Wait, what happens if a datasource's spec allows dots as valid identifiers?

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 2:22 PM Gavin Ray <ray.gavi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah okay, yeah that's a reasonable angle too haha
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 1:59 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Frankly it was from a "not drastically refactoring things" perspective :)
>>
>> At least for Arrow: list[utf8] is effectively a utf8 array with an extra
>> array of offsets, so there's relatively little overhead. (In particular,
>> there's not an extra allocation per array; there's just an overall
>> allocation of a bitmap/offsets buffer.)
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, at 13:46, Gavin Ray wrote:
>> > I suppose you're thinking from a memory/performance perspective right?
>> > Allocating a dot character is a lot better than allocating multiple
>> arrays
>> >
>> > Yeah I don't see why not -- this could even be a library internal where
>> the
>> > fact that it's dotted is an implementation detail
>> > Then in the Java implementation or whatnot, you can call
>> > ".getFullyQualifiedTableName()" which will do the allocating parse to a
>> > List<String> for you, or whatnot
>> >
>> > The array was mostly for convenience's sake (our API is JSON and not
>> > particularly performance-oriented)
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 1:40 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ah, interesting…
>> >>
>> >> A self-recursive schema wouldn't work in Arrow's schema system, so it'd
>> >> have to be the latter solution. Or, would it work to have a dotted
>> name in
>> >> the schema name column? Would parsing that back out (for applications
>> that
>> >> want to work with the full hierarchy) be too much trouble?
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, at 13:14, Gavin Ray wrote:
>> >> > Antoine, I can't comment on the Go code (not qualified) but to me,
>> the
>> >> > "verification" test
>> >> > examples look like a mixture between JDBC and Java FlightSQL driver
>> >> usage,
>> >> > and seem solid.
>> >> >
>> >> > There was one reservation I had about the ability to handle
>> datasource
>> >> > namespacing that I brought up early on in the proposal discussions
>> >> > (David responded to it but I got busy and forgot to reply again)
>> >> >
>> >> > If you have a datasource which provides possibly arbitrary levels of
>> >> schema
>> >> > namespace (something like Apache Calcite, for example)
>> >> > How do you represent the table/schema names?
>> >> >
>> >> > Suppose I have a service with a DB layout like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > / foo
>> >> >     / bar
>> >> >         / baz
>> >> >             /qux
>> >> >               / table1
>> >> >                 - column1
>> >> >
>> >> > At my dayjob, we have a technology which is very similar to
>> >> > ADBC/FlightSQL
>> >> > (would be great to adopt Substrait + ADBC once they're mature enough)
>> >> > -
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/hasura/graphql-engine/blob/master/dc-agents/README.md#data-connectors
>> >> > -
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/28/hasura-now-lets-developers-turn-any-data-source-into-a-graphql-api/
>> >> >
>> >> > We wound up having to redesign the specification to handle
>> datasources
>> >> that
>> >> > don't fit the "database-schema-table" or "database-table" mould
>> >> >
>> >> > In the ADBC schema for schema metadata, it looks like it expects a
>> >> > single
>> >> > "schema" struct:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/blob/7866a566f5b7b635267bfb7a87ea49b01dfe89fa/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/arrow/adbc/core/StandardSchemas.java#L132-L152
>> >> >
>> >> > If you want to be flexible, IMO it would be good to either:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. Have DB_SCHEMA_SCHEMA be self-recursive, so that schemas (with or
>> >> > without tables) can be nested arbitrarily deep underneath each other
>> >> >       - Fully-Qualified-Table-Name (FQTN) can then be computed by
>> walking
>> >> > up from a table and concating the schema name until the root schema
>> is
>> >> > reached
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. Make "catalog" and "schema" go away entirely, and tables just
>> have a
>> >> > FQTN that is an array, a database is a collection of tables
>> >> >      - You can compute what would have been the catalog + schema
>> >> hierarchy
>> >> > by doing a .reduce() over the list of tables and
>> >> >
>> >> > Or maybe there is another, better way. But that's my $0.02 and the
>> only
>> >> > real concern about the API I have, without actually trying to build
>> >> > something with it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 5:40 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hello,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would urge people to review the proposed ADBC APIs, especially
>> the Go
>> >> >> and Java APIs which probably benefitted from less feedback than the
>> C
>> >> one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Antoine.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Le 21/09/2022 à 17:40, David Li a écrit :
>> >> >> > Hello,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We have been discussing [1] standard interfaces for Arrow-based
>> >> database
>> >> >> access and have been working on implementations of the proposed
>> >> interfaces
>> >> >> [2], all under the name "ADBC". This proposal aims to provide a
>> unified
>> >> >> client abstraction across Arrow-native database protocols (like
>> Flight
>> >> SQL)
>> >> >> and non-Arrow database protocols, which can then be used by Arrow
>> >> projects
>> >> >> like Dataset/Acero and ecosystem projects like Ibis.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For details, see the RFC here:
>> >> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/14079
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I would like to propose that the Arrow project adopt this RFC,
>> along
>> >> >> with apache/arrow-adbc commit 7866a56 [3], as version 1.0.0 of the
>> ADBC
>> >> API
>> >> >> standard.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Please vote to adopt the specification as described above. (This
>> is
>> >> not
>> >> >> a vote to release any components.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > [ ] +1 Adopt the ADBC specification
>> >> >> > [ ]  0
>> >> >> > [ ] -1 Do not adopt the specification because...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks to the DuckDB and R DBI projects for providing feedback on
>> and
>> >> >> implementations of the proposal.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > [1]:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/cq7t9s5p7dw4vschylhwsfgqwkr5fmf2
>> >> >> > [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc
>> >> >> > [3]:
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/commit/7866a566f5b7b635267bfb7a87ea49b01dfe89fa
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thank you,
>> >> >> > David
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
>

Reply via email to