>  would it be easier to request statistics at a higher level of
abstraction?

What if there were a "single table provider" level of abstraction between
ADBC and ArrowArrayStream as a C API; something that can report statistics
and apply simple predicates?

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 5:57 AM Dewey Dunnington
<de...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:

> Thank you for the background! I understand that these statistics are
> important for query planning; however, I am not sure that I follow why
> we are constrained to the ArrowSchema to represent them. The examples
> given seem to going through Python...would it be easier to request
> statistics at a higher level of abstraction? There would already need
> to be a separate mechanism to request an ArrowArrayStream with
> statistics (unless the PyCapsule `requested_schema` argument would
> suffice).
>
> > ADBC may be a bit larger to use only for transmitting
> > statistics. ADBC has statistics related APIs but it has more
> > other APIs.
>
> Some examples of producers given in the linked threads (Delta Lake,
> Arrow Dataset) are well-suited to being wrapped by an ADBC driver. One
> can implement an ADBC driver without defining all the methods (where
> the producer could call AdbcConnectionGetStatistics(), although
> AdbcStatementGetStatistics() might be more relevant here and doesn't
> exist). One example listed (using an Arrow Table as a source) seems a
> bit light to wrap in an ADBC driver; however, it would not take much
> code to do so and the overhead of getting the reader via ADBC it is
> something like 100 microseconds (tested via the ADBC R package's
> "monkey driver" which wraps an existing stream as a statement). In any
> case, the bulk of the code is building the statistics array.
>
> > How about the following schema for the
> > statistics ArrowArray? It's based on ADBC.
>
> Whatever format for statistics is decided on, I imagine it should be
> exactly the same as the ADBC standard? (Perhaps pushing changes
> upstream if needed?).
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 3:21 AM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Why not simply pass the statistics ArrowArray separately in your
> > > producer API of choice
> >
> > It seems that we should use the approach because all
> > feedback said so. How about the following schema for the
> > statistics ArrowArray? It's based on ADBC.
> >
> > | Field Name               | Field Type            | Comments |
> > |--------------------------|-----------------------| -------- |
> > | column_name              | utf8                  | (1)      |
> > | statistic_key            | utf8 not null         | (2)      |
> > | statistic_value          | VALUE_SCHEMA not null |          |
> > | statistic_is_approximate | bool not null         | (3)      |
> >
> > 1. If null, then the statistic applies to the entire table.
> >    It's for "row_count".
> > 2. We'll provide pre-defined keys such as "max", "min",
> >    "byte_width" and "distinct_count" but users can also use
> >    application specific keys.
> > 3. If true, then the value is approximate or best-effort.
> >
> > VALUE_SCHEMA is a dense union with members:
> >
> > | Field Name | Field Type |
> > |------------|------------|
> > | int64      | int64      |
> > | uint64     | uint64     |
> > | float64    | float64    |
> > | binary     | binary     |
> >
> > If a column is an int32 column, it uses int64 for
> > "max"/"min". We don't provide all types here. Users should
> > use a compatible type (int64 for a int32 column) instead.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > kou
> >
> > In <a3ce5e96-176c-4226-9d74-6a458317a...@python.org>
> >   "Re: [DISCUSS] Statistics through the C data interface" on Wed, 22 May
> 2024 17:04:57 +0200,
> >   Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Kou,
> > >
> > > I agree that Dewey that this is overstretching the capabilities of the
> > > C Data Interface. In particular, stuffing a pointer as metadata value
> > > and decreeing it immortal doesn't sound like a good design decision.
> > >
> > > Why not simply pass the statistics ArrowArray separately in your
> > > producer API of choice (Dewey mentioned ADBC but it is of course just
> > > a possible API among others)?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Antoine.
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 22/05/2024 à 04:37, Sutou Kouhei a écrit :
> > >> Hi,
> > >> We're discussing how to provide statistics through the C
> > >> data interface at:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/38837
> > >> If you're interested in this feature, could you share your
> > >> comments?
> > >> Motivation:
> > >> We can interchange Apache Arrow data by the C data interface
> > >> in the same process. For example, we can pass Apache Arrow
> > >> data read by Apache Arrow C++ (provider) to DuckDB
> > >> (consumer) through the C data interface.
> > >> A provider may know Apache Arrow data statistics. For
> > >> example, a provider can know statistics when it reads Apache
> > >> Parquet data because Apache Parquet may provide statistics.
> > >> But a consumer can't know statistics that are known by a
> > >> producer. Because there isn't a standard way to provide
> > >> statistics through the C data interface. If a consumer can
> > >> know statistics, it can process Apache Arrow data faster
> > >> based on statistics.
> > >> Proposal:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/38837#issuecomment-2123728784
> > >> How about providing statistics as a metadata in ArrowSchema?
> > >> We reserve "ARROW" namespace for internal Apache Arrow use:
> > >>
> https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/Columnar.html#custom-application-metadata
> > >>
> > >>> The ARROW pattern is a reserved namespace for internal
> > >>> Arrow use in the custom_metadata fields. For example,
> > >>> ARROW:extension:name.
> > >> So we can use "ARROW:statistics" for the metadata key.
> > >> We can represent statistics as a ArrowArray like ADBC does.
> > >> Here is an example ArrowSchema that is for a record batch
> > >> that has "int32 column1" and "string column2":
> > >> ArrowSchema {
> > >>    .format = "+siu",
> > >>    .metadata = {
> > >>      "ARROW:statistics" => ArrowArray*, /* table-level statistics
> such as
> > >>      row count */
> > >>    },
> > >>    .children = {
> > >>      ArrowSchema {
> > >>        .name = "column1",
> > >>        .format = "i",
> > >>        .metadata = {
> > >>          "ARROW:statistics" => ArrowArray*, /* column-level
> statistics such as
> > >>          count distinct */
> > >>        },
> > >>      },
> > >>      ArrowSchema {
> > >>        .name = "column2",
> > >>        .format = "u",
> > >>        .metadata = {
> > >>          "ARROW:statistics" => ArrowArray*, /* column-level
> statistics such as
> > >>          count distinct */
> > >>        },
> > >>      },
> > >>    },
> > >> }
> > >> The metadata value (ArrowArray* part) of '"ARROW:statistics"
> > >> => ArrowArray*' is a base 10 string of the address of the
> > >> ArrowArray. Because we can use only string for metadata
> > >> value. You can't release the statistics ArrowArray*. (Its
> > >> release is a no-op function.) It follows
> > >>
> https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/CDataInterface.html#member-allocation
> > >> semantics. (The base ArrowSchema owns statistics
> > >> ArrowArray*.)
> > >> ArrowArray* for statistics use the following schema:
> > >> | Field Name     | Field Type                       | Comments |
> > >> |----------------|----------------------------------| -------- |
> > >> | key            | string not null                  | (1)      |
> > >> | value          | `VALUE_SCHEMA` not null          |          |
> > >> | is_approximate | bool not null                    | (2)      |
> > >> 1. We'll provide pre-defined keys such as "max", "min",
> > >>     "byte_width" and "distinct_count" but users can also use
> > >>     application specific keys.
> > >> 2. If true, then the value is approximate or best-effort.
> > >> VALUE_SCHEMA is a dense union with members:
> > >> | Field Name | Field Type                       | Comments |
> > >> |------------|----------------------------------| -------- |
> > >> | int64      | int64                            |          |
> > >> | uint64     | uint64                           |          |
> > >> | float64    | float64                          |          |
> > >> | value      | The same type of the ArrowSchema | (3)      |
> > >> |            | that is belonged to.             |          |
> > >> 3. If the ArrowSchema's type is string, this type is also string.
> > >>     TODO: Is "value" good name? If we refer it from the
> > >>     top-level statistics schema, we need to use
> > >>     "value.value". It's a bit strange...
> > >> What do you think about this proposal? Could you share your
> > >> comments?
> > >> Thanks,
>

Reply via email to