> on > > > >>>>>> file schema and return the data based on table schema. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Other aspects: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to > > operate > > > >> on > > > >>>>>> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be > > > >> compatible > > > >>>> with > > > >>>>>> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we > > > >>> should > > > >>>> be > > > >>>>>> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > > > >>>>>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>> Xuefu > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>>>>> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > > > >>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi Timo and Shuyi, > > > >>>>>> thanks for your feedback. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 1. Scope > > > >>>>>> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 2. Constraints > > > >>>>>> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks > > > >>>>>> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we > > > >> declare > > > >>> it > > > >>>>>> using > > > >>>>>> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further > > > >> question, > > > >>>> if a > > > >>>>>> TABLE > > > >>>>>> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for > > some > > > >>> new > > > >>>>>> requirements > > > >>>>>> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating > > both > > > >>> the > > > >>>> DDL > > > >>>>>> and catalogs. > > > >>>>>> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one > table > > > >>>> in-place > > > >>>>>> can be a common case. > > > >>>>>> e.g., > > > >>>>>> ``` > > > >>>>>> CREATE TABLE t1 ( > > > >>>>>> col1 varchar, > > > >>>>>> col2 int, > > > >>>>>> col3 varchar > > > >>>>>> ... > > > >>>>>> ); > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > > > >>>>>> AS > > > >>>>>> SELECT > > > >>>>>> (some computing ...) > > > >>>>>> FROM t1; > > > >>>>>> ``` > > > >>>>>> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the > > > >> validation > > > >>>>>> purpose, we can find out other ways. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 4. Time attributes > > > >>>>>> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > > > >>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` > > for > > > >>>> custom > > > >>>>>> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class > is > > > >> more > > > >>>>>> friendly for table api not the SQL. > > > >>>>>> ``` > > > >>>>>> /** > > > >>>>>> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a > > > >> rowtime > > > >>>>>> attribute. > > > >>>>>> */ > > > >>>>>> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] > with > > > >>>>>> Serializable { > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ > > > >>>>>> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > > > >>>>>> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > > > >>>>>> } > > > >>>>>> ``` > > > >>>>>> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor > > are > > > >>>>>> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more > > > >>>> advantage in > > > >>>>>> SQL scenarios. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys > > > >>>>>> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned > table > > > >>>> support > > > >>>>>> can be another topic later. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 5. Schema declaration > > > >>>>>> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user > > > >>>>>> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > > > >>>>>> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the > > > >> users > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>>> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > > > >>>>>> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize > > some > > > >>>>>> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > > > >>>>>> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file > can > > be > > > >>>> handy > > > >>>>>> especially one with too many table columns. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>> Lin > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we > > should > > > >>> aim > > > >>>>>>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in > > the > > > >>>>>> design: > > > >>>>>>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE > statements > > > >>> first. > > > >>>>>>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long > > > >> discussions > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>>>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and > CREATE > > > >>>>>>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like > > nullability, > > > >>>>>>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future > as > > > >> they > > > >>>>>>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the > translation > > > >> and > > > >>>>>>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not > > > >>> introduce > > > >>>> a > > > >>>>>>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This > > can > > > >>> be > > > >>>> a > > > >>>>>>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs > > CREATE > > > >>>>>>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for > > > >> these > > > >>>>>>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, > teams > > > >> have > > > >>>>>>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data > > science > > > >>> team > > > >>>>>>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not > > > >>> accidently > > > >>>>>>> write back to the single source of truth. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns > > > >> approach > > > >>>>>>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and > > > >>> simple. > > > >>>>>>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > > > >>>>>>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the > schema > > > >>> twice. > > > >>>>>>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as > > it > > > >>>>>>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed > > > >> column. > > > >>>>>>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out > > > >> there > > > >>>>>>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a > > > >> timestamp > > > >>>>>>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse > operation > > > >> to a > > > >>>>>>> computed column. > > > >>>>>>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part > of > > a > > > >>>>>>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a > > > >>> special > > > >>>>>>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY > > does > > > >> it > > > >>>> in > > > >>>>>>> Hive? > > > >>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I > > > >> guess > > > >>>>>>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would > > require > > > >>> some > > > >>>>>>> new type of UDF? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design > > > >> should > > > >>>>>>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), > > > >> partitioning > > > >>>>>>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table > > schema? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to > > > >> force > > > >>>>>>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this > is > > > >>>>>>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know > that > > > >>>> catalog > > > >>>>>>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, > > > >> people > > > >>>>>>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink > DDL. > > > >>> What I > > > >>>>>>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > > > >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema > > defines > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>>> table schema (+ time attributes). > > > >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > > > >>>>>>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try > to > > > >>>>>>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>> Timo > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > > > >>>>>>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > > > >>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Regarding to the watermark: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including > > > >> computed-column) > > > >>>> in > > > >>>>>>>> table schema. > > > >>>>>>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns > using > > > >>>> builtin > > > >>>>>>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > > > >>>>>>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only > > > >> common > > > >>>>>>>> scenarios. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom > > > >>> timestamp > > > >>>>>>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > > > >>>>>>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support > > `TimestampExtractor` > > > >>> in > > > >>>>>>> SQL, > > > >>>>>>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for > `TimestampExtractor`? > > > >>>>>>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > > > >>>>>> `TimestampExtractor` > > > >>>>>>>> but more powerful and standard. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the > > > >> schema > > > >>>>>> part > > > >>>>>>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the > > query > > > >>>>>> sees. > > > >>>>>>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition > or > > > >>>>>>> constraint > > > >>>>>>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only > defines > > > >> what > > > >>>>>>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime > > > >> attribute > > > >>>>>>> field. > > > >>>>>>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use > > > >>>> computed > > > >>>>>>>> column > > > >>>>>>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor > > Pattern > > > >>> API > > > >>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not > > > >>> contradictory > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> [1]: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > > >>>>>>>> . > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>>> Jark > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great > > > >> progress > > > >>>>>> here. > > > >>>>>>>>> Below are my thoughts. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > > >>>>>>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime > > > >> extractors > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>> watermark strategies defined in > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > > >>>>>>>>> . > > > >>>>>>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the > > > >>> common > > > >>>>>>>>> scenarios. > > > >>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into > the > > > >>> table > > > >>>>>>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > > > >>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > > >>>>>>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and > > add > > > >>> it > > > >>>>>>> back > > > >>>>>>>>> later if needed. > > > >>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > > > >>>>>>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future > > > >>> versions. > > > >>>>>> As > > > >>>>>>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar > > in > > > >>>>>> Calcite > > > >>>>>>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we > can > > > >>>>>>> definitely > > > >>>>>>>>> change if needed. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on > > create > > > >>>>>> table > > > >>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>> the another major difference. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > > >>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > > >>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > > >>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jark > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang < > > [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round > > > >>> implementation > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>> looks good to me. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying > "create > > > >>>>>>>>>> [source/sink] > > > >>>>>>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and > "create > > > >>> table" > > > >>>>>>> are > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals > > FMPOV. > > > >>>>>>> @Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>>>>> It > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these > two > > > >>> parts > > > >>>>>>>>>> first. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin > > and I > > > >>>>>>>>> drafted. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first > > version > > > >> of > > > >>>>>>>>> Flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and > reach > > > >>>>>>>>> agreement > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ASAP > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi > > > >>> proposed. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the > > first > > > >>>>>> version > > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>> my > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, > > > >>> welcome > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> point > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> out): > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > > > >>>>>>>>> difference, > > > >>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > @Fabian > > > >>>>>> Hueske > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. > > VARCHAR(128) > > > ? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not > used > > > >>> because > > > >>>>>>> they > > > >>>>>>>>>> are > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize > in > > > >> the > > > >>>>>>>>> future > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length > in > > > the > > > >>>>>> future, > > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and > > > precision, > > > >>>> e.g. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision > of > > > the > > > >>>>>>> Decimal, > > > >>>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can have some optimization on > serialization/deserialization. > > > >>> IMO, > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And > > > >> support > > > >>>>>>> custom > > > >>>>>>>>>>> scale > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and precision in the future. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL > > > >>> (proposed > > > >>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>> doc[2])? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the > future: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < > > > >>> [hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL > gramma > > > >> as > > > >>>>>> soon > > > >>>>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your > proposal > > > >> and > > > >>>>>>>>> ours. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Once > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss > on > > > >> the > > > >>>>>>>>> those > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified > design. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal > > topic, > > > >> we > > > >>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already > > working > > > >>> on. > > > >>>>>> We > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final > > > >> design > > > >>> of > > > >>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a > > > >> higher > > > >>>>>>>>>>> priority > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for > > the > > > >>> user > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen < > > > >> [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should > definitely > > > >>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > > > >>>>>>>>> production > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from > > both > > > >>>>>>>>>>> companies, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that > > talks > > > >>>>>>>>> about > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and > > merge > > > >>> them > > > >>>>>>>>>> into > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for > implementation. > > > >>> Also, > > > >>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the > > > >>> design. > > > >>>>>>>>>> What > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you guys think? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu < > [hidden email] > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good > idea. > > We > > > >>>>>>>>> will > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> prepare > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > > > >> 下午9:17写道： > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please > > consider > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> summarizing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's > > proposal. > > > >>>>>>>>> But > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> having a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu < > > [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the > awesome > > > >>>>>>>>> work! > > > >>>>>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > > > >>>>>>>>> definition > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> learned > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple > watermark > > > >>>>>>>>>>> definition. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime > > > >> field. > > > >>>>>>>>> For > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> example, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but > missing > > in > > > >>> some > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> records, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not > very > > > >>>>>>>>> accurate. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with > > watermarks > > > >> in > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Table > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime > field > > > >>>>>>>>>> together. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we > > should > > > >>>>>>>>>>> combine > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. > > > >> which > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> existing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we > > can > > > >>>>>>>>>>> define > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in > Alibaba > > > >>>>>>>>>> (simply > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified): > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > > > >>>>>>>>> wm_strategy > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark > definition. > > > >> The > > > >>>>>>>>>>> “FOR” > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate > > watermark, > > > >>>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> field > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use > computed-column > > > >> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> derive > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark > > > >> strategy, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> such > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > > > >>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > > > >>>>>>>>> schema, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other > existing > > > >>>>>>>>>> fields > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > > > >>>>>>>>> strategy > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field > > > >> definition > > > >>>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> also > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as > PROCTIME() > > > >>>>>>>>> which > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > > 下午6:33写道： > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>> implementation > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (extends > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two > > > >> years > > > >>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is > keeping > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR > rowTimeColumn > > > AS > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tableOption > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> , > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > > > >> 上午3:28写道： > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > > > >>>>>>>>>> finalize > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > > > >>>>>>>>> connector > > > >>>>>>>>>>> API > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > > > >>>>>>>>>> properties > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> into > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration > > with > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hive > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and > > finalize > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments > and > > > >>>>>>>>>>> inputs. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually > > proceed > > > >>>>>>>>>> w/o > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> being > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > > > >>>>>>>>>>> defining > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > > > >>>>>>>>> stick > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the > > syntax > > > >>>>>>>>>> too > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> much > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is > also > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > > > >>>>>>>>> proposal > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I > think > > > >>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > > > >>>>>>>>>> better > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It > would > > > >>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> great > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > > > >>>>>>>>> somehow > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> releated > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > > > >>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > > > >>>>>>>>>> release > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> next > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > > > >>>>>>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> skips > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. > This > > > >>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> could > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > > > >>>>>>>>> queries > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (no > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> time > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > > > >>>>>>>>> list > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until > mid > > > >>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> next > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > > > >>>>>>>>> stuff > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > > > >>>>>>>>>>> forward. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > > > >>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > > > >>>>>>>>> bandwidth > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> working > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > > > >>>>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from > the > > > >>>>>>>>>> ddl, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > > > >>>>>>>>>> referred > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > > > >>>>>>>>>> table. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > > > >>>>>>>>>> both > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent > and > > > >>>>>>>>>>> manage > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meta > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > > > >>>>>>>>> ‘latest-offset’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string > map > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way > to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> mapping > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > > > >>>>>>>>>> like > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > > >>>>>>>>>>> connector > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> or > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can > not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> restrict > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector > scope > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> map > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > > > >>>>>>>>> user a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > > > >>>>>>>>> also > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplest > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> depends > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clause > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > > > >>>>>>>>> connectors > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > > > >>>>>>>>>>> vastly > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> possible > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > > > >>>>>>>>>> Apache > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shuyi. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> previously > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to > the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> current > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > > > >>>>>>>>>>> brought > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> up > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> document > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > > >>>>>>>>>>> connector > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> API > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > > > >>>>>>>>>>> forward > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > > > >>>>>>>>> contributing > > > >>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> them! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the > design > > > >>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements > will > > > >>>>>>>>>> work > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > > > >>>>>>>>> directions > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on > both! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask > from > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements). > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > > > >>>>>>>>>> define/create > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> table > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Client, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dynamical > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction > for > > > >>>>>>>>>> its > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adoption. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> community > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> library > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API > [2] > > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > > > >>>>>>>>> somehow > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connect > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > > >>>>>>>>> connect > > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect > > in > > > >>> your > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > > your > > > >>>>>>> future." > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi all,
thanks for summarizing the discussion @Shuyi. I think we need to include the "table update mode" problem as it might not be changed easily in the future. Regarding "support row/map/array data type", I don't see a problem why we should not support them now as the data types are already included in the runtime. The "support custom timestamp extractor" is solved by the computed columns approach. The "custom watermark strategy" can be added by supplying a class name as paramter in my opinion. Regarding the comments of Lin and Jark: @Lin: Instantiating a TableSource/Sink should not cost much, but we should not mix catalog discussion and DDL at this point. 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks 4.b) Regarding `ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()` and Lin's comment about "will violate the rule": there is no explicit rule of doing so. Computed column are also not standard compliant, if we can use information that is encoded in constraints we should use it. Adding more and more top-level properties makes the interaction with connectors more difficult. An additional HEADER keyword sounds too connector-specific and also not SQL compliant to me. 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH GRANT/INVOKE are mutating an existing table, right? In my opinion, independent of SQL databases but focusing on Flink user requirements, a CREATE TABLE statement should be an immutable definition of a connection to an external system. 7) Table Update Mode As far as I can see, the only thing missing for enabling all table modes is the declaration of a change flag. We could introduce a new keyword here similar to WATERMARK: CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( id bigint, msg varchar, CHANGE_FLAG FOR isRetraction ) WITH ( type=kafka ,... ); CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( CHANGE_FLAG FOR isUpsert id bigint, msg varchar, PRIMARY_KEY(id) ) WITH ( type=kafka ,... ); What do you think? @Jark: We should definitely stage the discussions and mention the opinions and advantages/disadvantages that have been proposed already in the FLIP. Regards, Timo Am 10.12.18 um 08:10 schrieb Jark Wu: > Hi all, > > It's great to see we have an agreement on MVP. > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems. > I would treat the field as a physical column not a virtual column. If we > treat it as computed column, it will be confused that the behavior is > different when it is a source or sink. > When it is a physical column, the behavior could be unified. Then the > problem is how to mapping from the field to kafka message timestamp? > One is Lin proposed above and is also used in KSQL[1]. Another idea is > introducing a HEADER column which strictly map by name to the fields in > message header. > For example, > > CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > id bigint, > ts timestamp HEADER, > msg varchar > ) WITH ( > type=kafka > ,... > ); > > This is used in Alibaba but not included in the DDL draft. It will further > extend the SQL syntax, which is we should be cautious about. What do you > think about this two solutions? > > 4.d) Custom watermark strategies: > @Timo, I don't have a strong opinion on this. > > 3) SOURCE/SINK/BOTH > Agree with Lin, GRANT/INVOKE [SELECT|UPDATE] ON TABLE is a clean and > standard way to manage the permission, which is also adopted by HIVE[2] and > many databases. > > [1]: https://docs.confluent.io/current/ksql/docs/tutorials/examples.html > [2]: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=45876173#Hivedeprecatedauthorizationmode/LegacyMode-Grant/RevokePrivileges > > @Timo, it's great if someone can conclude the discussion and summarize into > a FLIP. > @Shuyi, Thanks a lot for putting it all together. The google doc looks good > to me, and I left some minor comments there. > > Regarding to the FLIP, I have some suggestions: > 1. The FLIP can contain MILESTONE1 and FUTURE WORKS. > 2. The MILESTONE1 is the MVP. It describes the MVP DDL syntax. > 3. Separate FUTURE WORKS into two parts: UNDER DISCUSSION and ADOPTED. We > can derive MILESTONE2 from this easily when it is ready. > > I summarized the Future Works based on Shuyi's work: > > Adopted: (Should detailed described here...) > 1. support data type nullability and precision. > 2. comment on table and columns. > > Under Discussion: (Should briefly describe some options...) > 1. Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems. > 2. support custom watermark strategy. > 3. support table update mode > 4. support row/map/array data type > 5. support schema derivation > 6. support system versioned temporal table > 7. support table index > > We can continue the further discussion here, also can separate to an other > DISCUSS topic if it is a sophisticated problem such as Table Update Mode, > Temporal Table. > > Best, > Jark > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 11:54, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> hi all, >> Thanks for your valuable input! >> >> 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: >> 4.b) @Fabian As you mentioned using a computed columns `ts AS >> SYSTEMROWTIME()` >> for writing out to kafka table sink will violate the rule that computed >> fields are not emitted. >> Since the timestamp column in kafka's header area is a specific >> materialization protocol, >> why don't we treat it as an connector property? For an example: >> ``` >> CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( >> id bigint, >> ts timestamp, >> msg varchar >> ) WITH ( >> type=kafka, >> header.timestamp=ts >> ,... >> ); >> ``` >> >> 4d) For custom watermark strategies >> @Fabian Agree with you that opening another topic about this feature later. >> >> 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH >> I think the permissions and availabilities are two separately things, >> permissions >> can be managed well by using GRANT/INVOKE(you can call it DCL) solutions >> which >> commonly used in different DBs. The permission part can be an new topic for >> later discussion, what do you think? >> >> For the availabilities, @Fabian @Timo I've another question, >> does instantiate a TableSource/Sink cost much or has some other downsides? >> IMO, create a new source/sink object via the construct seems not costly. >> When receiving a DDL we should associate it with the catalog object >> (reusing an existence or create a new one). >> Am I lost something important? >> >> 5. Schema declaration: >> @Timo yes, your concern about the user convenience is very important. But >> I haven't seen a clear way to solve this so far. >> Do we put it later and wait for more inputs from the community? >> >> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月8日周六 下午4:27写道： >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thanks a lot for the great discussion. I think we can continue the >>> discussion here while carving out a MVP so that the community can start >>> working on. Based on the discussion so far, I try to summarize what we >> will >>> do for the MVP: >>> >>> MVP >>> >>> 1. support CREATE TABLE >>> 2. support exisiting data type in Flink SQL, ignore nullability and >>> precision >>> 3. support table comments and column comments >>> 4. support table constraint PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE >>> 5. support table properties using key-value pairs >>> 6. support partitioned by >>> 7. support computed column >>> 8. support from-field and from-source timestamp extractors >>> 9. support PERIODIC-ASCENDING, PERIODIC-BOUNDED, FROM-SOURCE watermark >>> strategies. >>> 10. support a table property to allow explicit enforcement of >>> read/write(source/sink) permission of a table >>> >>> I try to put up the DDL grammar ( >>> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ug1-aVBSCxZQk58kR-yaK2ETCgL3zg0eDUVGCnW2V9E/edit?usp=sharing >>> ) >>> based on the MVP features above and the previous design docs. Please >> take a >>> look and comment on it. >>> >>> >>> Also, I summarize the future Improvement on CREATE TABLE as the >> followings: >>> 1. support table update mode >>> 2. support data type nullability and precision >>> 3. support row/map/array data type >>> 4. support custom timestamp extractor and watermark strategy >>> 5. support schema derivation >>> 6. support system versioned temporal table >>> 7. support table index >>> >>> I suggest we first agree on the MVP feature list and the MVP grammar. And >>> then we can either continue the discussion of the future improvements >> here, >>> or create separate JIRAs for each item and discuss further in the JIRA. >>> What do you guys think? >>> >>> Shuyi >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I think we are making good progress. Thanks for all the feedback so >> far. >>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: >>>> It seems that I can not find supporters for explicit SOURCE/SINK >>>> declaration so I'm fine with not using those keywords. >>>> @Fabian: Maybe we don't haven have to change the TableFactory interface >>>> but just provide some helper functions in the TableFactoryService. This >>>> would solve the availability problem, but the permission problem would >>>> still not be solved. If you are fine with it, we could introduce a >>>> property instead? >>>> >>>> 5. Schema declaration: >>>> @Lin: We should find an agreement on this as it requires changes to the >>>> TableFactory interface. We should minimize changes to this interface >>>> because it is user-facing. Especially, if format schema and table >> schema >>>> differ, the need for such a functionality is very important. Our goal >> is >>>> to connect to existing infrastructure. For example, if we are using >> Avro >>>> and the existing Avro format has enums but Flink SQL does not support >>>> enums, it would be helpful to let the Avro format derive a table >> schema. >>>> Otherwise your need to declare both schemas which leads to CREATE TABLE >>>> statements of 400 lines+. >>>> I think the mentioned query: >>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, >>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") >>>> is fine and should only be valid if the schema contains no non-computed >>>> columns. >>>> >>>> 7. Table Update Mode: >>>> After thinking about it again, I agree. The mode of the sinks can be >>>> derived from the query and the existence of a PRIMARY KEY declaration. >>>> But Fabian raised a very good point. How do we deal with sources? Shall >>>> we introduce a new keywords similar to WATERMARKS such that a >>>> upsert/retract flag is not part of the visible schema? >>>> >>>> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? >>>> @Jark: Thanks for the explanation of the WATERMARK clause semantics. >>>> This is a nice way of marking existing fields. This sounds good to me. >>>> >>>> 4c) WATERMARK as constraint >>>> I'm fine with leaving the WATERMARK clause in the schema definition. >>>> >>>> 4d) Custom watermark strategies: >>>> I would already think about custom watermark strategies as the current >>>> descriptor design already supports this. ScalarFunction's don't work as >>>> a PeriodicWatermarkAssigner has different semantics. Why not simply >>>> entering the a full class name here as it is done in the current >> design? >>>> 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka) >>>> @Fabian: Yes, your suggestion sounds good to me. This behavior would be >>>> similar to our current `timestamps: from-source` design. >>>> >>>> Once our discussion has found a conclusion, I would like to volunteer >>>> and summarize the outcome of this mailing thread. It nicely aligns with >>>> the update work on the connector improvements document (that I wanted >> to >>>> do anyway) and the ongoing external catalog discussion. Furthermore, I >>>> would also want to propose how to change existing interfaces by keeping >>>> the DDL, connector improvements, and external catalog support in mind. >>>> Would that be ok for you? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Timo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 07.12.18 um 14:48 schrieb Fabian Hueske: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the discussion. >>>>> I'd like to share my point of view as well. >>>>> >>>>> 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: >>>>> 4.a) I agree with Lin and Jark's proposal. Declaring a watermark on >> an >>>>> attribute declares it as an event-time attribute. >>>>> 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka). We >> could >>>> use >>>>> a special function like (ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()). This function will >>>>> indicate that we read the timestamp directly from the system (and not >>> the >>>>> data). We can also write the field back to the system when emitting >> the >>>>> table (violating the rule that computed fields are not emitted). >>>>> 4c) I would treat WATERMARK similar to a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE KEY >>>>> constraint and therefore keep it in the schema definition. >>>>> 4d) For custom watermark strategies, a simple expressions or >>>>> ScalarFunctions won't be sufficient. Sophisticated approaches could >>>> collect >>>>> histograms, etc. But I think we can leave that out for later. >>>>> >>>>> 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH >>>>> As you said, there are two things to consider here: permission and >>>>> availability of a TableSource/TableSink. >>>>> I think that neither should be a reason to add a keyword at such a >>>>> sensitive position. >>>>> However, I also see Timo's point that it would be good to know >> up-front >>>> how >>>>> a table can be used without trying to instantiate a TableSource/Sink >>> for >>>> a >>>>> query. >>>>> Maybe we can extend the TableFactory such that it provides >> information >>>>> about which sources/sinks it can provide. >>>>> >>>>> 7. Table Update Mode >>>>> Something that we definitely need to consider is how tables are >>> ingested, >>>>> i.e., append, retract or upsert. >>>>> Especially, since upsert and retraction need a meta-data column that >>>>> indicates whether an event is an insert (or upsert) or a delete >> change. >>>>> This column needs to be identified somehow, most likely as part of >> the >>>>> input format. Ideally, this column should not be part of the table >>> schema >>>>> (as it would be always true). >>>>> Emitting tables is not so much of an issue as the properties of the >>> table >>>>> tell use what to do (append-only/update, unique key y/n). >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Fabian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu <[hidden email] >>> : >>>>>> Hi Timo, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: >>>>>> >>>>>> Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex >>> problem. I >>>>>> think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do not >>>> need to >>>>>> specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The >> query >>>> can >>>>>> choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted >>> into >>>> an >>>>>> append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an exception >>>> can be >>>>>> thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write >>>> retractions/upserts >>>>>> to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on >> the >>>>>> table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag >>>> encoding, >>>>>> but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the >>>>>> append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we have >>>> stream >>>>>> source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink >>> also >>>>>> include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the >> tags >>> on >>>>>> the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table >>>> itself, >>>>>> user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an >>>>>> exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag can >>> be >>>>>> omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE >>> TABLE >>>> in >>>>>> the first version, and add it back in the future when we really need >>>> it? It >>>>>> keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider >>> clearly. >>>>>> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? >>>>>> The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as time >>>>>> attribute and use what generate strategy. >>>>>> When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` AS >>>> OFFSET >>>>>> '5' SECOND. >>>>>> If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it >>> like >>>>>> this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND >>>>>> >>>>>> 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header >>>>>> Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only >> one >>>> time >>>>>> attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we >> enable >>>>>> `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be >>>> write to >>>>>> Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is >> the >>>> time >>>>>> attribute in the stream. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, >>>> PRIMARY >>>>>> KEY keywords. >>>>>> >>>>>> @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark >>>> syntax ? >>>>>> For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS >>>> "OFFSET" >>>>>> VS ... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Jark >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Timo, >>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: >>>>>>> "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to >>> list >>>>>> all >>>>>>> source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an >>> INSERT >>>>>> INTO >>>>>>> here or not." >>>>>>> This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all >>>>>>> supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can >> perform >>> a >>>>>>> quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for >>> the >>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>> For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some >>> or >>>>>> all >>>>>>> of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can >> derive >>>> the >>>>>>> availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or >>>>>>> specific table properties in WITH clause. >>>>>>> Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords >>> for >>>>>> the >>>>>>> MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys >>>>>>> Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and >>>>>> partitioned >>>>>>> table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add >>>>>>> partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc >>>>>>> later[1]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration >>>>>>> "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" >>>>>> constraints >>>>>>> but without columns >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, >>>>>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the primary >>> key >>>>>>> constraint already references two columns but types unseen. >>>>>>> And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema >>>>>>> derivation as a follow-up extension ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. >> I'm >>>>>> open >>>>>>>> for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of >> use >>>>>>>> cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to >>>> cover >>>>>>>> all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another >>>> example, >>>>>>>> that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if >> append, >>>>>>>> retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target >>>>>>>> system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the >>> big >>>>>>>> WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor >>>>>>>> approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have >> very >>>>>>>> custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it >> can >>>> be >>>>>>>> created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific >>> source/sink) >>>>>>>> declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, >> yes >>> we >>>>>>>> would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a >> problem? >>>> One >>>>>>>> also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is >> not >>>>>>>> only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, >> not >>>>>>>> every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a >> JDBC >>>>>> sink >>>>>>>> is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI >>> session, >>>>>>>> people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to >>> know >>>>>>>> upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in >> the >>>>>>>> design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in >> the >>>>>>>> making/are on our roadmap for this release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. >> I >>>>>> just >>>>>>>> wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare >> computed >>>>>>>> columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are >> we >>>> ok >>>>>>>> with a syntax like ... >>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, >>>>>>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? >>>>>>>> @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not >> excatly >>>>>>>> match but this is true for both directions: >>>>>>>> table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" >>> table >>>>>>>> schema. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we >>>>>>>> should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very >>>>>>>> batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical >> and >>>>>>>> future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an >> intermediate >>>>>>>> layer on top of Flink's DDL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the >>>> TimestampExtractor >>>>>>>> interface as this is also important for better separation of >>> connector >>>>>>>> and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark >>>>>> generation. >>>>>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: >>>>>>>> @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as >>>>>>>> rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. >> How >>>>>>>> does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps >>> that >>>>>>>> are nested in the schema? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: >>>>>>>> I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This >> is >>>>>> like >>>>>>>> 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. >>>>>>>> @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka >>>>>>>> message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the >> stream >>>>>>>> record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. >>> So >>>>>> we >>>>>>>> need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use >> (possibly >>>>>>>> computed as well)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause >> next >>> to >>>>>>>> the regular schema? >>>>>>>> @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the >>> feeling >>>>>>>> that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual >> schema >>>>>>>> with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about >>>>>>>> timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a >>> new >>>>>>>> WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to >>>> this >>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks everyone, >>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: >>>>>>>>> Hi Timo, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL >> functionality >>> to >>>>>>>>> Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as >>>>>>> cautious >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a >>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>> way, we shouldn't introduce something new. