I would generally agree with this. Note that you have the possibility to use unions-of-structs to send record batches with different schemas in the same stream, though with some added complexity on each side
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:37 AM Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > > I'd vote for explicitly not supported. We should keep our primitives narrow. > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 1:17 PM David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > I do think if we had explicitly embraced gRPC from the beginning, > > there are a lot of places where things could be made more ergonomic, > > including with the metadata fields. But it would also have locked out > > us of potential future transports. > > > > On another note: I hesitate to put too much into this method, but we > > are looking at use cases where potentially, a client may want to > > upload multiple distinct datasets (with differing schemas). (This is a > > little tentative, and I can get more details...) Right now, each > > logical stream in Flight must have a single, consistent schema; would > > it make sense to look at ways to relax this, or declare this > > explicitly out of scope (and require multiple calls and coordination > > with the deployment topology) in order to accomplish this? > > > > Best, > > David > > > > On 11/27/19, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Fair enough. I'm okay with the bytes approach and the proposal looks good > > > to me. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:37 AM David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I've updated the proposal. > > >> > > >> On the subject of Protobuf Any vs bytes, and how to handle > > >> errors/metadata, I still think using bytes is preferable: > > >> - It doesn't require (conditionally) exposing or wrapping Protobuf > > types, > > >> - We wouldn't be able to practically expose the Protobuf field to C++ > > >> users without causing build pains, > > >> - We can't let Python users take advantage of the Protobuf field > > >> without somehow being compatible with the Protobuf wheels (by linking > > >> to the same version, and doing magic to turn the C++ Protobufs into > > >> the Python ones), > > >> - All our other application-defined fields are already bytes. > > >> > > >> Applications that want structure can encode JSON or Protobuf Any into > > >> the bytes field themselves, much as you can already do for Ticket, > > >> commands in FlightDescriptors, and application metadata in > > >> DoGet/DoPut. I don't think this is (much) less efficient than using > > >> Any directly, since Any itself is a bytes field with a tag, and must > > >> invoke the Protobuf deserializer again to read the actual message. > > >> > > >> If we decide on using bytes, then I don't think it makes sense to > > >> define a new message with a oneof either, since it would be redundant. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> David > > >> > > >> On 11/7/19, David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I've been extremely backlogged, I will update the proposal when I get > > >> > a chance and reply here when done. > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > David > > >> > > > >> > On 11/7/19, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Bumping this discussion since a couple of weeks have passed. It seems > > >> >> there are still some questions here, could we summarize what are the > > >> >> alternatives along with any public API implications so we can try to > > >> >> render a decision? > > >> >> > > >> >> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 7:19 PM David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Hi Wes, > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Responses inline: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 13:46 Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:40 PM David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> > wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > The question is whether to repurpose the existing FlightData > > >> >>> > > structure, and allow for the metadata field to be filled in and > > >> data > > >> >>> > > fields to be blank (as a control message), or to wrap the > > >> FlightData > > >> >>> > > structure in another structure that explicitly distinguishes > > >> between > > >> >>> > > control and data messages. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > I'm not super against having metadata-only FlightData with empty > > >> body. > > >> >>> > One question to consider is what changes (if any) would need to be > > >> >>> > made to public APIs in either scenario. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> We could leave DoGet/DoPut as-is for now, and allow empty data > > >> >>> messages > > >> >>> in > > >> >>> the future. This would be a breaking change, but wouldn't change the > > >> >>> wire > > >> >>> format. I think the APIs could be changed backwards compatibly, > > >> >>> though. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > The other question is how to handle the metadata fields. So far, > > >> >>> > > we've > > >> >>> > > used bytestring fields for application-defined data. This is > > >> >>> > > workable > > >> >>> > > if you want to use Protobuf to define the contents of those > > >> >>> > > fields, > > >> >>> > > but requires you to pack/unpack your Protobuf into/from the > > >> >>> > > bytestring > > >> >>> > > field. If we instead used the Protobuf Any field, a dynamically > > >> >>> > > typed > > >> >>> > > field, this would be more convenient, but then we'd be exposing > > >> >>> > > Protobuf types. We could alternatively use a combination of a > > >> >>> > > type > > >> >>> > > field and a bytestring field, mimicking what the Protobuf Any > > >> >>> > > type > > >> >>> > > looks like on the wire. I'm not sure this is actually cleaner in > > >> any > > >> >>> > > of the language APIs, though. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > Leaving the deserialization of the app metadata to the particular > > >> >>> > Flight implementation seems on first principles like the most > > >> flexible > > >> >>> > thing, if Any is used, does that mean the metadata _must_ be a > > >> >>> > protobuf? > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> If Any is used, we could still expose a bytes-based API, but it > > would > > >> >>> have > > >> >>> some more wrapping. (We could put a ByteString in Any.) Then the > > >> >>> question > > >> >>> would just be how to expose this (would be easier in Java, harder in > > >> >>> C++). > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > David > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > On 10/21/19, Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > Can one of you explain what is being proposed in non-protobuf > > >> >>> > > > terms? > > >> >>> > > > Knowledge of protobuf shouldn't be required to use Flight. > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > Regards > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > Antoine. > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > Le 21/10/2019 à 15:46, David Li a écrit : > > >> >>> > > >> Oneof doesn't actually change the wire encoding; it would > > just > > >> be > > >> >>> > > >> application-level logic. (The official guide doesn't even > > >> mention > > >> >>> > > >> it > > >> >>> > > >> in the encoding docs; I found > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> > > > >> > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52226409/how-protobuf-encodes-oneof-message-construct > > >> >>> > > >> as well.) > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> If I follow you, Jacques, then you are proposing essentially > > >> >>> > > >> inlining > > >> >>> > > >> the definition of Any, e.g. > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> message FlightMessage { > > >> >>> > > >> oneof message { > > >> >>> > > >> FlightData data = 1; > > >> >>> > > >> FlightAny metadata = 2; > > >> >>> > > >> } > > >> >>> > > >> } > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> message FlightAny { > > >> >>> > > >> string type = 1; > > >> >>> > > >> bytes data = 2; > > >> >>> > > >> } > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> Is this correct? > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> It might be nice to consider the wrapper message for > > >> >>> > > >> DoGet/DoPut > > >> >>> > > >> as > > >> >>> > > >> well, but at that point, I'd rather we be consistent with all > > >> >>> > > >> of > > >> >>> > > >> them, > > >> >>> > > >> rather than have one of the three methods do its own thing. > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> Thanks, > > >> >>> > > >> David > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> On 10/20/19, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >>> I think we could probably expose the oneof behavior without > > >> >>> > > >>> exposing > > >> >>> > the > > >> >>> > > >>> protobuf functions. On the any... hmm. I guess we could > > >> >>> > > >>> expose > > >> >>> > > >>> as > > >> >>> > > >>> two > > >> >>> > > >>> fields: type and data. Then users could use it for whatever > > >> >>> > > >>> but > > >> >>> > > >>> if > > >> >>> > > >>> people > > >> >>> > > >>> wanted to treat it as any, it would work. (Basically a user > > >> >>> > > >>> could > > >> >>> > > >>> use > > >> >>> > > >>> any > > >> >>> > > >>> with it easily but they could also use any other mechanism). > > >> >>> > > >>> At > > >> >>> > least in > > >> >>> > > >>> java, the any concepts are pretty simple/diy. Are other > > >> language > > >> >>> > > >>> bindings > > >> >>> > > >>> less diy? > > >> >>> > > >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> I'm *not* hardcore against the empty FlightData + metadata > > >> >>> > > >>> but > > >> >>> > > >>> it > > >> >>> > just > > >> >>> > > >>> seemed a bit janky. > > >> >>> > > >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> Thinking about the control message/wrapper object thing, I > > >> >>> > > >>> wonder > > >> >>> > > >>> if > > >> >>> > we > > >> >>> > > >>> should redefine DoPut and DoGet to have the same property if > > >> >>> > > >>> we > > >> >>> > think it > > >> >>> > > >>> is > > >> >>> > > >>> a good idea... > > >> >>> > > >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:13 PM David Li < > > >> li.david...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> > wrote: > > >> >>> > > >>> > > >> >>> > > >>>> I was definitely considering having control messages > > without > > >> >>> > > >>>> data, > > >> >>> > and > > >> >>> > > >>>> I thought that could be encoded by a FlightData with only > > >> >>> > app_metadata > > >> >>> > > >>>> set. I think I understand your position now: FlightData > > >> >>> > > >>>> should > > >> >>> > always > > >> >>> > > >>>> carry (some) data (with optional metadata)? > > >> >>> > > >>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>> That makes sense to me, and is consistent with the > > >> >>> > > >>>> documentation > > >> >>> > > >>>> on > > >> >>> > > >>>> FlightData in the Protobuf file. I was worried about having > > >> >>> > > >>>> a > > >> >>> > > >>>> redundant metadata field, but oneof prevents that from > > >> >>> > > >>>> happening, > > >> >>> > and > > >> >>> > > >>>> overall having a clear separation between data and control > > >> >>> > > >>>> messages > > >> >>> > is > > >> >>> > > >>>> cleaner. > > >> >>> > > >>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>> As for using Protobuf's Any: so far, we've refrained from > > >> >>> > > >>>> exposing > > >> >>> > > >>>> Protobuf by using bytes, would we want to change that now? > > >> >>> > > >>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>> Best, > > >> >>> > > >>>> David > > >> >>> > > >>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>> On 10/16/19, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >>>>> Hey David, > > >> >>> > > >>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>> RE: Async: I was trying to match the pattern we use for > > >> >>> > > >>>>> doget/doput > > >> >>> > > >>>>> for > > >> >>> > > >>>>> async. Yes, more thinking java given java grpc's async > > >> >>> > > >>>>> always > > >> >>> > pattern. > > >> >>> > > >>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>> On the comment around the FlightData, I think it is > > >> >>> > > >>>>> overloading > > >> >>> > > >>>>> the > > >> >>> > > >>>> message > > >> >>> > > >>>>> to use metadata for this. If I want to send a control > > >> >>> > > >>>>> message > > >> >>> > > >>>> independently > > >> >>> > > >>>>> of the data message, I would have to define something like > > >> >>> > > >>>>> an > > >> >>> > > >>>>> empty > > >> >>> > > >>>> flight > > >> >>> > > >>>>> data message that has custom metadata. Why not support a > > >> >>> > > >>>>> container > > >> >>> > > >>>>> object > > >> >>> > > >>>>> with a oneof{FlightData, Any} in it instead so users can > > >> >>> > > >>>>> add > > >> >>> > > >>>>> more > > >> >>> > data > > >> >>> > > >>>>> as > > >> >>> > > >>>>> desired. The default impl could be a noop for the Any > > >> >>> > > >>>>> messages. > > >> >>> > > >>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 6:50 PM David Li > > >> >>> > > >>>>> <li.david...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> Hi Jacques, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> Thanks for the comments. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> - I do agree DoExchange is a better name! > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> - FlightData already has metadata fields as a result of > > >> prior > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> proposals, so I don't think we need a new message to > > carry > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> that > > >> >>> > kind > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> of information. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> - I like the suggestion of an async handler to handle > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> incoming > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> messages as the fundamental API; it would actually be > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> quite > > >> >>> > natural > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> to > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> implement in Flight/Java. I will note that it's not > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> possible > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> in > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> C++/Python without spawning a thread, though. (In > > essence, > > >> >>> > gRPC-Java > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> is async-always and gRPC-C++ is sync-always.) There are > > >> >>> > experimental > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> C++ APIs that would let us do something similar to Java, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> but > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> those > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> are > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> only in relatively recent gRPC versions and are still > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> under > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> development (contrary to the interceptor APIs which have > > >> been > > >> >>> > around > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> for quite a while). > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> David > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> On 10/15/19, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> I like it. Added some comments to the doc. Might worth > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> discussion > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> here > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> depending on your thoughts. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:11 AM David Li > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> <li.david...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> Hey Ryan, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the comments. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> Concrete example: I've edited the doc to provide a > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> Python > > >> >>> > strawman. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> Sync vs async: while I don't touch on it, you could > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> interleave > > >> >>> > > >>>> uploads > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> and downloads if you were so inclined. Right now, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> synchronous > > >> >>> > APIs > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> make this error-prone, e.g. if both client and server > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> wait > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> for > > >> >>> > each > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> other due to an application logic bug. (gRPC doesn't > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> give > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> us > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> ability to have per-read timeouts, only an overall > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> timeout.) > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> As > > >> >>> > an > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> example of this happening with DoPut, see ARROW-6063: > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-6063 > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> This is mostly tangential though, eventually we will > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> want > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> to > > >> >>> > design > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> asynchronous APIs for Flight as a whole. A > > bidirectional > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> stream > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> like > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> this (and like DoPut) just makes these pitfalls easier > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> to > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> run > > >> >>> > into. