Thanks all for the feedbacks. I will start a VOTE soon. Best, Jark
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 15:45, Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >