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here are some of my thoughts: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Scope: Agree. >>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints: Agree. >>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: >>>>>>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. >>>>>>>>> If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it >> as >>>>>>>> rowtime, >>>>>>>>> no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed >>>>>> column >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you >>> mean >>>>>>>>> defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an >>> advantages, >>>>>>>>> because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether >> to >>>>>>>> "replace >>>>>>>>> the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be >> confused >>>>>>>> what's >>>>>>>>> the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? >>>>>>> Regarding >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when >> the >>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>> timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown >>>>>>>> optimization >>>>>>>>> can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the >> same >>> as >>>>>>>>> "replacing the existing column" in runtime. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message >> header? >>>>>>>>> That's a good point. I think computed column is just a >>> virtual >>>>>>>> column >>>>>>>>> on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write >> to >>> a >>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>> with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns >>>>>>> except >>>>>>>>> computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is >>> ignored >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write >>> out >>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a >>>>>> configuration >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the >>> timestmap >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you >>>>>> think? >>>>>>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special >>> clause >>>>>>> next >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the regular schema? >>>>>>>>> Separating watermark into a special clause similar to >>>>>> PARTITIONED >>>>>>>> BY is >>>>>>>>> also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in >>> schema >>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>> or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark >>>>>>>>> definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It >>> is >>>>>>>>> similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes >> on a >>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>> in schema part. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark >> strategy? >>>>>>>>> In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we >>> need >>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only >>>>>> return >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS >>>>>>>>> watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined >> scalar >>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>> accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used >>> as >>>>>>>>> punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a >>> class >>>>>>>>> extending the >>>>>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` >> and >>>>>> use >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. >> But >>> if >>>>>>>>> scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer >> it >>>>>>> here, >>>>>>>>> because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in >>> MVP, >>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: >>>>>>>>> I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema >>> from >>>>>>>>> external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have >>> already >>>>>>>>> encountered this requirement in out company. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive >> syntax >>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>> keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and >>>>>> reduce >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> learning cost for user. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]: >>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu < >> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to >>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. +1 on MVP DDL >>>>>>>>>> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on >>> tables >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created >>>>>>> differently >>>>>>>>>> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use >>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>> keywords to enforce permissions. >>>>>>>>>> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. >> While >>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For >>>>>>> example, >>>>>>>>>> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For >>>>>>> instance, >>>>>>>>>> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For >>> instance, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may >>> stay >>>>>>>>>> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file >>>>>> based >>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> file schema and return the data based on table schema. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other aspects: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to >>> operate >>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be >>>>>> compatible >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we >>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at >>>>>>>>>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 >>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo and Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>> thanks for your feedback. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Scope >>>>>>>>>> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints >>>>>>>>>> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks >>>>>>>>>> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we >>>>>> declare >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further >>>>>> question, >>>>>>>> if a >>>>>>>>>> TABLE >>>>>>>>>> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for >>> some >>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>> requirements >>>>>>>>>> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating >>> both >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>> and catalogs. >>>>>>>>>> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one >> table >>>>>>>> in-place >>>>>>>>>> can be a common case. >>>>>>>>>> e.g., >>>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE t1 ( >>>>>>>>>> col1 varchar, >>>>>>>>>> col2 int, >>>>>>>>>> col3 varchar >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> ); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 >>>>>>>>>> AS >>>>>>>>>> SELECT >>>>>>>>>> (some computing ...) >>>>>>>>>> FROM t1; >>>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the >>>>>> validation >>>>>>>>>> purpose, we can find out other ways. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes >>>>>>>>>> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an >>>>>>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` >>> for >>>>>>>> custom >>>>>>>>>> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class >> is >>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> friendly for table api not the SQL. >>>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>> /** >>>>>>>>>> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a >>>>>> rowtime >>>>>>>>>> attribute. >>>>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>>>> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] >> with >>>>>>>>>> Serializable { >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ >>>>>>>>>> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = >>>>>>>>>> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor >>> are >>>>>>>>>> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more >>>>>>>> advantage in >>>>>>>>>> SQL scenarios. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys >>>>>>>>>> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned >> table >>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>> can be another topic later. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration >>>>>>>>>> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user >>>>>>>>>> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. >>>>>>>>>> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the >>>>>> users >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, >>>>>>>>>> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize >>> some >>>>>>>>>> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. >>>>>>>>>> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file >> can >>> be >>>>>>>> handy >>>>>>>>>> especially one with too many table columns. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Lin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we >>> should >>>>>>> aim >>>>>>>>>>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in >>> the >>>>>>>>>> design: >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE >> statements >>>>>>> first. >>>>>>>>>>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long >>>>>> discussions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and >> CREATE >>>>>>>>>>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like >>> nullability, >>>>>>>>>>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future >> as >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the >> translation >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not >>>>>>> introduce >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This >>> can >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs >>> CREATE >>>>>>>>>>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for >>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, >> teams >>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data >>> science >>>>>>> team >>>>>>>>>>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not >>>>>>> accidently >>>>>>>>>>> write back to the single source of truth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns >>>>>> approach >>>>>>>>>>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and >>>>>>> simple. >>>>>>>>>>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. >>>>>>>>>>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the >> schema >>>>>>> twice. >>>>>>>>>>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as >>> it >>>>>>>>>>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed >>>>>> column. >>>>>>>>>>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out >>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a >>>>>> timestamp >>>>>>>>>>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse >> operation >>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>> computed column. >>>>>>>>>>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part >> of >>> a >>>>>>>>>>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a >>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY >>> does >>>>>> it >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> Hive? >>>>>>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I >>>>>> guess >>>>>>>>>>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would >>> require >>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>> new type of UDF? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design >>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), >>>>>> partitioning >>>>>>>>>>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table >>> schema? >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to >>>>>> force >>>>>>>>>>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this >> is >>>>>>>>>>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know >> that >>>>>>>> catalog >>>>>>>>>>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, >>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink >> DDL. >>>>>>> What I >>>>>>>>>>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema >>> defines >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> table schema (+ time attributes). >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = >>>>>>>>>>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try >> to >>>>>>>>>>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf >>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the watermark: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including >>>>>> computed-column) >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> table schema. >>>>>>>>>>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns >> using >>>>>>>> builtin >>>>>>>>>>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). >>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only >>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom >>>>>>> timestamp >>>>>>>>>>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` >>>>>>>>>>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support >>> `TimestampExtractor` >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> SQL, >>>>>>>>>>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for >> `TimestampExtractor`? >>>>>>>>>>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with >>>>>>>>>> `TimestampExtractor` >>>>>>>>>>>> but more powerful and standard. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the >>>>>> schema >>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the >>> query >>>>>>>>>> sees. >>>>>>>>>>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition >> or >>>>>>>>>>> constraint >>>>>>>>>>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only >> defines >>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime >>>>>> attribute >>>>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>>>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use >>>>>>>> computed >>>>>>>>>>>> column >>>>>>>>>>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor >>> Pattern >>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not >>>>>>> contradictory >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: >>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes >>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great >>>>>> progress >>>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Below are my thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime >>>>>> extractors >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategies defined in >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes >>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the >>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into >> the >>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. >>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and >>> add >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>>>>> later if needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future >>>>>>> versions. >>>>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar >>> in >>>>>>>>>> Calcite >>>>>>>>>>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we >> can >>>>>>>>>>> definitely >>>>>>>>>>>>> change if needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on >>> create >>>>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the another major difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang < >>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round >>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying >> "create >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [source/sink] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and >> "create >>>>>>> table" >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals >>> FMPOV. >>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these >> two >>>>>>> parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin >>> and I >>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first >>> version >>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and >> reach >>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASAP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi >>>>>>> proposed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the >>> first >>>>>>>>>> version >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, >>>>>>> welcome >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> >>> @Fabian >>>>>>>>>> Hueske >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. >>> VARCHAR(128) >>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not >> used >>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize >> in >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length >> in >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> future, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and >>>> precision, >>>>>>>> e.g. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision >> of >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Decimal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can have some optimization on >> serialization/deserialization. >>>>>>> IMO, >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And >>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>> custom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scale >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and precision in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL >>>>>>> (proposed >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc[2])? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the >> future: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL >> gramma >>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your >> proposal >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> ours. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss >> on >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified >> design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal >>> topic, >>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already >>> working >>>>>>> on. >>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final >>>>>> design >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a >>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for >>> the >>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen < >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should >> definitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in >>>>>>>>>>>>> production >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from >>> both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> companies, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that >>> talks >>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and >>> merge >>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for >> implementation. >>>>>>> Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the >>>>>>> design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you guys think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu < >> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good >> idea. >>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prepare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 >>>>>> 下午9:17写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please >>> consider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summarizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's >>> proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu < >>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the >> awesome >>>>>>>>>>>>> work! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple >> watermark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime >>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but >> missing >>> in >>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not >> very >>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with >>> watermarks >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime >> field >>>>>>>>>>>>>> together. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we >>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. >>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we >>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in >> Alibaba >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS >>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark >> definition. >>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “FOR” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate >>> watermark, >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use >> computed-column >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark >>>>>> strategy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> schema, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other >> existing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” >>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field >>>>>> definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as >> PROCTIME() >>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 >>> 下午6:33写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (extends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two >>>>>> years >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is >> keeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR >> rowTimeColumn >>>> AS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 >>>>>> 上午3:28写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration >>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and >>> finalize >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments >> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually >>> proceed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> w/o >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably >>>>>>>>>>>>> stick >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the >>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is >> also >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I >> think >>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It >> would >>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skips >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. >> This >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>> queries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority >>>>>>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until >> mid >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the >>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from >> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ddl, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table >>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> table. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent >> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = >>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘latest-offset’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string >> map >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way >> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can >> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector >> scope >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give >>>>>>>>>>>>> user a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the >>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vastly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to >> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the >> design >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements >> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> directions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on >> both! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask >> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> define/create >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Client, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction >> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adoption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> library >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API >> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>> connect >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect >>> in >>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in >>> your >>>>>>>>>>> future." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." >>> |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Hi all,
