Yes, it would be great to get your thoughts so we can assess the scope of what's involved.
Thanks. -- Zelaine On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > Definitely agree that we shouldn't boil the ocean. That said, I don't > think we should make RecordBatch interface changes without deliberate > design. Same for RPC protocol changes. Part of my internal struggle with > the warning patch is exactly this lack of broader design. I think this is > especially true given the drive to supports backwards compatibility. > > I don't think we're talking about a massive undertaking. I'll try to write > up some thoughts later this week to get the ball rolling. Sound good? > > -- > Jacques Nadeau > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > +1 on having a framework. > OTOH, as with the warnings implementation, we might want to go ahead with a > simpler implementation while we get a more generic framework design in > place. > > Jacques, do you have any preliminary thoughts on the framework? > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 for a sideband mechanism. > > > > Sideband can also allow correlated restart of sub-queries. > > > > In sideband use cases you described, the messages ran in the opposite > > direction to the data. Would the sideband also run in the same direction > as > > the data? If so it could carry warnings, rejected rows, progress > > indications, and (for online aggregation[1]) notifications that a better > > approximate query result is available. > > > > Julian > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_aggregation > > > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > This seems like a form of sideband communication. I think we should > have > > a > > > framework for this type of thing in general rather than a one-off for > > this > > > particular need. Other forms of sideband might be small table > bloomfilter > > > generation and pushdown into hbase, separate file > assignment/partitioning > > > providers balancing/generating scanner workloads, statistics generation > > for > > > adaptive execution, etc. > > > > > > -- > > > Jacques Nadeau > > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Hsuan Yi Chu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> I am trying to deal with the following scenario: > > >> > > >> A bunch of minor fragments are doing things in parallel. Each of them > > could > > >> skip some records. Since the downstream minor fragment needs to know > the > > >> sum of skipped-record-counts (in order to just display or see if the > > number > > >> exceeds the threshold) in the upstreams, each upstream minor fragment > > needs > > >> to pass this scalar with RecordBatch. > > >> > > >> Since this seems impacting the protocol of RecordBatch, I am looking > for > > >> some advice here. > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > > > >