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> Using DoPut+DoGet: I discussed this in the proposal, > > but > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > main > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> concern is that depending on how you deploy, two > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> separate > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> calls > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> could > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> get routed to different instances. Additionally, gRPC > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> has > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> some > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> reconnection behaviors; if the server goes away in > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> between > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > two > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> calls, but it then restarts or there is another > > instance > > >> >>> > available, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> the client will happily reconnect to the new server > > >> without > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> warning. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> David > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> On 10/15/19, Ryan Murray <rym...@dremio.com> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hey David, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. I like it > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> possibility > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> of remote compute via arrow buffers. One thing that > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> would > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> help > > >> >>> > me > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> would > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> be > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> a concrete example of the API in a real life use case. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> Also, > > >> >>> > what > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> would > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> client experience be in terms of sync vs asyc? Would > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> client > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> block > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> till > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> the bidirectional call return ie c = > > >> flight.vector_mult(a, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> b) > > >> >>> > or > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> would > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> client wait to be signaled that computation was done. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> If > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> later > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> how > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> is > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> that different from a DoPut then DoGet? I suppose that > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> this > > >> >>> > could > > >> >>> > > >>>> be > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> implemented without extending the RPC interface but > > >> rather > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> by a > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> function/util? > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> Best, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> Ryan > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 9:24 PM David Li < > > >> >>> > li.david...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> We've been using Flight quite successfully so far, > > but > > >> we > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> have > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> identified a new use case on the horizon: being able > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> to > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> both > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> send > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> retrieve Arrow data within a single RPC call. To that > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> end, > > >> >>> > I've > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> written up a proposal for a new RPC method: > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>> > > >> >>> > > > >> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh-3Z0hK5PxyEYFxwVxp77jens3yAgC_cpp0TGW-dcw/edit?usp=sharing > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if you can't view or comment on > > the > > >> >>> > document. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I'd > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> appreciate any feedback; I think this is a relatively > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> straightforward > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> addition - it is essentially "DoPutThenGet". > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a format change and would require a vote. > > I've > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> decided > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> to > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> table the other format change I had proposed (on > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> DoPut), > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> as > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> it > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> doesn't > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> functionally change Flight, just the interpretation > > of > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> semantics. > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> David > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> Ryan Murray | Principal Consulting Engineer > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> +447540852009 | rym...@dremio.com > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> <https://www.dremio.com/> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> Check out our GitHub <https://www.github.com/dremio>, > > >> join > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> our > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> community > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> site <https://community.dremio.com/> & Download > > Dremio > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> <https://www.dremio.com/download> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>>> > > >> >>> > > >>>> > > >> >>> > > >>> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