I summarize the MVP based on the features that we agreed upon. For table update mode and custom watermark strategy and ts extractor, I found there are some discussions, so I decided to leave them out for the MVP. For row/map/array data type, I think we can add it as well if everyone agrees. 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks Cited from SQL Server 2017 document ( https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/tables/specify-computed-columns-in-a-table?view=sql-server-2017), "A computed column is a virtual column that is not physically stored in the table, unless the column is marked PERSISTED. A computed column expression can use data from other columns to calculate a value for the column to which it belongs. " I think we can also use introduce the PERSISTED keyword for computed column to indicate that the field can be stored back to the table, i.e. ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME() PERSISTED. 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH GRANT/INVOKE sounds like a more standard option than adding a property to CREATE TABLE to manage the ACL/permission. The ACL can be stored somewhere in a database, and allow/disallow access to a dynamic table depending on whether it's a "INSERT INTO" or "SELECT". I can volunteer to put the discussion as a FLIP. I can try to summarize the current discussion, and share edit permission with you to collaborate on the documents. After we finalized the doc, we can publish it as a FLIP. What do you think? Shuyi On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:13 AM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > thanks for summarizing the discussion @Shuyi. I think we need to include > the "table update mode" problem as it might not be changed easily in the > future. Regarding "support row/map/array data type", I don't see a > problem why we should not support them now as the data types are already > included in the runtime. The "support custom timestamp extractor" is > solved by the computed columns approach. The "custom watermark strategy" > can be added by supplying a class name as paramter in my opinion. > > Regarding the comments of Lin and Jark: > > @Lin: Instantiating a TableSource/Sink should not cost much, but we > should not mix catalog discussion and DDL at this point. > > 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks > 4.b) Regarding `ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()` and Lin's comment about "will > violate the rule": there is no explicit rule of doing so. Computed > column are also not standard compliant, if we can use information that > is encoded in constraints we should use it. Adding more and more > top-level properties makes the interaction with connectors more > difficult. An additional HEADER keyword sounds too connector-specific > and also not SQL compliant to me. > > 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > GRANT/INVOKE are mutating an existing table, right? In my opinion, > independent of SQL databases but focusing on Flink user requirements, a > CREATE TABLE statement should be an immutable definition of a connection > to an external system. > > 7) Table Update Mode > As far as I can see, the only thing missing for enabling all table modes > is the declaration of a change flag. We could introduce a new keyword > here similar to WATERMARK: > > CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > id bigint, > msg varchar, > CHANGE_FLAG FOR isRetraction > ) WITH ( > type=kafka > ,... > ); > > CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > CHANGE_FLAG FOR isUpsert > id bigint, > msg varchar, > PRIMARY_KEY(id) > ) WITH ( > type=kafka > ,... > ); > > What do you think? > > @Jark: We should definitely stage the discussions and mention the > opinions and advantages/disadvantages that have been proposed already in > the FLIP. > > Regards, > Timo > > Am 10.12.18 um 08:10 schrieb Jark Wu: > > Hi all, > > > > It's great to see we have an agreement on MVP. > > > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems. > > I would treat the field as a physical column not a virtual column. If we > > treat it as computed column, it will be confused that the behavior is > > different when it is a source or sink. > > When it is a physical column, the behavior could be unified. Then the > > problem is how to mapping from the field to kafka message timestamp? > > One is Lin proposed above and is also used in KSQL[1]. Another idea is > > introducing a HEADER column which strictly map by name to the fields in > > message header. > > For example, > > > > CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > > id bigint, > > ts timestamp HEADER, > > msg varchar > > ) WITH ( > > type=kafka > > ,... > > ); > > > > This is used in Alibaba but not included in the DDL draft. It will > further > > extend the SQL syntax, which is we should be cautious about. What do you > > think about this two solutions? > > > > 4.d) Custom watermark strategies: > > @Timo, I don't have a strong opinion on this. > > > > 3) SOURCE/SINK/BOTH > > Agree with Lin, GRANT/INVOKE [SELECT|UPDATE] ON TABLE is a clean and > > standard way to manage the permission, which is also adopted by HIVE[2] > and > > many databases. > > > > [1]: https://docs.confluent.io/current/ksql/docs/tutorials/examples.html > > [2]: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=45876173#Hivedeprecatedauthorizationmode/LegacyMode-Grant/RevokePrivileges > > > > @Timo, it's great if someone can conclude the discussion and summarize > into > > a FLIP. > > @Shuyi, Thanks a lot for putting it all together. The google doc looks > good > > to me, and I left some minor comments there. > > > > Regarding to the FLIP, I have some suggestions: > > 1. The FLIP can contain MILESTONE1 and FUTURE WORKS. > > 2. The MILESTONE1 is the MVP. It describes the MVP DDL syntax. > > 3. Separate FUTURE WORKS into two parts: UNDER DISCUSSION and ADOPTED. We > > can derive MILESTONE2 from this easily when it is ready. > > > > I summarized the Future Works based on Shuyi's work: > > > > Adopted: (Should detailed described here...) > > 1. support data type nullability and precision. > > 2. comment on table and columns. > > > > Under Discussion: (Should briefly describe some options...) > > 1. Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems. > > 2. support custom watermark strategy. > > 3. support table update mode > > 4. support row/map/array data type > > 5. support schema derivation > > 6. support system versioned temporal table > > 7. support table index > > > > We can continue the further discussion here, also can separate to an > other > > DISCUSS topic if it is a sophisticated problem such as Table Update Mode, > > Temporal Table. > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 11:54, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> hi all, > >> Thanks for your valuable input! > >> > >> 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > >> 4.b) @Fabian As you mentioned using a computed columns `ts AS > >> SYSTEMROWTIME()` > >> for writing out to kafka table sink will violate the rule that computed > >> fields are not emitted. > >> Since the timestamp column in kafka's header area is a specific > >> materialization protocol, > >> why don't we treat it as an connector property? For an example: > >> ``` > >> CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > >> id bigint, > >> ts timestamp, > >> msg varchar > >> ) WITH ( > >> type=kafka, > >> header.timestamp=ts > >> ,... > >> ); > >> ``` > >> > >> 4d) For custom watermark strategies > >> @Fabian Agree with you that opening another topic about this feature > later. > >> > >> 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > >> I think the permissions and availabilities are two separately things, > >> permissions > >> can be managed well by using GRANT/INVOKE(you can call it DCL) solutions > >> which > >> commonly used in different DBs. The permission part can be an new topic > for > >> later discussion, what do you think? > >> > >> For the availabilities, @Fabian @Timo I've another question, > >> does instantiate a TableSource/Sink cost much or has some other > downsides? > >> IMO, create a new source/sink object via the construct seems not costly. > >> When receiving a DDL we should associate it with the catalog object > >> (reusing an existence or create a new one). > >> Am I lost something important? > >> > >> 5. Schema declaration: > >> @Timo yes, your concern about the user convenience is very important. > But > >> I haven't seen a clear way to solve this so far. > >> Do we put it later and wait for more inputs from the community? > >> > >> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月8日周六 下午4:27写道： > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Thanks a lot for the great discussion. I think we can continue the > >>> discussion here while carving out a MVP so that the community can start > >>> working on. Based on the discussion so far, I try to summarize what we > >> will > >>> do for the MVP: > >>> > >>> MVP > >>> > >>> 1. support CREATE TABLE > >>> 2. support exisiting data type in Flink SQL, ignore nullability and > >>> precision > >>> 3. support table comments and column comments > >>> 4. support table constraint PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE > >>> 5. support table properties using key-value pairs > >>> 6. support partitioned by > >>> 7. support computed column > >>> 8. support from-field and from-source timestamp extractors > >>> 9. support PERIODIC-ASCENDING, PERIODIC-BOUNDED, FROM-SOURCE > watermark > >>> strategies. > >>> 10. support a table property to allow explicit enforcement of > >>> read/write(source/sink) permission of a table > >>> > >>> I try to put up the DDL grammar ( > >>> > >>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ug1-aVBSCxZQk58kR-yaK2ETCgL3zg0eDUVGCnW2V9E/edit?usp=sharing > >>> ) > >>> based on the MVP features above and the previous design docs. Please > >> take a > >>> look and comment on it. > >>> > >>> > >>> Also, I summarize the future Improvement on CREATE TABLE as the > >> followings: > >>> 1. support table update mode > >>> 2. support data type nullability and precision > >>> 3. support row/map/array data type > >>> 4. support custom timestamp extractor and watermark strategy > >>> 5. support schema derivation > >>> 6. support system versioned temporal table > >>> 7. support table index > >>> > >>> I suggest we first agree on the MVP feature list and the MVP grammar. > And > >>> then we can either continue the discussion of the future improvements > >> here, > >>> or create separate JIRAs for each item and discuss further in the JIRA. > >>> What do you guys think? > >>> > >>> Shuyi > >>> > >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> I think we are making good progress. Thanks for all the feedback so > >> far. > >>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: > >>>> It seems that I can not find supporters for explicit SOURCE/SINK > >>>> declaration so I'm fine with not using those keywords. > >>>> @Fabian: Maybe we don't haven have to change the TableFactory > interface > >>>> but just provide some helper functions in the TableFactoryService. > This > >>>> would solve the availability problem, but the permission problem would > >>>> still not be solved. If you are fine with it, we could introduce a > >>>> property instead? > >>>> > >>>> 5. Schema declaration: > >>>> @Lin: We should find an agreement on this as it requires changes to > the > >>>> TableFactory interface. We should minimize changes to this interface > >>>> because it is user-facing. Especially, if format schema and table > >> schema > >>>> differ, the need for such a functionality is very important. Our goal > >> is > >>>> to connect to existing infrastructure. For example, if we are using > >> Avro > >>>> and the existing Avro format has enums but Flink SQL does not support > >>>> enums, it would be helpful to let the Avro format derive a table > >> schema. > >>>> Otherwise your need to declare both schemas which leads to CREATE > TABLE > >>>> statements of 400 lines+. > >>>> I think the mentioned query: > >>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > >>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") > >>>> is fine and should only be valid if the schema contains no > non-computed > >>>> columns. > >>>> > >>>> 7. Table Update Mode: > >>>> After thinking about it again, I agree. The mode of the sinks can be > >>>> derived from the query and the existence of a PRIMARY KEY declaration. > >>>> But Fabian raised a very good point. How do we deal with sources? > Shall > >>>> we introduce a new keywords similar to WATERMARKS such that a > >>>> upsert/retract flag is not part of the visible schema? > >>>> > >>>> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > >>>> @Jark: Thanks for the explanation of the WATERMARK clause semantics. > >>>> This is a nice way of marking existing fields. This sounds good to me. > >>>> > >>>> 4c) WATERMARK as constraint > >>>> I'm fine with leaving the WATERMARK clause in the schema definition. > >>>> > >>>> 4d) Custom watermark strategies: > >>>> I would already think about custom watermark strategies as the current > >>>> descriptor design already supports this. ScalarFunction's don't work > as > >>>> a PeriodicWatermarkAssigner has different semantics. Why not simply > >>>> entering the a full class name here as it is done in the current > >> design? > >>>> 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka) > >>>> @Fabian: Yes, your suggestion sounds good to me. This behavior would > be > >>>> similar to our current `timestamps: from-source` design. > >>>> > >>>> Once our discussion has found a conclusion, I would like to volunteer > >>>> and summarize the outcome of this mailing thread. It nicely aligns > with > >>>> the update work on the connector improvements document (that I wanted > >> to > >>>> do anyway) and the ongoing external catalog discussion. Furthermore, I > >>>> would also want to propose how to change existing interfaces by > keeping > >>>> the DDL, connector improvements, and external catalog support in mind. > >>>> Would that be ok for you? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Timo > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Am 07.12.18 um 14:48 schrieb Fabian Hueske: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the discussion. > >>>>> I'd like to share my point of view as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > >>>>> 4.a) I agree with Lin and Jark's proposal. Declaring a watermark on > >> an > >>>>> attribute declares it as an event-time attribute. > >>>>> 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka). We > >> could > >>>> use > >>>>> a special function like (ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()). This function will > >>>>> indicate that we read the timestamp directly from the system (and not > >>> the > >>>>> data). We can also write the field back to the system when emitting > >> the > >>>>> table (violating the rule that computed fields are not emitted). > >>>>> 4c) I would treat WATERMARK similar to a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE KEY > >>>>> constraint and therefore keep it in the schema definition. > >>>>> 4d) For custom watermark strategies, a simple expressions or > >>>>> ScalarFunctions won't be sufficient. Sophisticated approaches could > >>>> collect > >>>>> histograms, etc. But I think we can leave that out for later. > >>>>> > >>>>> 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > >>>>> As you said, there are two things to consider here: permission and > >>>>> availability of a TableSource/TableSink. > >>>>> I think that neither should be a reason to add a keyword at such a > >>>>> sensitive position. > >>>>> However, I also see Timo's point that it would be good to know > >> up-front > >>>> how > >>>>> a table can be used without trying to instantiate a TableSource/Sink > >>> for > >>>> a > >>>>> query. > >>>>> Maybe we can extend the TableFactory such that it provides > >> information > >>>>> about which sources/sinks it can provide. > >>>>> > >>>>> 7. Table Update Mode > >>>>> Something that we definitely need to consider is how tables are > >>> ingested, > >>>>> i.e., append, retract or upsert. > >>>>> Especially, since upsert and retraction need a meta-data column that > >>>>> indicates whether an event is an insert (or upsert) or a delete > >> change. > >>>>> This column needs to be identified somehow, most likely as part of > >> the > >>>>> input format. Ideally, this column should not be part of the table > >>> schema > >>>>> (as it would be always true). > >>>>> Emitting tables is not so much of an issue as the properties of the > >>> table > >>>>> tell use what to do (append-only/update, unique key y/n). > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Fabian > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu <[hidden email] > >>> : > >>>>>> Hi Timo, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex > >>> problem. I > >>>>>> think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do not > >>>> need to > >>>>>> specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The > >> query > >>>> can > >>>>>> choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted > >>> into > >>>> an > >>>>>> append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an exception > >>>> can be > >>>>>> thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write > >>>> retractions/upserts > >>>>>> to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on > >> the > >>>>>> table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag > >>>> encoding, > >>>>>> but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the > >>>>>> append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we have > >>>> stream > >>>>>> source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink > >>> also > >>>>>> include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the > >> tags > >>> on > >>>>>> the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table > >>>> itself, > >>>>>> user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an > >>>>>> exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag can > >>> be > >>>>>> omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE > >>> TABLE > >>>> in > >>>>>> the first version, and add it back in the future when we really need > >>>> it? It > >>>>>> keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider > >>> clearly. > >>>>>> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > >>>>>> The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as time > >>>>>> attribute and use what generate strategy. > >>>>>> When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` AS > >>>> OFFSET > >>>>>> '5' SECOND. > >>>>>> If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it > >>> like > >>>>>> this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header > >>>>>> Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only > >> one > >>>> time > >>>>>> attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we > >> enable > >>>>>> `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be > >>>> write to > >>>>>> Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is > >> the > >>>> time > >>>>>> attribute in the stream. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, > >>>> PRIMARY > >>>>>> KEY keywords. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark > >>>> syntax ? > >>>>>> For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS > >>>> "OFFSET" > >>>>>> VS ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Jark > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Timo, > >>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: > >>>>>>> "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able to > >>> list > >>>>>> all > >>>>>>> source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an > >>> INSERT > >>>>>> INTO > >>>>>>> here or not." > >>>>>>> This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list all > >>>>>>> supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can > >> perform > >>> a > >>>>>>> quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary for > >>> the > >>>>>>> syntax. > >>>>>>> For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or some > >>> or > >>>>>> all > >>>>>>> of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can > >> derive > >>>> the > >>>>>>> availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords or > >>>>>>> specific table properties in WITH clause. > >>>>>>> Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two keywords > >>> for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>> MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys > >>>>>>> Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and > >>>>>> partitioned > >>>>>>> table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add > >>>>>>> partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft doc > >>>>>>> later[1]. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration > >>>>>>> "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" > >>>>>> constraints > >>>>>>> but without columns > >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > >>>>>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the > primary > >>> key > >>>>>>> constraint already references two columns but types unseen. > >>>>>>> And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put schema > >>>>>>> derivation as a follow-up extension ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of feedback: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. > >> I'm > >>>>>> open > >>>>>>>> for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of > >> use > >>>>>>>> cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt to > >>>> cover > >>>>>>>> all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another > >>>> example, > >>>>>>>> that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if > >> append, > >>>>>>>> retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the target > >>>>>>>> system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in the > >>> big > >>>>>>>> WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the descriptor > >>>>>>>> approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have > >> very > >>>>>>>> custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it > >> can > >>>> be > >>>>>>>> created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific > >>> source/sink) > >>>>>>>> declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, > >> yes > >>> we > >>>>>>>> would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a > >> problem? > >>>> One > >>>>>>>> also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is > >> not > >>>>>>>> only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, > >> not > >>>>>>>> every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a > >> JDBC > >>>>>> sink > >>>>>>>> is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI > >>> session, > >>>>>>>> people should be able to list all source table and sink tables to > >>> know > >>>>>>>> upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in > >> the > >>>>>>>> design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in > >> the > >>>>>>>> making/are on our roadmap for this release. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not conflicting. > >> I > >>>>>> just > >>>>>>>> wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare > >> computed > >>>>>>>> columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. Are > >> we > >>>> ok > >>>>>>>> with a syntax like ... > >>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > >>>>>>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? > >>>>>>>> @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not > >> excatly > >>>>>>>> match but this is true for both directions: > >>>>>>>> table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" > >>> table > >>>>>>>> schema. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but we > >>>>>>>> should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is very > >>>>>>>> batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical > >> and > >>>>>>>> future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an > >> intermediate > >>>>>>>> layer on top of Flink's DDL. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the > >>>> TimestampExtractor > >>>>>>>> interface as this is also important for better separation of > >>> connector > >>>>>>>> and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark > >>>>>> generation. > >>>>>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: > >>>>>>>> @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > >>>>>>>> rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. > >> How > >>>>>>>> does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of timestamps > >>> that > >>>>>>>> are nested in the schema? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: > >>>>>>>> I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This > >> is > >>>>>> like > >>>>>>>> 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document. > >>>>>>>> @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to Kafka > >>>>>>>> message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the > >> stream > >>>>>>>> record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a schema. > >>> So > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>>> need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use > >> (possibly > >>>>>>>> computed as well)? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause > >> next > >>> to > >>>>>>>> the regular schema? > >>>>>>>> @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the > >>> feeling > >>>>>>>> that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual > >> schema > >>>>>>>> with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about > >>>>>>>> timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce a > >>> new > >>>>>>>> WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up to > >>>> this > >>>>>>>> point. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks everyone, > >>>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > >>>>>>>>> Hi Timo, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL > >> functionality > >>> to > >>>>>>>>> Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as > >>>>>>> cautious > >>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in a > >>>>>>> standard > >>>>>>>>> way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Here are some of my thoughts: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Scope: Agree. > >>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints: Agree. > >>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: > >>>>>>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > >>>>>>>>> If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it > >> as > >>>>>>>> rowtime, > >>>>>>>>> no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use computed > >>>>>> column > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what you > >>> mean > >>>>>>>>> defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an > >>> advantages, > >>>>>>>>> because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether > >> to > >>>>>>>> "replace > >>>>>>>>> the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be > >> confused > >>>>>>>> what's > >>>>>>>>> the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? > >>>>>>> Regarding > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when > >> the > >>>>>>>> original > >>>>>>>>> timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown > >>>>>>>> optimization > >>>>>>>>> can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the > >> same > >>> as > >>>>>>>>> "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message > >> header? > >>>>>>>>> That's a good point. I think computed column is just a > >>> virtual > >>>>>>>> column > >>>>>>>>> on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write > >> to > >>> a > >>>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>> with computed column defined, we only need to provide the columns > >>>>>>> except > >>>>>>>>> computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is > >>> ignored > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we write > >>> out > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a > >>>>>> configuration > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the > >>> timestmap > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you > >>>>>> think? > >>>>>>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special > >>> clause > >>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> the regular schema? > >>>>>>>>> Separating watermark into a special clause similar to > >>>>>> PARTITIONED > >>>>>>>> BY is > >>>>>>>>> also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in > >>> schema > >>>>>>> part > >>>>>>>>> or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple watermark > >>>>>>>>> definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. It > >>> is > >>>>>>>>> similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes > >> on a > >>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>> in schema part. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark > >> strategy? > >>>>>>>>> In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If we > >>> need > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only > >>>>>> return > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > >>>>>>>>> watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined > >> scalar > >>>>>>>> function > >>>>>>>>> accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be used > >>> as > >>>>>>>>> punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a > >>> class > >>>>>>>>> extending the > >>>>>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` > >> and > >>>>>> use > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>> in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. > >> But > >>> if > >>>>>>>>> scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer > >> it > >>>>>>> here, > >>>>>>>>> because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not in > >>> MVP, > >>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>> can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: > >>>>>>>>> I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema > >>> from > >>>>>>>>> external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have > >>> already > >>>>>>>>> encountered this requirement in out company. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive > >> syntax > >>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>> keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable and > >>>>>> reduce > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> learning cost for user. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [1]: > >>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu < > >> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to > >>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>>> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. +1 on MVP DDL > >>>>>>>>>> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on > >>> tables > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created > >>>>>>> differently > >>>>>>>>>> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to use > >>>>>> these > >>>>>>>>>> keywords to enforce permissions. > >>>>>>>>>> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. > >> While > >>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For > >>>>>>> example, > >>>>>>>>>> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For > >>>>>>> instance, > >>>>>>>>>> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For > >>> instance, > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink may > >>> stay > >>>>>>>>>> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the file > >>>>>> based > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> file schema and return the data based on table schema. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Other aspects: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to > >>> operate > >>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be > >>>>>> compatible > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least we > >>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > >>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo and Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>> thanks for your feedback. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. Scope > >>>>>>>>>> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints > >>>>>>>>>> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks > >>>>>>>>>> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we > >>>>>> declare > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>> using > >>>>>>>>>> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further > >>>>>> question, > >>>>>>>> if a > >>>>>>>>>> TABLE > >>>>>>>>>> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for > >>> some > >>>>>>> new > >>>>>>>>>> requirements > >>>>>>>>>> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating > >>> both > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>> and catalogs. > >>>>>>>>>> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one > >> table > >>>>>>>> in-place > >>>>>>>>>> can be a common case. > >>>>>>>>>> e.g., > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE t1 ( > >>>>>>>>>> col1 varchar, > >>>>>>>>>> col2 int, > >>>>>>>>>> col3 varchar > >>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> ); > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > >>>>>>>>>> AS > >>>>>>>>>> SELECT > >>>>>>>>>> (some computing ...) > >>>>>>>>>> FROM t1; > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>>>> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the > >>>>>> validation > >>>>>>>>>> purpose, we can find out other ways. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes > >>>>>>>>>> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > >>>>>>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` > >>> for > >>>>>>>> custom > >>>>>>>>>> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class > >> is > >>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>> friendly for table api not the SQL. > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>>>> /** > >>>>>>>>>> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp for a > >>>>>> rowtime > >>>>>>>>>> attribute. > >>>>>>>>>> */ > >>>>>>>>>> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] > >> with > >>>>>>>>>> Serializable { > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. */ > >>>>>>>>>> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > >>>>>>>>>> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > >>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>>>> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the TimestampExtractor > >>> are > >>>>>>>>>> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more > >>>>>>>> advantage in > >>>>>>>>>> SQL scenarios. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys > >>>>>>>>>> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned > >> table > >>>>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>>> can be another topic later. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration > >>>>>>>>>> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for user > >>>>>>>>>> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > >>>>>>>>>> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for the > >>>>>> users > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > >>>>>>>>>> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize > >>> some > >>>>>>>>>> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > >>>>>>>>>> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file > >> can > >>> be > >>>>>>>> handy > >>>>>>>>>> especially one with too many table columns. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>> Lin > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we > >>> should > >>>>>>> aim > >>>>>>>>>>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address in > >>> the > >>>>>>>>>> design: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE > >> statements > >>>>>>> first. > >>>>>>>>>>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long > >>>>>> discussions > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and > >> CREATE > >>>>>>>>>>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like > >>> nullability, > >>>>>>>>>>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future > >> as > >>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the > >> translation > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not > >>>>>>> introduce > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. This > >>> can > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs > >>> CREATE > >>>>>>>>>>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow for > >>>>>> these > >>>>>>>>>>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, > >> teams > >>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data > >>> science > >>>>>>> team > >>>>>>>>>>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not > >>>>>>> accidently > >>>>>>>>>>> write back to the single source of truth. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns > >>>>>> approach > >>>>>>>>>>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent and > >>>>>>> simple. > >>>>>>>>>>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > >>>>>>>>>>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the > >> schema > >>>>>>> twice. > >>>>>>>>>>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible as > >>> it > >>>>>>>>>>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed > >>>>>> column. > >>>>>>>>>>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is out > >>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a > >>>>>> timestamp > >>>>>>>>>>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse > >> operation > >>>>>> to a > >>>>>>>>>>> computed column. > >>>>>>>>>>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part > >> of > >>> a > >>>>>>>>>>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns into a > >>>>>>> special > >>>>>>>>>>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY > >>> does > >>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> Hive? > >>>>>>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? I > >>>>>> guess > >>>>>>>>>>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would > >>> require > >>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>>>> new type of UDF? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL design > >>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), > >>>>>> partitioning > >>>>>>>>>>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table > >>> schema? > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want to > >>>>>> force > >>>>>>>>>>> people to declare all columns and types again even though this > >> is > >>>>>>>>>>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know > >> that > >>>>>>>> catalog > >>>>>>>>>>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, > >>>>>> people > >>>>>>>>>>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink > >> DDL. > >>>>>>> What I > >>>>>>>>>>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema. > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema > >>> defines > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> table schema (+ time attributes). > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > >>>>>>>>>>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try > >> to > >>>>>>>>>>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > >>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the watermark: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including > >>>>>> computed-column) > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> table schema. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns > >> using > >>>>>>>> builtin > >>>>>>>>>>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > >>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not only > >>>>>> common > >>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom > >>>>>>> timestamp > >>>>>>>>>>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because `TimestampExtractor` > >>>>>>>>>>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support > >>> `TimestampExtractor` > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> SQL, > >>>>>>>>>>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for > >> `TimestampExtractor`? > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > >>>>>>>>>> `TimestampExtractor` > >>>>>>>>>>>> but more powerful and standard. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the > >>>>>> schema > >>>>>>>>>> part > >>>>>>>>>>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the > >>> query > >>>>>>>>>> sees. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key definition > >> or > >>>>>>>>>>> constraint > >>>>>>>>>>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only > >> defines > >>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime > >>>>>> attribute > >>>>>>>>>>> field. > >>>>>>>>>>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can use > >>>>>>>> computed > >>>>>>>>>>>> column > >>>>>>>>>>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor > >>> Pattern > >>>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not > >>>>>>> contradictory > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > >>>>>>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great > >>>>>> progress > >>>>>>>>>> here. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Below are my thoughts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime > >>>>>> extractors > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategies defined in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > >>>>>>>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the > >>>>>>> common > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into > >> the > >>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and > >>> add > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>> back > >>>>>>>>>>>>> later if needed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future > >>>>>>> versions. > >>>>>>>>>> As > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar > >>> in > >>>>>>>>>> Calcite > >>>>>>>>>>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we > >> can > >>>>>>>>>>> definitely > >>>>>>>>>>>>> change if needed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on > >>> create > >>>>>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the another major difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang < > >>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round > >>>>>>> implementation > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good to me. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying > >> "create > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [source/sink] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and > >> "create > >>>>>>> table" > >>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals > >>> FMPOV. > >>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these > >> two > >>>>>>> parts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin > >>> and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first > >>> version > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and > >> reach > >>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASAP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi > >>>>>>> proposed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the > >>> first > >>>>>>>>>> version > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, > >>>>>>> welcome > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important > >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > >>> @Fabian > >>>>>>>>>> Hueske > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. > >>> VARCHAR(128) > >>>> ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not > >> used > >>>>>>> because > >>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize > >> in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> future > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length > >> in > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> future, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and > >>>> precision, > >>>>>>>> e.g. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and precision > >> of > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> Decimal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can have some optimization on > >> serialization/deserialization. > >>>>>>> IMO, > >>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And > >>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>>>> custom > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scale > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and precision in the future. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL > >>>>>>> (proposed > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc[2])? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the > >> future: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < > >>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL > >> gramma > >>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>> soon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your > >> proposal > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ours. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss > >> on > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> those > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified > >> design. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal > >>> topic, > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already > >>> working > >>>>>>> on. > >>>>>>>>>> We > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final > >>>>>> design > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a > >>>>>> higher > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for > >>> the > >>>>>>> user > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen < > >>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should > >> definitely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> production > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from > >>> both > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> companies, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that > >>> talks > >>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and > >>> merge > >>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for > >> implementation. > >>>>>>> Also, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in the > >>>>>>> design. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you guys think? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu < > >> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good > >> idea. > >>> We > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prepare > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > >>>>>> 下午9:17写道： > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please > >>> consider > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summarizing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's > >>> proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu < > >>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the > >> awesome > >>>>>>>>>>>>> work! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple > >> watermark > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one rowtime > >>>>>> field. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but > >> missing > >>> in > >>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not > >> very > >>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with > >>> watermarks > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime > >> field > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> together. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we > >>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combine > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. > >>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we > >>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in > >> Alibaba > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark > >> definition. > >>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “FOR” > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate > >>> watermark, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use > >> computed-column > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark > >>>>>> strategy, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> schema, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other > >> existing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field > >>>>>> definition > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as > >> PROCTIME() > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > >>> 下午6:33写道： > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (extends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two > >>>>>> years > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is > >> keeping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR > >> rowTimeColumn > >>>> AS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > >>>>>> 上午3:28写道： > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration > >>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and > >>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments > >> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually > >>> proceed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> w/o > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stick > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the > >>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> too > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is > >> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I > >> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It > >> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also start > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skips > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. > >> This > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>> queries > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our priority > >>>>>>>>>>>>> list > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until > >> mid > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from > >> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ddl, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> table. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent > >> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manage > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘latest-offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string > >> map > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest way > >> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can > >> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrict > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector > >> scope > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > >>>>>>>>>>>>> user a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clause > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vastly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to > >> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the previously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the > >> design > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements > >> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> directions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on > >> both! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask > >> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> define/create > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Client, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction > >> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adoption. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> library > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API > >> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connect > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connect > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect > >>> in > >>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > >>> your > >>>>>>>>>>> future." > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > future." > >>> > > -- "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." |
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design
|
|
Sounds great, thanks for the effort, Shuyi.
