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 <twal...@apache.org> 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 <xuef...@alibaba-inc.com> > 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 <lincoln.8...@gmail.com> > >> Sent at:2018 Dec 6 (Thu) 10:49 > >> Recipient:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > >> 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 <twal...@apache.org> 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 <suez1...@gmail.com> 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 <imj...@gmail.com> 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 <wshaox...@gmail.com> > >>> 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 <imj...@gmail.com> 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 <twal...@apache.org> @Fabian > >> Hueske > >>>>>>>> <fhue...@gmail.com> 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 <wshaox...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> 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 <suez1...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> 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 <imj...@gmail.com> > >>>>> 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 <wshaox...@gmail.com> 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 <imj...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> 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 <lincoln.8...@gmail.com> 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 <suez1...@gmail.com> 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 < > >>>>>>>>>>>> xuef...@alibaba-inc.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <twal...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recipient:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> xuef...@alibaba-inc.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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<wenlong88....@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人：<dev@flink.apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>>>>> wos...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>> walter...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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-eff5-2e9c19f88...@apache.org%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > >>>>>>>>>>> bowenl...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>>>>>> suez1...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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." > >>> > >
