I agree with Jingsong, we are discussing to align the "concepts", not align the "implementations".
For the "concepts", the "Time-windowed Join" in SQL and "Interval Join" in DataStream are the same thing. Best, Jark On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 15:16, Jingsong Li <jingsongl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Danny, > > > DatasStream interval join and Table/SQL Time-windowed Join are > not equivalent > > In my opinion, there is no difference between table and DataStream except > that outer join is not implemented in DataStream. > KeyedStream has defined equivalent conditions. > Other conditions can be completed in the subsequent IntervalJoined.process. > And the interval join of DataStream is implemented according to the feature > of SQL.[1] You can see the references in the description. > > > why not choose Time-windowed Join > > As Jark said, there is a "Window Join" in DataStream, we can support it in > table too in future. It is very easy to misunderstand with "Time-windowed > Join". > So, in my opinion, "Interval join" or "Range join" are the "complete" word > to describe this kind of join. But better not "Time-windowed Join". > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8478 > > Best, > Jingsong Lee >