Best, Kurt On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 5:14 PM Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I summarize the MVP based on the features that we agreed upon. For table > update mode and custom watermark strategy and ts extractor, I found there > are some discussions, so I decided to leave them out for the MVP. > For row/map/array data type, I think we can add it as well if everyone > agrees. > > > 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks > Cited from SQL Server 2017 document ( > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/tables/specify-computed-columns-in-a-table?view=sql-server-2017 > ), > "A > computed column is a virtual column that is not physically stored in the > table, unless the column is marked PERSISTED. A computed column expression > can use data from other columns to calculate a value for the column to > which it belongs. " I think we can also use introduce the PERSISTED keyword > for computed column to indicate that the field can be stored back to the > table, i.e. ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME() PERSISTED. > > 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > GRANT/INVOKE sounds like a more standard option than adding a property to > CREATE TABLE to manage the ACL/permission. The ACL can be stored somewhere > in a database, and allow/disallow access to a dynamic table depending on > whether it's a "INSERT INTO" or "SELECT". > > I can volunteer to put the discussion as a FLIP. I can try to summarize > the current discussion, and share edit permission with you to collaborate > on the documents. After we finalized the doc, we can publish it as a FLIP. > What do you think? > > Shuyi > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:13 AM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > thanks for summarizing the discussion @Shuyi. I think we need to include > > the "table update mode" problem as it might not be changed easily in the > > future. Regarding "support row/map/array data type", I don't see a > > problem why we should not support them now as the data types are already > > included in the runtime. The "support custom timestamp extractor" is > > solved by the computed columns approach. The "custom watermark strategy" > > can be added by supplying a class name as paramter in my opinion. > > > > Regarding the comments of Lin and Jark: > > > > @Lin: Instantiating a TableSource/Sink should not cost much, but we > > should not mix catalog discussion and DDL at this point. > > > > 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks > > 4.b) Regarding `ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()` and Lin's comment about "will > > violate the rule": there is no explicit rule of doing so. Computed > > column are also not standard compliant, if we can use information that > > is encoded in constraints we should use it. Adding more and more > > top-level properties makes the interaction with connectors more > > difficult. An additional HEADER keyword sounds too connector-specific > > and also not SQL compliant to me. > > > > 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > > GRANT/INVOKE are mutating an existing table, right? In my opinion, > > independent of SQL databases but focusing on Flink user requirements, a > > CREATE TABLE statement should be an immutable definition of a connection > > to an external system. > > > > 7) Table Update Mode > > As far as I can see, the only thing missing for enabling all table modes > > is the declaration of a change flag. We could introduce a new keyword > > here similar to WATERMARK: > > > > CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > > id bigint, > > msg varchar, > > CHANGE_FLAG FOR isRetraction > > ) WITH ( > > type=kafka > > ,... > > ); > > > > CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > > CHANGE_FLAG FOR isUpsert > > id bigint, > > msg varchar, > > PRIMARY_KEY(id) > > ) WITH ( > > type=kafka > > ,... > > ); > > > > What do you think? > > > > @Jark: We should definitely stage the discussions and mention the > > opinions and advantages/disadvantages that have been proposed already in > > the FLIP. > > > > Regards, > > Timo > > > > Am 10.12.18 um 08:10 schrieb Jark Wu: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > It's great to see we have an agreement on MVP. > > > > > > 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems. > > > I would treat the field as a physical column not a virtual column. If > we > > > treat it as computed column, it will be confused that the behavior is > > > different when it is a source or sink. > > > When it is a physical column, the behavior could be unified. Then the > > > problem is how to mapping from the field to kafka message timestamp? > > > One is Lin proposed above and is also used in KSQL[1]. Another idea is > > > introducing a HEADER column which strictly map by name to the fields in > > > message header. > > > For example, > > > > > > CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > > > id bigint, > > > ts timestamp HEADER, > > > msg varchar > > > ) WITH ( > > > type=kafka > > > ,... > > > ); > > > > > > This is used in Alibaba but not included in the DDL draft. It will > > further > > > extend the SQL syntax, which is we should be cautious about. What do > you > > > think about this two solutions? > > > > > > 4.d) Custom watermark strategies: > > > @Timo, I don't have a strong opinion on this. > > > > > > 3) SOURCE/SINK/BOTH > > > Agree with Lin, GRANT/INVOKE [SELECT|UPDATE] ON TABLE is a clean and > > > standard way to manage the permission, which is also adopted by HIVE[2] > > and > > > many databases. > > > > > > [1]: > https://docs.confluent.io/current/ksql/docs/tutorials/examples.html > > > [2]: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=45876173#Hivedeprecatedauthorizationmode/LegacyMode-Grant/RevokePrivileges > > > > > > @Timo, it's great if someone can conclude the discussion and summarize > > into > > > a FLIP. > > > @Shuyi, Thanks a lot for putting it all together. The google doc looks > > good > > > to me, and I left some minor comments there. > > > > > > Regarding to the FLIP, I have some suggestions: > > > 1. The FLIP can contain MILESTONE1 and FUTURE WORKS. > > > 2. The MILESTONE1 is the MVP. It describes the MVP DDL syntax. > > > 3. Separate FUTURE WORKS into two parts: UNDER DISCUSSION and ADOPTED. > We > > > can derive MILESTONE2 from this easily when it is ready. > > > > > > I summarized the Future Works based on Shuyi's work: > > > > > > Adopted: (Should detailed described here...) > > > 1. support data type nullability and precision. > > > 2. comment on table and columns. > > > > > > Under Discussion: (Should briefly describe some options...) > > > 1. Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems. > > > 2. support custom watermark strategy. > > > 3. support table update mode > > > 4. support row/map/array data type > > > 5. support schema derivation > > > 6. support system versioned temporal table > > > 7. support table index > > > > > > We can continue the further discussion here, also can separate to an > > other > > > DISCUSS topic if it is a sophisticated problem such as Table Update > Mode, > > > Temporal Table. > > > > > > Best, > > > Jark > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 11:54, Lin Li <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > >> hi all, > > >> Thanks for your valuable input! > > >> > > >> 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > > >> 4.b) @Fabian As you mentioned using a computed columns `ts AS > > >> SYSTEMROWTIME()` > > >> for writing out to kafka table sink will violate the rule that > computed > > >> fields are not emitted. > > >> Since the timestamp column in kafka's header area is a specific > > >> materialization protocol, > > >> why don't we treat it as an connector property? For an example: > > >> ``` > > >> CREATE TABLE output_kafka_t1( > > >> id bigint, > > >> ts timestamp, > > >> msg varchar > > >> ) WITH ( > > >> type=kafka, > > >> header.timestamp=ts > > >> ,... > > >> ); > > >> ``` > > >> > > >> 4d) For custom watermark strategies > > >> @Fabian Agree with you that opening another topic about this feature > > later. > > >> > > >> 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > > >> I think the permissions and availabilities are two separately things, > > >> permissions > > >> can be managed well by using GRANT/INVOKE(you can call it DCL) > solutions > > >> which > > >> commonly used in different DBs. The permission part can be an new > topic > > for > > >> later discussion, what do you think? > > >> > > >> For the availabilities, @Fabian @Timo I've another question, > > >> does instantiate a TableSource/Sink cost much or has some other > > downsides? > > >> IMO, create a new source/sink object via the construct seems not > costly. > > >> When receiving a DDL we should associate it with the catalog object > > >> (reusing an existence or create a new one). > > >> Am I lost something important? > > >> > > >> 5. Schema declaration: > > >> @Timo yes, your concern about the user convenience is very important. > > But > > >> I haven't seen a clear way to solve this so far. > > >> Do we put it later and wait for more inputs from the community? > > >> > > >> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月8日周六 下午4:27写道： > > >> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks a lot for the great discussion. I think we can continue the > > >>> discussion here while carving out a MVP so that the community can > start > > >>> working on. Based on the discussion so far, I try to summarize what > we > > >> will > > >>> do for the MVP: > > >>> > > >>> MVP > > >>> > > >>> 1. support CREATE TABLE > > >>> 2. support exisiting data type in Flink SQL, ignore nullability > and > > >>> precision > > >>> 3. support table comments and column comments > > >>> 4. support table constraint PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE > > >>> 5. support table properties using key-value pairs > > >>> 6. support partitioned by > > >>> 7. support computed column > > >>> 8. support from-field and from-source timestamp extractors > > >>> 9. support PERIODIC-ASCENDING, PERIODIC-BOUNDED, FROM-SOURCE > > watermark > > >>> strategies. > > >>> 10. support a table property to allow explicit enforcement of > > >>> read/write(source/sink) permission of a table > > >>> > > >>> I try to put up the DDL grammar ( > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ug1-aVBSCxZQk58kR-yaK2ETCgL3zg0eDUVGCnW2V9E/edit?usp=sharing > > >>> ) > > >>> based on the MVP features above and the previous design docs. Please > > >> take a > > >>> look and comment on it. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Also, I summarize the future Improvement on CREATE TABLE as the > > >> followings: > > >>> 1. support table update mode > > >>> 2. support data type nullability and precision > > >>> 3. support row/map/array data type > > >>> 4. support custom timestamp extractor and watermark strategy > > >>> 5. support schema derivation > > >>> 6. support system versioned temporal table > > >>> 7. support table index > > >>> > > >>> I suggest we first agree on the MVP feature list and the MVP grammar. > > And > > >>> then we can either continue the discussion of the future improvements > > >> here, > > >>> or create separate JIRAs for each item and discuss further in the > JIRA. > > >>> What do you guys think? > > >>> > > >>> Shuyi > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I think we are making good progress. Thanks for all the feedback so > > >> far. > > >>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: > > >>>> It seems that I can not find supporters for explicit SOURCE/SINK > > >>>> declaration so I'm fine with not using those keywords. > > >>>> @Fabian: Maybe we don't haven have to change the TableFactory > > interface > > >>>> but just provide some helper functions in the TableFactoryService. > > This > > >>>> would solve the availability problem, but the permission problem > would > > >>>> still not be solved. If you are fine with it, we could introduce a > > >>>> property instead? > > >>>> > > >>>> 5. Schema declaration: > > >>>> @Lin: We should find an agreement on this as it requires changes to > > the > > >>>> TableFactory interface. We should minimize changes to this interface > > >>>> because it is user-facing. Especially, if format schema and table > > >> schema > > >>>> differ, the need for such a functionality is very important. Our > goal > > >> is > > >>>> to connect to existing infrastructure. For example, if we are using > > >> Avro > > >>>> and the existing Avro format has enums but Flink SQL does not > support > > >>>> enums, it would be helpful to let the Avro format derive a table > > >> schema. > > >>>> Otherwise your need to declare both schemas which leads to CREATE > > TABLE > > >>>> statements of 400 lines+. > > >>>> I think the mentioned query: > > >>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > >>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > >>>> is fine and should only be valid if the schema contains no > > non-computed > > >>>> columns. > > >>>> > > >>>> 7. Table Update Mode: > > >>>> After thinking about it again, I agree. The mode of the sinks can be > > >>>> derived from the query and the existence of a PRIMARY KEY > declaration. > > >>>> But Fabian raised a very good point. How do we deal with sources? > > Shall > > >>>> we introduce a new keywords similar to WATERMARKS such that a > > >>>> upsert/retract flag is not part of the visible schema? > > >>>> > > >>>> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > > >>>> @Jark: Thanks for the explanation of the WATERMARK clause semantics. > > >>>> This is a nice way of marking existing fields. This sounds good to > me. > > >>>> > > >>>> 4c) WATERMARK as constraint > > >>>> I'm fine with leaving the WATERMARK clause in the schema definition. > > >>>> > > >>>> 4d) Custom watermark strategies: > > >>>> I would already think about custom watermark strategies as the > current > > >>>> descriptor design already supports this. ScalarFunction's don't work > > as > > >>>> a PeriodicWatermarkAssigner has different semantics. Why not simply > > >>>> entering the a full class name here as it is done in the current > > >> design? > > >>>> 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka) > > >>>> @Fabian: Yes, your suggestion sounds good to me. This behavior would > > be > > >>>> similar to our current `timestamps: from-source` design. > > >>>> > > >>>> Once our discussion has found a conclusion, I would like to > volunteer > > >>>> and summarize the outcome of this mailing thread. It nicely aligns > > with > > >>>> the update work on the connector improvements document (that I > wanted > > >> to > > >>>> do anyway) and the ongoing external catalog discussion. > Furthermore, I > > >>>> would also want to propose how to change existing interfaces by > > keeping > > >>>> the DDL, connector improvements, and external catalog support in > mind. > > >>>> Would that be ok for you? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Timo > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Am 07.12.18 um 14:48 schrieb Fabian Hueske: > > >>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks for the discussion. > > >>>>> I'd like to share my point of view as well. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 4) Event-Time Attributes and Watermarks: > > >>>>> 4.a) I agree with Lin and Jark's proposal. Declaring a watermark on > > >> an > > >>>>> attribute declares it as an event-time attribute. > > >>>>> 4.b) Ingesting and writing timestamps to systems (like Kafka). We > > >> could > > >>>> use > > >>>>> a special function like (ts AS SYSTEMROWTIME()). This function will > > >>>>> indicate that we read the timestamp directly from the system (and > not > > >>> the > > >>>>> data). We can also write the field back to the system when emitting > > >> the > > >>>>> table (violating the rule that computed fields are not emitted). > > >>>>> 4c) I would treat WATERMARK similar to a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE KEY > > >>>>> constraint and therefore keep it in the schema definition. > > >>>>> 4d) For custom watermark strategies, a simple expressions or > > >>>>> ScalarFunctions won't be sufficient. Sophisticated approaches could > > >>>> collect > > >>>>> histograms, etc. But I think we can leave that out for later. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 3) SOURCE / SINK / BOTH > > >>>>> As you said, there are two things to consider here: permission and > > >>>>> availability of a TableSource/TableSink. > > >>>>> I think that neither should be a reason to add a keyword at such a > > >>>>> sensitive position. > > >>>>> However, I also see Timo's point that it would be good to know > > >> up-front > > >>>> how > > >>>>> a table can be used without trying to instantiate a > TableSource/Sink > > >>> for > > >>>> a > > >>>>> query. > > >>>>> Maybe we can extend the TableFactory such that it provides > > >> information > > >>>>> about which sources/sinks it can provide. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 7. Table Update Mode > > >>>>> Something that we definitely need to consider is how tables are > > >>> ingested, > > >>>>> i.e., append, retract or upsert. > > >>>>> Especially, since upsert and retraction need a meta-data column > that > > >>>>> indicates whether an event is an insert (or upsert) or a delete > > >> change. > > >>>>> This column needs to be identified somehow, most likely as part of > > >> the > > >>>>> input format. Ideally, this column should not be part of the table > > >>> schema > > >>>>> (as it would be always true). > > >>>>> Emitting tables is not so much of an issue as the properties of the > > >>> table > > >>>>> tell use what to do (append-only/update, unique key y/n). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Best, > > >>>>> Fabian > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Am Fr., 7. Dez. 2018 um 10:39 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu < > [hidden email] > > >>> : > > >>>>>> Hi Timo, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks for your quickly feedback! Here are some of my thoughts: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Append, upserts, retract mode on sinks is also a very complex > > >>> problem. I > > >>>>>> think append/upserts/retract is the ability of a table, user do > not > > >>>> need to > > >>>>>> specify a table is used for append or retraction or upsert. The > > >> query > > >>>> can > > >>>>>> choose which mode the sink is. If an unbounded groupby is inserted > > >>> into > > >>>> an > > >>>>>> append sink (the sink only implements/supports append), an > exception > > >>>> can be > > >>>>>> thrown. A more complex problem is, if we want to write > > >>>> retractions/upserts > > >>>>>> to Kafka, how to encode the change flag (add or retract/delete) on > > >> the > > >>>>>> table? Maybe we should propose some protocal for the change flag > > >>>> encoding, > > >>>>>> but I don't have a clear idea about this right now. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: The source/sink tag is similar to the > > >>>>>> append/upsert/retract problem. Besides source/sink, actully we > have > > >>>> stream > > >>>>>> source, stream sink, batch source, batch sink, and the stream sink > > >>> also > > >>>>>> include append/upsert/retract three modes. Should we put all the > > >> tags > > >>> on > > >>>>>> the CREATE TABLE? IMO, the table's ability is defined by the table > > >>>> itself, > > >>>>>> user do not need to specify it. If it is only a readable table, an > > >>>>>> exception can be thrown when write to it. As the source/sink tag > can > > >>> be > > >>>>>> omitted in CREATE TABLE, could we skip it and only support CREATE > > >>> TABLE > > >>>> in > > >>>>>> the first version, and add it back in the future when we really > need > > >>>> it? It > > >>>>>> keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider > > >>> clearly. > > >>>>>> 4a. How to mark a field as attribute? > > >>>>>> The watermark definition includes two parts: use which field as > time > > >>>>>> attribute and use what generate strategy. > > >>>>>> When we want to mark `ts` field as attribute: WATERMARK FOR `ts` > AS > > >>>> OFFSET > > >>>>>> '5' SECOND. > > >>>>>> If we have a POJO{id, user, ts} field named "pojo", we can mark it > > >>> like > > >>>>>> this: WATERMARK FOR pojo.ts AS OFFSET '5' SECOND > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 4b. timestamp write to Kafka message header > > >>>>>> Even though we can define multiple time attribute on a table, only > > >> one > > >>>> time > > >>>>>> attribute can be actived/used in a query (in a stream). When we > > >> enable > > >>>>>> `writeTiemstamp`, the only attribute actived in the stream will be > > >>>> write to > > >>>>>> Kafka message header. What I mean the timestmap in StreamRecord is > > >> the > > >>>> time > > >>>>>> attribute in the stream. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 4c. Yes. We introduced the WATERMARK keyword similar to the INDEX, > > >>>> PRIMARY > > >>>>>> KEY keywords. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> @Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark > > >>>> syntax ? > > >>>>>> For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS > > >>>> "OFFSET" > > >>>>>> VS ... > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 17:13, Lin Li <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi Timo, > > >>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback, here's some thoughts of mine: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: > > >>>>>>> "Let's assume an interactive CLI session, people should be able > to > > >>> list > > >>>>>> all > > >>>>>>> source table and sink tables to know upfront if they can use an > > >>> INSERT > > >>>>>> INTO > > >>>>>>> here or not." > > >>>>>>> This requirement can be simply resolved by a document that list > all > > >>>>>>> supported source/sink/both connectors and the sql-client can > > >> perform > > >>> a > > >>>>>>> quick check. It's only an implementation choice, not necessary > for > > >>> the > > >>>>>>> syntax. > > >>>>>>> For connector implementation, a connector may implement one or > some > > >>> or > > >>>>>> all > > >>>>>>> of the [Stream|Batch]Source/[Stream|Batch]Sink traits, we can > > >> derive > > >>>> the > > >>>>>>> availability for any give query without the SOURCE/SINk keywords > or > > >>>>>>> specific table properties in WITH clause. > > >>>>>>> Since there's still indeterminacy, shall we skip these two > keywords > > >>> for > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>> MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys > > >>>>>>> Agree with you that raise the priority of table constraint and > > >>>>>> partitioned > > >>>>>>> table support for better connectivity to Hive and Kafka. I'll add > > >>>>>>> partitioned table syntax(compatible to hive) into the DDL Draft > doc > > >>>>>>> later[1]. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration > > >>>>>>> "if users want to declare computed columns they have a "schema" > > >>>>>> constraints > > >>>>>>> but without columns > > >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > >>>>>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") " > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> From the point of my view, this ddl is invalid because the > > primary > > >>> key > > >>>>>>> constraint already references two columns but types unseen. > > >>>>>>> And Xuefu pointed a important matching problem, so let's put > schema > > >>>>>>> derivation as a follow-up extension ? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月6日周四 下午6:05写道： > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> great to have such a lively discussion. My next batch of > feedback: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> @Jark: We don't need to align the descriptor approach with SQL. > > >> I'm > > >>>>>> open > > >>>>>>>> for different approaches as long as we can serve a broad set of > > >> use > > >>>>>>>> cases and systems. The descriptor approach was a first attempt > to > > >>>> cover > > >>>>>>>> all aspects and connector/format characteristics. Just another > > >>>> example, > > >>>>>>>> that is missing in the DDL design: How can a user decide if > > >> append, > > >>>>>>>> retraction, or upserts should be used to sink data into the > target > > >>>>>>>> system? Do we want to define all these improtant properties in > the > > >>> big > > >>>>>>>> WITH property map? If yes, we are already close to the > descriptor > > >>>>>>>> approach. Regarding the "standard way", most DDL languages have > > >> very > > >>>>>>>> custom syntax so there is not a real "standard". > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: @Lin: If a table has both read/write access it > > >> can > > >>>> be > > >>>>>>>> created using a regular CREATE TABLE (omitting a specific > > >>> source/sink) > > >>>>>>>> declaration. Regarding the transition from source/sink to both, > > >> yes > > >>> we > > >>>>>>>> would need to update the a DDL and catalogs. But is this a > > >> problem? > > >>>> One > > >>>>>>>> also needs to add new queries that use the tables. @Xuefu: It is > > >> not > > >>>>>>>> only about security aspects. Especially for streaming use cases, > > >> not > > >>>>>>>> every connector can be used as a source easily. For example, a > > >> JDBC > > >>>>>> sink > > >>>>>>>> is easier than a JDBC source. Let's assume an interactive CLI > > >>> session, > > >>>>>>>> people should be able to list all source table and sink tables > to > > >>> know > > >>>>>>>> upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: @Lin: I would like to include this in > > >> the > > >>>>>>>> design given that Hive integration and Kafka key support are in > > >> the > > >>>>>>>> making/are on our roadmap for this release. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: @Lin: You are right it is not > conflicting. > > >> I > > >>>>>> just > > >>>>>>>> wanted to raise the point because if users want to declare > > >> computed > > >>>>>>>> columns they have a "schema" constraints but without columns. > Are > > >> we > > >>>> ok > > >>>>>>>> with a syntax like ... > > >>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (PRIMARY_KEY(a, c)) WITH (format.type = avro, > > >>>>>>>> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ? > > >>>>>>>> @Xuefu: Yes, you are right that an external schema might not > > >> excatly > > >>>>>>>> match but this is true for both directions: > > >>>>>>>> table schema "derives" format schema and format schema "derives" > > >>> table > > >>>>>>>> schema. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility: @Xuefu: I agree that Hive is popular but > we > > >>>>>>>> should not just adopt everything from Hive as there syntax is > very > > >>>>>>>> batch-specific. We should come up with a superset of historical > > >> and > > >>>>>>>> future requirements. Supporting Hive queries can be an > > >> intermediate > > >>>>>>>> layer on top of Flink's DDL. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: @Lin: I'm fine with changing the > > >>>> TimestampExtractor > > >>>>>>>> interface as this is also important for better separation of > > >>> connector > > >>>>>>>> and table module [1]. However, I'm wondering about watermark > > >>>>>> generation. > > >>>>>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice: > > >>>>>>>> @Jark: "existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use it as > > >>>>>>>> rowtime": yes, but we need to mark a field as such an attribute. > > >> How > > >>>>>>>> does the syntax for marking look like? Also in case of > timestamps > > >>> that > > >>>>>>>> are nested in the schema? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?: > > >>>>>>>> I agree to simply ignore computed columns when writing out. This > > >> is > > >>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>> 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements > document. > > >>>>>>>> @Jark: "then the timestmap in StreamRecord will be write to > Kafka > > >>>>>>>> message header": Unfortunately, there is no timestamp in the > > >> stream > > >>>>>>>> record. Additionally, multiple time attributes can be in a > schema. > > >>> So > > >>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>> need a constraint that tells the sink which column to use > > >> (possibly > > >>>>>>>> computed as well)? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special clause > > >> next > > >>> to > > >>>>>>>> the regular schema? > > >>>>>>>> @Jark: I don't have a strong opinion on this. I just have the > > >>> feeling > > >>>>>>>> that the "schema part" becomes quite messy because the actual > > >> schema > > >>>>>>>> with types and fields is accompanied by so much metadata about > > >>>>>>>> timestamps, watermarks, keys,... and we would need to introduce > a > > >>> new > > >>>>>>>> WATERMARK keyword within a schema that was close to standard up > to > > >>>> this > > >>>>>>>> point. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks everyone, > > >>>>>>>> Timo > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9461 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Am 06.12.18 um 07:08 schrieb Jark Wu: > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Timo, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for the valuable feedbacks. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> First of all, I think we don't need to align the SQL > > >> functionality > > >>> to > > >>>>>>>>> Descriptor. Because SQL is a more standard API, we should be as > > >>>>>>> cautious > > >>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>> possible to extend the SQL syntax. If something can be done in > a > > >>>>>>> standard > > >>>>>>>>> way, we shouldn't introduce something new. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Here are some of my thoughts: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 1. Scope: Agree. > > >>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints: Agree. > > >>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: > > >>>>>>>>> 4a. timestamps are in the schema twice. > > >>>>>>>>> If an existing field is Long/Timestamp, we can just use > it > > >> as > > >>>>>>>> rowtime, > > >>>>>>>>> no twice defined. If it is not a Long/Timestamp, we use > computed > > >>>>>> column > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> get an expected timestamp column to be rowtime, is this what > you > > >>> mean > > >>>>>>>>> defined twice? But I don't think it is a problem, but an > > >>> advantages, > > >>>>>>>>> because it is easy to use, user do not need to consider whether > > >> to > > >>>>>>>> "replace > > >>>>>>>>> the existing column" or "add a new column", he will not be > > >> confused > > >>>>>>>> what's > > >>>>>>>>> the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema? > > >>>>>>> Regarding > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> the optimization, even if timestamps are in schema twice, when > > >> the > > >>>>>>>> original > > >>>>>>>>> timestamp is never used in query, then the projection pushdown > > >>>>>>>> optimization > > >>>>>>>>> can cut this field as early as possible, which is exactly the > > >> same > > >>> as > > >>>>>>>>> "replacing the existing column" in runtime. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message > > >> header? > > >>>>>>>>> That's a good point. I think computed column is just a > > >>> virtual > > >>>>>>>> column > > >>>>>>>>> on table which is only relative to reading. If we want to write > > >> to > > >>> a > > >>>>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>>> with computed column defined, we only need to provide the > columns > > >>>>>>> except > > >>>>>>>>> computed columns (see SQL Server [1]). The computed column is > > >>> ignored > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>> the insert statement. Get back to the question, how can we > write > > >>> out > > >>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>> timestamp into the message header? IMO, we can provide a > > >>>>>> configuration > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> support this, such as `kafka.writeTimestamp=true`, then the > > >>> timestmap > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>> StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you > > >>>>>> think? > > >>>>>>>>> 4c. separate all time attribute concerns into a special > > >>> clause > > >>>>>>> next > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> the regular schema? > > >>>>>>>>> Separating watermark into a special clause similar to > > >>>>>> PARTITIONED > > >>>>>>>> BY is > > >>>>>>>>> also a good idea. Conceptually, it's fine to put watermark in > > >>> schema > > >>>>>>> part > > >>>>>>>>> or out schema part. But if we want to support multiple > watermark > > >>>>>>>>> definition, maybe it would be better to put it in schema part. > It > > >>> is > > >>>>>>>>> similar to Index Definition that we can define several indexes > > >> on a > > >>>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>>> in schema part. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark > > >> strategy? > > >>>>>>>>> In most cases, the built-in strategy can works good. If > we > > >>> need > > >>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>> custom one, we can use a scalar function which restrict to only > > >>>>>> return > > >>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>> nullable Long, and use it in SQL like: WATERMARK for rowtime AS > > >>>>>>>>> watermarkUdf(a, b, c). The `watermarkUdf` is a user-defined > > >> scalar > > >>>>>>>> function > > >>>>>>>>> accepts 3 parameters and return a nullable Long which can be > used > > >>> as > > >>>>>>>>> punctuated watermark assigner. Another choice is implementing a > > >>> class > > >>>>>>>>> extending the > > >>>>>>>>> `org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies.WatermarkStrategy` > > >> and > > >>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>> in SQL: WATERMARK for rowtime AS 'com.my.MyWatermarkStrategy'. > > >> But > > >>> if > > >>>>>>>>> scalar function can cover the requirements here, I would prefer > > >> it > > >>>>>>> here, > > >>>>>>>>> because it keeps standard compliant. BTW, this feature is not > in > > >>> MVP, > > >>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>> can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: > > >>>>>>>>> I like the proposal to omit the schema if we can get the schema > > >>> from > > >>>>>>>>> external storage or something schema file. Actually, we have > > >>> already > > >>>>>>>>> encountered this requirement in out company. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> +1 to @Xuefu that we should be as close as possible to Hive > > >> syntax > > >>>>>>> while > > >>>>>>>>> keeping SQL ANSI standard. This will make it more acceptable > and > > >>>>>> reduce > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> learning cost for user. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> [1]: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/partitions/create-partitioned-tables-and-indexes?view=sql-server-2017 > > >>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 12:09, Zhang, Xuefu < > > >> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo/Shuyi/Lin, > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the discussions. It seems that we are converging to > > >>>>>>> something > > >>>>>>>>>> meaningful. Here are some of my thoughts: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 1. +1 on MVP DDL > > >>>>>>>>>> 3. Markers for source or sink seem more about permissions on > > >>> tables > > >>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>> belong to a security component. Unless the table is created > > >>>>>>> differently > > >>>>>>>>>> based on source, sink, or both, it doesn't seem necessary to > use > > >>>>>> these > > >>>>>>>>>> keywords to enforce permissions. > > >>>>>>>>>> 5. It might be okay if schema declaration is always needed. > > >> While > > >>>>>>> there > > >>>>>>>>>> might be some duplication sometimes, it's not always true. For > > >>>>>>> example, > > >>>>>>>>>> external schema may not be exactly matching Flink schema. For > > >>>>>>> instance, > > >>>>>>>>>> data types. Even if so, perfect match is not required. For > > >>> instance, > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>> external schema file may evolve while table schema in Flink > may > > >>> stay > > >>>>>>>>>> unchanged. A responsible reader should be able to scan the > file > > >>>>>> based > > >>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>> file schema and return the data based on table schema. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Other aspects: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 7. Hive compatibility. Since Flink SQL will soon be able to > > >>> operate > > >>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>> Hive metadata and data, it's an add-on benefit if we can be > > >>>>>> compatible > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>> Hive syntax/semantics while following ANSI standard. At least > we > > >>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>> as close as possible. Hive DDL can found at > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+DDL > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>> Sender:Lin Li <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > > >>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo and Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>> thanks for your feedback. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 1. Scope > > >>>>>>>>>> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints > > >>>>>>>>>> yes, this can be a follow-up issue. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks > > >>>>>>>>>> If a TABLE has both read/write access requirements, should we > > >>>>>> declare > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>> `CREATE [SOURCE_SINK|BOTH] TABLE tableName ...` ? A further > > >>>>>> question, > > >>>>>>>> if a > > >>>>>>>>>> TABLE > > >>>>>>>>>> t1 firstly declared as read only (as a source table), then for > > >>> some > > >>>>>>> new > > >>>>>>>>>> requirements > > >>>>>>>>>> t1 will change to a sink table, in this case we need updating > > >>> both > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>> and catalogs. > > >>>>>>>>>> Further more, let's think about the BATCH query, update one > > >> table > > >>>>>>>> in-place > > >>>>>>>>>> can be a common case. > > >>>>>>>>>> e.g., > > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > > >>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE t1 ( > > >>>>>>>>>> col1 varchar, > > >>>>>>>>>> col2 int, > > >>>>>>>>>> col3 varchar > > >>>>>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>>>>> ); > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> INSERT [OVERWRITE] TABLE t1 > > >>>>>>>>>> AS > > >>>>>>>>>> SELECT > > >>>>>>>>>> (some computing ...) > > >>>>>>>>>> FROM t1; > > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > > >>>>>>>>>> So, let's forget these SOURCE/SINK keywords in DDL. For the > > >>>>>> validation > > >>>>>>>>>> purpose, we can find out other ways. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes > > >>>>>>>>>> As Shuyi mentioned before, there exists an > > >>>>>>>>>> > `org.apache.flink.table.sources.tsextractors.TimestampExtractor` > > >>> for > > >>>>>>>> custom > > >>>>>>>>>> defined time attributes usage, but this expression based class > > >> is > > >>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>> friendly for table api not the SQL. > > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > > >>>>>>>>>> /** > > >>>>>>>>>> * Provides the an expression to extract the timestamp > for a > > >>>>>> rowtime > > >>>>>>>>>> attribute. > > >>>>>>>>>> */ > > >>>>>>>>>> abstract class TimestampExtractor extends FieldComputer[Long] > > >> with > > >>>>>>>>>> Serializable { > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> /** Timestamp extractors compute the timestamp as Long. > */ > > >>>>>>>>>> override def getReturnType: TypeInformation[Long] = > > >>>>>>>>>> Types.LONG.asInstanceOf[TypeInformation[Long]] > > >>>>>>>>>> } > > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > > >>>>>>>>>> BTW, I think both the Scalar function and the > TimestampExtractor > > >>> are > > >>>>>>>>>> expressing computing logic, the TimestampExtractor has no more > > >>>>>>>> advantage in > > >>>>>>>>>> SQL scenarios. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys > > >>>>>>>>>> Primary Key is included in Constraint part, and partitioned > > >> table > > >>>>>>>> support > > >>>>>>>>>> can be another topic later. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration > > >>>>>>>>>> Agree with you that we can do better schema derivation for > user > > >>>>>>>>>> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax. > > >>>>>>>>>> Table properties can carry any useful informations both for > the > > >>>>>> users > > >>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>> the framework, I like your `contract name` proposal, > > >>>>>>>>>> e.g., `WITH (format.type = avro)`, the framework can recognize > > >>> some > > >>>>>>>>>> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc. > > >>>>>>>>>> And also derive the table schema from an existing schema file > > >> can > > >>> be > > >>>>>>>> handy > > >>>>>>>>>> especially one with too many table columns. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>> Lin > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2018年12月5日周三 下午10:40写道： > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> thanks for pushing the DDL efforts forward. I agree that we > > >>> should > > >>>>>>> aim > > >>>>>>>>>>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Here are a couple of concerns that I think we should address > in > > >>> the > > >>>>>>>>>> design: > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Scope: Let's focuses on a MVP DDL for CREATE TABLE > > >> statements > > >>>>>>> first. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think this topic has already enough potential for long > > >>>>>> discussions > > >>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> is very helpful for users. We can discuss CREATE VIEW and > > >> CREATE > > >>>>>>>>>>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Constraints: I think we should consider things like > > >>> nullability, > > >>>>>>>>>>> VARCHAR length, and decimal scale and precision in the future > > >> as > > >>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>> allow for nice optimizations. However, since both the > > >> translation > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> runtime operators do not support those features. I would not > > >>>>>>> introduce > > >>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary default value but omit those parameters for now. > This > > >>> can > > >>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Sources/Sinks: We had a discussion about CREATE TABLE vs > > >>> CREATE > > >>>>>>>>>>> [SOURCE|SINK|] TABLE before. In my opinion we should allow > for > > >>>>>> these > > >>>>>>>>>>> explicit declaration because in most production scenarios, > > >> teams > > >>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>> strict read/write access requirements. For example, a data > > >>> science > > >>>>>>> team > > >>>>>>>>>>> should only consume from a event Kafka topic but should not > > >>>>>>> accidently > > >>>>>>>>>>> write back to the single source of truth. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. Time attributes: In general, I like your computed columns > > >>>>>> approach > > >>>>>>>>>>> because it makes defining a rowtime attributes transparent > and > > >>>>>>> simple. > > >>>>>>>>>>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss. > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4a. Jarks current design means that timestamps are in the > > >> schema > > >>>>>>> twice. > > >>>>>>>>>>> The design that is mentioned in [1] makes this more flexible > as > > >>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed > > >>>>>> column. > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4b. We need to consider the zoo of storage systems that is > out > > >>>>>> there > > >>>>>>>>>>> right now. Take Kafka as an example, how can we write out a > > >>>>>> timestamp > > >>>>>>>>>>> into the message header? We need to think of a reverse > > >> operation > > >>>>>> to a > > >>>>>>>>>>> computed column. > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4c. Does defining a watermark really fit into the schema part > > >> of > > >>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>> table? Shouldn't we separate all time attribute concerns > into a > > >>>>>>> special > > >>>>>>>>>>> clause next to the regular schema, similar how PARTITIONED BY > > >>> does > > >>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hive? > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy? > I > > >>>>>> guess > > >>>>>>>>>>> this can not be implemented in a scalar function and would > > >>> require > > >>>>>>> some > > >>>>>>>>>>> new type of UDF? > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 6. Partitioning and keys: Another question that the DDL > design > > >>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>> answer is how do we express primary keys (for upserts), > > >>>>>> partitioning > > >>>>>>>>>>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table > > >>> schema? > > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Schema declaration: I find it very annoying that we want > to > > >>>>>> force > > >>>>>>>>>>> people to declare all columns and types again even though > this > > >> is > > >>>>>>>>>>> usually already defined in some company-wide format. I know > > >> that > > >>>>>>>> catalog > > >>>>>>>>>>> support will greatly improve this. But if no catalog is used, > > >>>>>> people > > >>>>>>>>>>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink > > >> DDL. > > >>>>>>> What I > > >>>>>>>>>>> actually promoted having two ways of reading data: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table > schema. > > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE (col INT) WITH (format.type = avro) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Or the table schema can be omitted and the format schema > > >>> defines > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> table schema (+ time attributes). > > >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE WITH (format.type = avro, format.schema-file = > > >>>>>>>>>>> "/my/avrofile.avsc") > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about each item. I will try > > >> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> incorporate your feedback in [1] this week. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Timo > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit#heading=h.41fd6rs7b3cf > > >>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.12.18 um 13:01 schrieb Jark Wu: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the watermark: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Watermarks can be defined on any columns (including > > >>>>>> computed-column) > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> table schema. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The computed column can be computed from existing columns > > >> using > > >>>>>>>> builtin > > >>>>>>>>>>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction). > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, it can work out for almost all the scenarios not > only > > >>>>>> common > > >>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think using a `TimestampExtractor` to support custom > > >>>>>>> timestamp > > >>>>>>>>>>>> extractor in SQL is a good idea. Because > `TimestampExtractor` > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is not a SQL standard function. If we support > > >>> `TimestampExtractor` > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> SQL, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for > > >> `TimestampExtractor`? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think `ScalarFunction` can do the same thing with > > >>>>>>>>>> `TimestampExtractor` > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but more powerful and standard. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The core idea of the watermark definition syntax is that the > > >>>>>> schema > > >>>>>>>>>> part > > >>>>>>>>>>>> defines all the columns of the table, it is exactly what the > > >>> query > > >>>>>>>>>> sees. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The watermark part is something like a primary key > definition > > >> or > > >>>>>>>>>>> constraint > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on SQL Table, it has no side effect on the schema, only > > >> defines > > >>>>>> what > > >>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy is and makes which field as the rowtime > > >>>>>> attribute > > >>>>>>>>>>> field. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> If the rowtime field is not in the existing fields, we can > use > > >>>>>>>> computed > > >>>>>>>>>>>> column > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to generate it from other existing fields. The Descriptor > > >>> Pattern > > >>>>>>> API > > >>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is very useful when writing a Table API job, but is not > > >>>>>>> contradictory > > >>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > >>>>>>>>>>>> . > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 17:58, Shuyi Chen <[hidden email] > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great > > >>>>>> progress > > >>>>>>>>>> here. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Below are my thoughts. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime > > >>>>>> extractors > > >>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategies defined in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> . > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of > the > > >>>>>>> common > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into > > >> the > > >>>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP > and > > >>> add > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>> back > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> later if needed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree we can put the type length or precision into future > > >>>>>>> versions. > > >>>>>>>>>> As > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the > grammar > > >>> in > > >>>>>>>>>> Calcite > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we > > >> can > > >>>>>>>>>>> definitely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> change if needed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on > > >>> create > > >>>>>>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the another major difference. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summarize the main differences again: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1) watermark definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) View DDL with properties > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Type Definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang < > > >>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jark, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round > > >>>>>>> implementation > > >>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good to me. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying > > >> "create > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [source/sink] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and > > >> "create > > >>>>>>> table" > > >>>>>>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals > > >>> FMPOV. > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if you can spend time and respond to these > > >> two > > >>>>>>> parts > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu < > [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin > > >>> and I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But some of features might be not needed in the first > > >>> version > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and > > >> reach > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASAP > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi > > >>>>>>> proposed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the > > >>> first > > >>>>>>>>>> version > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Table DDL: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.2) computed column definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.3) watermark definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.4) with properties > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Function DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe > missed, > > >>>>>>> welcome > > >>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most > important > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be great if @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > >>> @Fabian > > >>>>>>>>>> Hueske > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> give some feedbacks. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1) Type definition: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. > > >>> VARCHAR(128) > > >>>> ? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, the varchar length is not > > >> used > > >>>>>>> because > > >>>>>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to > optimize > > >> in > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> future > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with > length > > >> in > > >>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>> future, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and > > >>>> precision, > > >>>>>>>> e.g. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we clearly know the scale and > precision > > >> of > > >>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> Decimal, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can have some optimization on > > >> serialization/deserialization. > > >>>>>>> IMO, > > >>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. > And > > >>>>>> support > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scale > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and precision in the future. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View > DDL > > >>>>>>> (proposed > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc[2])? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The features could be supported and discussed in the > > >> future: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) period definition on table > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Type DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Index DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Library DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Drop statement > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang < > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure Shuyu, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL > > >> gramma > > >>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>> soon > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. There are a few differences between your > > >> proposal > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ours. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss > > >> on > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> those > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified > > >> design. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal > > >>> topic, > > >>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already > > >>> working > > >>>>>>> on. > > >>>>>>>>>> We > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should/will definitely involve them to review the final > > >>>>>> design > > >>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. I would suggest that we should give it > a > > >>>>>> higher > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component > for > > >>> the > > >>>>>>> user > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen < > > >>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should > > >> definitely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, we have also our own DDL implementation running > in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> production > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from > > >>> both > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> companies, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that > > >>> talks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and > > >>> merge > > >>>>>>> them > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for > > >> implementation. > > >>>>>>> Also, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take into account the new external catalog effort in > the > > >>>>>>> design. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you guys think? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu < > > >> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shaoxuan, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good > > >> idea. > > >>> We > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prepare > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan Wang <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > > >>>>>> 下午9:17写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lin and Jark, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please > > >>> consider > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summarizing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's > > >>> proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand/comment/discuss > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaoxuan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu < > > >>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the > > >> awesome > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> work! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to share something more about the watermark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alibaba. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table should be able to accept multiple > > >> watermark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a table may have more than one > rowtime > > >>>>>> field. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime field is from existing field but > > >> missing > > >>> in > > >>>>>>> some > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not > > >> very > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user may define two rowtime fields with > > >>> watermarks > > >>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in different situation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watermark stragety always work with rowtime > > >> field > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> together. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the two points metioned above, I think we > > >>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combine > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermark strategy and rowtime field selection > (i.e. > > >>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that > we > > >>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here I will share the watermark syntax used in > > >> Alibaba > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarkDefinition: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wm_strategy: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark > > >> definition. > > >>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “FOR” > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines which existing field used to generate > > >>> watermark, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in the schema (we can use > > >> computed-column > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark > > >>>>>> strategy, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOUNDED > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) > and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASCENDING. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the expected rowtime field does not exist in > the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> schema, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed-column syntax to derive it from other > > >> existing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in functions or user defined functions. So > the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowtime/watermark > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition doesn’t need to care about > “field-change” > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field > > >>>>>> definition > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined using computed-column. Such as pt as > > >> PROCTIME() > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin Li <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > > >>> 下午6:33写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (extends > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calcite's parser) which been running for almost > two > > >>>>>> years > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the most valued things we'd learned is > > >> keeping > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplicity > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tableName( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition]* > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableConstraint [, > tableConstraint]* ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR > > >> rowTimeColumn > > >>>> AS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnDefinition ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataType ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ VARCHAR ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BOOLEAN ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TINYINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ SMALLINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ INT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ BIGINT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ FLOAT ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DECIMAL ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DOUBLE ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ DATE ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIME ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | [ VARBINARY ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computedColumnDefinition ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableConstraint ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableIndex ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeColumn ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tableOption ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property=value > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive integer (unit: ms) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE VIEW viewName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS queryStatement; > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS 'className'; > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> className ::= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully qualified name > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen <[hidden email]> 于2018年11月28日周三 > > >>>>>> 上午3:28写道： > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and start implementation w/o the unified > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-value pairs, so that it will make integration > > >>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll run a final pass over the design doc and > > >>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few days. And we can start creating tasks > and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments > > >> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually > > >>> proceed > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> w/o > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector API. We can leave the unknown out > while > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As commented in the doc, I think we can probably > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stick > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with general properties, without extending the > > >>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> too > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is > > >> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with Hive's. The one in the current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I > > >> think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and then we can divide the tasks > for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions > or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sender:Timo Walther <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It > > >> would > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releated > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design but we can also > start > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we could identify the MVP DDL > syntax > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skips > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key constraints and maybe even time attributes. > > >> This > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> queries > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (no > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unified connector API is high on our > priority > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> list > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I will try to update the document until > > >> mid > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we are definitely interested in moving this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified connector API design [1] is done, we > can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalize > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shuyi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if you folks still have the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some dedicated resource and like to > move > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xuefu > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<[hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from > > >> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ddl, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, the framework determine the table > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the context of the query using > the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> table. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for use defining a table which can > be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more convenient for catalog to persistent > > >> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manage > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infos. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map > as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intField INTEGER, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longField BIGINT, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) with ( > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.topic = > ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.startup-mode = > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘latest-offset’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties.specific-offset = > ‘offset’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.type = 'json' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string > > >> map > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters by string-map can be the closest > way > > >> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by > user, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different in different implementation, we can > > >> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrict > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set, so we need a map in connector > > >> scope > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector.properties scope. why not just give > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> user a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put parameters in a format they like, which is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplest > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. whether we can define a format clause or > not, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depends > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the connector, using > different > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clause > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding that we can combine the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński > < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This > can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vastly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will > be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions like for example those provided by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahir[1]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dom. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> napisał(a): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1,2]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utilizing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to > > >> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systematically support some of the > previously > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see > the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. > Looking > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the other couple of efforts and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rong > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3C6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88483@...%3E > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I left some comments there. I think the > > >> design > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink-Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements > > >> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> directions > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on > > >> both! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bowen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen > < > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask > > >> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and > INSERT > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> define/create > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sinks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in > SQL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Client, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction > > >> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adoption. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few > other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design and implementation for adding > DDL > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, > type, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> library > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design > from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API > > >> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connect > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> connect > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > connect > > >>> in > > >>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in > > >>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>> future." > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> -- > > >>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > future." > > >>> > > > > > > -- > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." > |
«
Return to (DEPRECATED) Apache Flink Mailing List archive.
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |