Gentle ping on the vote for FLIP-356: Support Nested fields filter pushdown <https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@flink.apache.org/msg69289.html>.
Regards Venkata krishnan On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 9:18 PM Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan <vsowr...@asu.edu> wrote: > Sure, will reference this discussion to resume where we started as part of > the flip to refactor SupportsProjectionPushDown. > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 7:22 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm fine with this. `ReferenceExpression` and `SupportsProjectionPushDown` >> can be another FLIP. However, could you summarize the design of this part >> in the future part of the FLIP? This can be easier to get started with in >> the future. >> >> >> Best, >> Jark >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 02:45, Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan < >> vsowr...@asu.edu> >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks Jark. Sounds good. >> > >> > One more thing, earlier in my summary I mentioned, >> > >> > Introduce a new *ReferenceExpression* (or *BaseReferenceExpression*) >> > > abstract class which will be extended by both >> *FieldReferenceExpression* >> > > and *NestedFieldReferenceExpression* (to be introduced as part of >> this >> > > FLIP) >> > >> > This can be punted for now and can be handled as part of refactoring >> > SupportsProjectionPushDown. >> > >> > Also I made minor changes to the *NestedFieldReferenceExpression, >> *instead >> > of *fieldIndexArray* we can just do away with *fieldNames *array that >> > includes fieldName at every level for the nested field. >> > >> > Updated the FLIP-357 >> > < >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-356*3A*Support*Nested*Fields*Filter*Pushdown__;JSsrKysr!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!YAk6kV4CYvUSPfpoUDQRs6VlbmJXVX8KOKqFxKbNDkUWKzShvwpkLRGkAV1tgV3EqClNrjGS-Ij86Q$ >> > > >> > wiki as well. >> > >> > Regards >> > Venkata krishnan >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 5:21 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Venkata, >> > > >> > > Your summary looks good to me. +1 to start a vote. >> > > >> > > I think we don't need "inputIndex" in NestedFieldReferenceExpression. >> > > Actually, I think it is also not needed in FieldReferenceExpression, >> > > and we should try to remove it (another topic). The RexInputRef in >> > Calcite >> > > also doesn't require an inputIndex because the field index should >> > represent >> > > index of the field in the underlying row type. Field references >> shouldn't >> > > be >> > > aware of the number of inputs. >> > > >> > > Best, >> > > Jark >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 02:24, Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan < >> > vsowr...@asu.edu >> > > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Jinsong, >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for your comments. >> > > > >> > > > What is inputIndex in NestedFieldReferenceExpression? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I haven't looked at it before. Do you mean, given that it is now >> only >> > > used >> > > > to push filters it won't be subsequently used in further >> > > > planning/optimization and therefore it is not required at this time? >> > > > >> > > > So if NestedFieldReferenceExpression doesn't need inputIndex, is >> there >> > > > > a need to introduce a base class `ReferenceExpression`? >> > > > >> > > > For SupportsFilterPushDown itself, *ReferenceExpression* base class >> is >> > > not >> > > > needed. But there were discussions around cleaning up and >> standardizing >> > > the >> > > > API for Supports*PushDown. SupportsProjectionPushDown currently >> pushes >> > > the >> > > > projects as a 2-d array, instead it would be better to use the >> standard >> > > API >> > > > which seems to be the *ResolvedExpression*. For >> > > SupportsProjectionPushDown >> > > > either FieldReferenceExpression (top level fields) or >> > > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression (nested fields) is enough, in order >> to >> > > > provide a single API that handles both top level and nested fields, >> > > > ReferenceExpression will be introduced as a base class. >> > > > >> > > > Eventually, *SupportsProjectionPushDown#applyProjections* would >> evolve >> > as >> > > > applyProjection(List<ReferenceExpression> projectedFields) and >> nested >> > > > fields would be pushed only if *supportsNestedProjections* returns >> > true. >> > > > >> > > > Regards >> > > > Venkata krishnan >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:12 PM Jingsong Li < >> jingsongl...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > So if NestedFieldReferenceExpression doesn't need inputIndex, is >> > there >> > > > > a need to introduce a base class `ReferenceExpression`? >> > > > > >> > > > > Best, >> > > > > Jingsong >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 2:09 PM Jingsong Li < >> jingsongl...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi thanks all for your discussion. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What is inputIndex in NestedFieldReferenceExpression? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I know inputIndex has special usage in FieldReferenceExpression, >> > but >> > > > > > it is only for Join operators, and it is only for SQL >> optimization. >> > > It >> > > > > > looks like there is no requirement for Nested. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > Jingsong >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 1:13 PM Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan >> > > > > > <vsowr...@asu.edu> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for all the feedback and discussion everyone. Looks >> like >> > we >> > > > have >> > > > > > > reached a consensus here. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Just to summarize: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. Introduce a new *ReferenceExpression* (or >> > > > *BaseReferenceExpression*) >> > > > > > > abstract class which will be extended by both >> > > > > *FieldReferenceExpression* >> > > > > > > and *NestedFieldReferenceExpression* (to be introduced as >> part of >> > > > this >> > > > > FLIP) >> > > > > > > 2. No need of *supportsNestedFilters *check as the current >> > > > > > > *SupportsFilterPushDown* should already ignore unknown >> > expressions >> > > ( >> > > > > > > *NestedFieldReferenceExpression* for example) and return them >> as >> > > > > > > *remainingFilters. >> > > > > > > *Maybe this should be clarified explicitly in the Javadoc of >> > > > > > > *SupportsFilterPushDown. >> > > > > > > *I will file a separate JIRA to fix the documentation. >> > > > > > > 3. Refactor *SupportsProjectionPushDown* to use >> > > *ReferenceExpression >> > > > > *instead >> > > > > > > of existing 2-d arrays to consolidate and be consistent with >> > other >> > > > > > > Supports*PushDown APIs - *outside the scope of this FLIP* >> > > > > > > 4. Similarly *SupportsAggregatePushDown* should also be >> evolved >> > > > > whenever >> > > > > > > nested fields support is added to use the >> *ReferenceExpression - >> > > > > **outside >> > > > > > > the scope of this FLIP* >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Does this sound good? Please let me know if I have missed >> > anything >> > > > > here. If >> > > > > > > there are no concerns, I will start a vote tomorrow. I will >> also >> > > get >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > FLIP-356 wiki updated. Thanks everyone once again! >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards >> > > > > > > Venkata krishnan >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 8:19 PM Becket Qin < >> becket....@gmail.com >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Jark, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > How about having a separate NestedFieldReferenceExpression, >> and >> > > > > > > > > abstracting a common base class "ReferenceExpression" for >> > > > > > > > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression and >> FieldReferenceExpression? >> > > This >> > > > > makes >> > > > > > > > > unifying expressions in >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > "SupportsProjectionPushdown#applyProjections(List<ReferenceExpression> >> > > > > > > > > ...)" >> > > > > > > > > possible. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd be fine with this. It at least provides a consistent API >> > > style >> > > > / >> > > > > > > > formality. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Re: Yunhong, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 3. Finally, I think we need to look at the costs and >> benefits >> > of >> > > > > unifying >> > > > > > > > > the SupportsFilterPushDown and SupportsProjectionPushDown >> (or >> > > > > others) >> > > > > > > > from >> > > > > > > > > the perspective of interface implementers. A stable API >> can >> > > > reduce >> > > > > user >> > > > > > > > > development and change costs, if the current API can fully >> > meet >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > > functional requirements at the framework level, I personal >> > > > suggest >> > > > > > > > reducing >> > > > > > > > > the impact on connector developers. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree that the cost and benefit should be measured. And >> the >> > > > > measurement >> > > > > > > > should be in the long term instead of short term. That is >> why >> > we >> > > > > always >> > > > > > > > need to align on the ideal end state first. >> > > > > > > > Meeting functionality requirements is the bare minimum bar >> for >> > an >> > > > > API. >> > > > > > > > Simplicity, intuitiveness, robustness and evolvability are >> also >> > > > > important. >> > > > > > > > In addition, for projects with many APIs, such as Flink, a >> > > > > consistent API >> > > > > > > > style is also critical for the user adoption as well as bug >> > > > > avoidance. It >> > > > > > > > is very helpful for the community to agree on some API >> design >> > > > > conventions / >> > > > > > > > principles. >> > > > > > > > For example, in this particular case, via our discussion, >> > > hopefully >> > > > > we sort >> > > > > > > > of established the following API design conventions / >> > principles >> > > > for >> > > > > all >> > > > > > > > the Supports*PushDown interfaces. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. By default, expressions should be used if applicable >> instead >> > > of >> > > > > other >> > > > > > > > representations. >> > > > > > > > 2. In general, the pushdown method should not assume all the >> > > > > pushdowns will >> > > > > > > > succeed. So the applyX() method should return a boolean or >> > > List<X>, >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > handle the cases that some of the pushdowns cannot be >> fulfilled >> > > by >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > implementation. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Establishing such conventions and principles demands careful >> > > > > thinking for >> > > > > > > > the aspects I mentioned earlier in addition to the API >> > > > > functionalities. >> > > > > > > > This helps lower the bar of understanding, reduces the >> chance >> > of >> > > > > having >> > > > > > > > loose ends in the API, and will benefit all the >> participants in >> > > the >> > > > > project >> > > > > > > > over time. I think this is the right way to achieve real API >> > > > > stability. >> > > > > > > > Otherwise, we may end up chasing our tails to find ways not >> to >> > > > > change the >> > > > > > > > existing non-ideal APIs. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:33 AM yh z < >> zhengyunhon...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi, Venkat, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the FLIP, it sounds good to support nested >> fields >> > > > filter >> > > > > > > > > pushdown. Based on the design of flip and the above >> options, >> > I >> > > > > would like >> > > > > > > > > to make a few suggestions: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1. At present, introducing NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > looks >> > > > > like a >> > > > > > > > > better solution, which can fully meet our requirements >> while >> > > > > reducing >> > > > > > > > > modifications to base class FieldReferenceExpression. In >> the >> > > long >> > > > > run, I >> > > > > > > > > tend to abstract a basic class for >> > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > FieldReferenceExpression as u suggested. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2. Personally, I don't recommend introducing >> > > > > *supportsNestedFilters() in >> > > > > > > > > supportsFilterPushdown. We just need to better declare the >> > > return >> > > > > value >> > > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > the method *applyFilters. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 3. Finally, I think we need to look at the costs and >> benefits >> > > of >> > > > > unifying >> > > > > > > > > the SupportsFilterPushDown and SupportsProjectionPushDown >> (or >> > > > > others) >> > > > > > > > from >> > > > > > > > > the perspective of interface implementers. A stable API >> can >> > > > reduce >> > > > > user >> > > > > > > > > development and change costs, if the current API can fully >> > meet >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > > functional requirements at the framework level, I personal >> > > > suggest >> > > > > > > > reducing >> > > > > > > > > the impact on connector developers. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > > > > Yunhong Zheng (Swuferhong) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan <vsowr...@asu.edu> >> 于2023年8月25日周五 >> > > > > 01:25写道： >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > To keep it backwards compatible, introduce another API >> > > > > *applyAggregates >> > > > > > > > > > *with >> > > > > > > > > > *List<ReferenceExpression> *when nested field support is >> > > added >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > deprecate the current API. This will by default throw an >> > > > > exception. In >> > > > > > > > > > flink planner, *applyAggregates *with nested fields and >> if >> > it >> > > > > throws >> > > > > > > > > > exception then *applyAggregates* without nested fields. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Regards >> > > > > > > > > > Venkata krishnan >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 10:13 AM Venkatakrishnan >> > Sowrirajan < >> > > > > > > > > > vsowr...@asu.edu> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Jark, >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > How about having a separate >> > NestedFieldReferenceExpression, >> > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > >> abstracting a common base class "ReferenceExpression" >> > for >> > > > > > > > > > >> NestedFieldReferenceExpression and >> > > FieldReferenceExpression? >> > > > > This >> > > > > > > > > makes >> > > > > > > > > > >> unifying expressions in >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > "SupportsProjectionPushdown#applyProjections(List<ReferenceExpression> >> > > > > > > > > > >> ...)" >> > > > > > > > > > >> possible. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > This should be fine for *SupportsProjectionPushDown* >> and >> > > > > > > > > > > *SupportsFilterPushDown*. One concern in the case of >> > > > > > > > > > > *SupportsAggregatePushDown* with nested fields support >> > (to >> > > be >> > > > > added >> > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > > the future), with this proposal, the API will become >> > > > backwards >> > > > > > > > > > incompatible >> > > > > > > > > > > as the *args *for the aggregate function is >> > > > > > > > > > *List<FieldReferenceExpression> >> > > > > > > > > > > *that needs to change to *List<ReferenceExpression>*. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Regards >> > > > > > > > > > > Venkata krishnan >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:18 AM Jark Wu < >> > imj...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Becket, >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> I think it is the second case, that a >> > > > > FieldReferenceExpression is >> > > > > > > > > > >> constructed >> > > > > > > > > > >> by the framework and passed to the connector >> (interfaces >> > > > > listed by >> > > > > > > > > > >> Venkata[1] >> > > > > > > > > > >> and Catalog#listPartitionsByFilter). Besides, >> > > understanding >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> field >> > > > > > > > > > >> is optional for users/connectors (just treat it as an >> > > > unknown >> > > > > > > > > expression >> > > > > > > > > > >> if >> > > > > > > > > > >> the >> > > > > > > > > > >> connector doesn't want to support it). >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> If we extend FieldReferenceExpression, in the case of >> > > "where >> > > > > > > > > col.nested >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> 10", >> > > > > > > > > > >> for the connectors already supported filter/delete >> > > pushdown, >> > > > > they >> > > > > > > > may >> > > > > > > > > > >> wrongly >> > > > > > > > > > >> pushdown "col > 10" instead of "nested > 10" because >> > they >> > > > > still >> > > > > > > > treat >> > > > > > > > > > >> FieldReferenceExpression as a top-level column. This >> > > problem >> > > > > can be >> > > > > > > > > > >> resolved >> > > > > > > > > > >> by introducing an additional >> "supportedNestedPushdown" >> > for >> > > > > each >> > > > > > > > > > interface, >> > > > > > > > > > >> but that method is not elegant and is hard to remove >> in >> > > the >> > > > > future, >> > > > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > >> this could >> > > > > > > > > > >> be avoided if we have a separate >> > > > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression. >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> If we want to extend FieldReferenceExpression, we >> have >> > to >> > > > add >> > > > > > > > > > protections >> > > > > > > > > > >> for every related API in one shot. Besides, >> > > > > FieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > >> fundamental class in the planner, we have to go >> through >> > > all >> > > > > the code >> > > > > > > > > > that >> > > > > > > > > > >> is using it to make sure it properly handling it if >> it >> > is >> > > a >> > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > field >> > > > > > > > > > >> which >> > > > > > > > > > >> is a big effort for the community. >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> If we were designing this API on day 1, I fully >> support >> > > > > merging them >> > > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > >> FieldReferenceExpression. But in this case, I'm >> thinking >> > > > > about how >> > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > >> provide >> > > > > > > > > > >> users with a smooth migration path, and allow the >> > > community >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > > gradually >> > > > > > > > > > >> put efforts into evolving the API, and not block the >> > > "Nested >> > > > > Fields >> > > > > > > > > > Filter >> > > > > > > > > > >> Pushdown" >> > > > > > > > > > >> requirement. >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> How about having a separate >> > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression, >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > >> abstracting a common base class "ReferenceExpression" >> > for >> > > > > > > > > > >> NestedFieldReferenceExpression and >> > > FieldReferenceExpression? >> > > > > This >> > > > > > > > > makes >> > > > > > > > > > >> unifying expressions in >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > "SupportsProjectionPushdown#applyProjections(List<ReferenceExpression> >> > > > > > > > > > >> ...)" >> > > > > > > > > > >> possible. >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> Best, >> > > > > > > > > > >> Jark >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 07:00, Venkatakrishnan >> > Sowrirajan < >> > > > > > > > > > >> vsowr...@asu.edu> >> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Becket and Jark, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Deprecate all the other >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > methods except tryApplyFilters() and >> > > > > tryApplyProjections(). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > For *SupportsProjectionPushDown*, we still need a >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *supportsNestedProjections* API on the table >> source as >> > > > some >> > > > > of the >> > > > > > > > > > table >> > > > > > > > > > >> > sources might not be able to handle nested fields >> and >> > > > > therefore >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> Flink >> > > > > > > > > > >> > planner should not push down the nested >> projections or >> > > > else >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *applyProjection >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *API has to be appropriately changed to return >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *unconvertibleProjections *similar >> > > > > > > > > > >> > to *SupportsFilterPushDown*. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Or we have to introduce two different >> > applyProjections() >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > methods for FieldReferenceExpression / >> > > > > > > > > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > respectively. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Agree this is not preferred. Given that >> > > > > *supportNestedProjections >> > > > > > > > > > >> *cannot >> > > > > > > > > > >> > be deprecated/removed based on the current API >> form, >> > > > > extending >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *FieldReferenceExpression* to support nested fields >> > > should >> > > > > be >> > > > > > > > okay. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Another alternative could be to change >> > *applyProjections >> > > > > *to take >> > > > > > > > > > >> > List<ResolvedExpression> and on the connector side >> > they >> > > > > choose to >> > > > > > > > > > handle >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *FieldReferenceExpression* and >> > > > > *NestedFieldReferenceExpression *as >> > > > > > > > > > >> > applicable and return the remainingProjections. In >> the >> > > > case >> > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> field >> > > > > > > > > > >> > projections not supported, it should return them >> back >> > > but >> > > > > only >> > > > > > > > > > >> projecting >> > > > > > > > > > >> > the top level fields. IMO, this is also *not >> > preferred*. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *SupportsAggregatePushDown* >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *AggregateExpression *currently takes in a list of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *FieldReferenceExpression* as args for the >> aggregate >> > > > > function, if >> > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> future >> > > > > > > > > > >> > *SupportsAggregatePushDown* adds support for >> aggregate >> > > > > pushdown on >> > > > > > > > > > >> nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > fields then the AggregateExpression API also has to >> > > change >> > > > > if a >> > > > > > > > new >> > > > > > > > > > >> > NestedFieldReferenceExpression is introduced for >> > nested >> > > > > fields. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > If we add a >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > flag for each new filter, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the interface will be filled with lots of flags >> > (e.g., >> > > > > > > > > > >> supportsBetween, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > supportsIN) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > In an ideal situation, I completely agree with you. >> > But >> > > in >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > current >> > > > > > > > > > >> > state, *supportsNestedFilters* can act as a bridge >> to >> > > > reach >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > eventual >> > > > > > > > > > >> > desired state which is to have a clean and >> consistent >> > > set >> > > > > of APIs >> > > > > > > > > > >> > throughout all Supports*PushDown. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Also shared some thoughts on the end state API >> > > > > > > > > > >> > < >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1stLRPKOcxlEv8eHblkrOh0Zf5PLM-h76WMhEINHOyPY/edit?usp=sharing__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!ZZ2nS1PYlXLnEGFcikS3NsYG7tMaV3wU_z7FmvihNwQBmoLZk2WmcpuRWszK0FFmsInh9A6cndkJrQ$ >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > with extension to the *FieldReferenceExpression* to >> > > > support >> > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> fields. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Please take a look. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Regards >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Venkata krishnan >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 5:02 PM Becket Qin < >> > > > > becket....@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Jark, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Regarding the migration path, it would be useful >> to >> > > > > scrutinize >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > use >> > > > > > > > > > >> > case >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > of FiledReferenceExpression and >> ResolvedExpressions. >> > > > > There are >> > > > > > > > two >> > > > > > > > > > >> kinds >> > > > > > > > > > >> > of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > use cases: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > 1. A ResolvedExpression is constructed by the >> user >> > or >> > > > > connector >> > > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > > > > >> plugin >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > developers. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > 2. A ResolvedExpression is constructed by the >> > > framework >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > passed >> > > > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > >> > user >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > or connector / plugin developers. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > For the first case, both of the approaches >> provide >> > the >> > > > > same >> > > > > > > > > > migration >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > experience. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > For the second case, generally speaking, >> introducing >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression and extending >> > > > > > > > > > FieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > >> > would >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > have the same impact for backwards compatibility. >> > > > > > > > > > >> SupportsFilterPushDown >> > > > > > > > > > >> > is >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > a special case here because understanding the >> filter >> > > > > expressions >> > > > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > optional for the source implementation. In other >> use >> > > > > cases, if >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > understanding the reference to a nested field is >> a >> > > must >> > > > > have, >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > user >> > > > > > > > > > >> > code >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > has to be changed, regardless of which approach >> we >> > > take >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > support >> > > > > > > > > > >> nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > fields. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Therefore, I think we have to check each public >> API >> > > > where >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > field >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > reference is exposed. If we have many public APIs >> > > where >> > > > > > > > > > understanding >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > nested fields is optional for the user / plugin >> / >> > > > > connector >> > > > > > > > > > >> developers, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > having a separate NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > would >> > > > > have a >> > > > > > > > more >> > > > > > > > > > >> smooth >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > migration. Otherwise, there seems to be no >> > difference >> > > > > between >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > two >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > approaches. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Migration path aside, the main reason I prefer >> > > extending >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > FieldReferenceExpression over a new >> > > > > > > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > because this makes the SupportsProjectionPushDown >> > > > > interface >> > > > > > > > > simpler. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Otherwise, we have to treat it as a special case >> > that >> > > > > does not >> > > > > > > > > match >> > > > > > > > > > >> the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > overall API style. Or we have to introduce two >> > > different >> > > > > > > > > > >> > applyProjections() >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > methods for FieldReferenceExpression / >> > > > > > > > > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > respectively. This issue further extends to >> > > > > implementation in >> > > > > > > > > > >> addition to >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > public API. A single FieldReferenceExpression >> might >> > > help >> > > > > > > > simplify >> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > implementation code a little bit. For example, >> in a >> > > > > recursive >> > > > > > > > > > >> processing >> > > > > > > > > > >> > of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > a row with nested rows, we may not need to switch >> > > > between >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > FieldReferenceExpression and >> > > > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > depending >> > > > > > > > > > >> on >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > whether the record being processed is a top level >> > > record >> > > > > or >> > > > > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > record. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 11:43 PM Jark Wu < >> > > > > imj...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Becket, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I totally agree we should try to have a >> consistent >> > > API >> > > > > for a >> > > > > > > > > final >> > > > > > > > > > >> > state. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The only concern I have mentioned is the >> "smooth" >> > > > > migration >> > > > > > > > > path. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The FiledReferenceExpression is widely used in >> > many >> > > > > public >> > > > > > > > APIs, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > not only in the SupportsFilterPushDown. Yes, we >> > can >> > > > > change >> > > > > > > > every >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > methods in 2-steps, but is it good to change >> API >> > > back >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > forth >> > > > > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > >> > this? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Personally, I'm fine with a separate >> > > > > > > > > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > class. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > TBH, I prefer the separated way because it >> makes >> > the >> > > > > reference >> > > > > > > > > > >> > expression >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > more clear and concise. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Jark >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 at 16:53, Becket Qin < >> > > > > > > > becket....@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the reply, Jark. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I think it will be helpful to understand the >> > final >> > > > > state we >> > > > > > > > > want >> > > > > > > > > > >> to >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > eventually achieve first, then we can discuss >> > the >> > > > > steps >> > > > > > > > > towards >> > > > > > > > > > >> that >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > final >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > state. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > It looks like there are two proposed end >> states >> > > now: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > 1. Have a separate >> > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > class; >> > > > > > > > keep >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > SupportsFilterPushDown and >> > > > SupportsProjectionPushDown >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > same. >> > > > > > > > > > >> It is >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > just >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > a one step change. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > - Regarding the >> > supportsNestedFilterPushDown() >> > > > > method, if >> > > > > > > > > our >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > contract >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > with the connector developer today is "The >> > > > > implementation >> > > > > > > > > should >> > > > > > > > > > >> > ignore >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > unrecognized expressions by putting them into >> > the >> > > > > remaining >> > > > > > > > > > >> filters, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > instead of throwing exceptions". Then there >> is >> > no >> > > > > need for >> > > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > method. I >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > am not sure about the current contract. We >> > should >> > > > > probably >> > > > > > > > > make >> > > > > > > > > > it >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > clear >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > the interface Java doc. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > 2. Extend the existing >> FiledReferenceExpression >> > > > class >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > support >> > > > > > > > > > >> > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > fields; SupportsFilterPushDown only has one >> > method >> > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > applyFilters(List<ResolvedExpression>); >> > > > > > > > > > SupportsProjectionPushDown >> > > > > > > > > > >> > only >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > has >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > one method of >> > > > > > > > applyProjections(List<FieldReferenceExpression>, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > DataType). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > It could just be two steps if we are not too >> > > > obsessed >> > > > > with >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> exact >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > names >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > of "applyFilters" and "applyProjections". >> More >> > > > > specifically, >> > > > > > > > > it >> > > > > > > > > > >> takes >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > two >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > steps to achieve this final state: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > a. introduce a new method >> > > > > > > > > > >> > tryApplyFilters(List<ResolvedExpression>) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > SupportsFilterPushDown, which may have >> > > > > > > > > FiledReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > >> with >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > fields. The default implementation throws an >> > > > > exception. The >> > > > > > > > > > >> runtime >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > will >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > first call tryApplyFilters() with nested >> fields. >> > > In >> > > > > case of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > exception, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > it >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > calls the existing applyFilters() without >> > > including >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > filters. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Similarly, in SupportsProjectionPushDown, >> > > introduce >> > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> tryApplyProjections<List<NestedFieldReference> >> > > > method >> > > > > > > > > returning >> > > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Result. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The Result also contains the accepted and >> > > > unapplicable >> > > > > > > > > > >> projections. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > The >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > default implementation also throws an >> exception. >> > > > > Deprecate >> > > > > > > > all >> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > other >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > methods except tryApplyFilters() and >> > > > > tryApplyProjections(). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > b. remove the deprecated methods in the >> next >> > > > major >> > > > > > > > version >> > > > > > > > > > >> bump. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Now the question is putting the migration >> steps >> > > > > aside, which >> > > > > > > > > end >> > > > > > > > > > >> > state >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > do >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > we prefer? While the first end state is >> > acceptable >> > > > > for me, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > personally, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > prefer the latter if we are designing from >> > > scratch. >> > > > > It is >> > > > > > > > > clean, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > consistent >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > and intuitive. Given the size of Flink, >> keeping >> > > APIs >> > > > > in the >> > > > > > > > > same >> > > > > > > > > > >> > style >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > over >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > time is important. The migration is also not >> > that >> > > > > > > > complicated. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 2:23 PM Jark Wu < >> > > > > imj...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Venkat, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the proposal. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have some minor comments about the FLIP. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. I think we don't need to >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > add >> > > SupportsFilterPushDown#supportsNestedFilters() >> > > > > method, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > because connectors can skip nested filters >> by >> > > > > putting them >> > > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Result#remainingFilters(). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > And this is backward-compatible because >> > unknown >> > > > > > > > expressions >> > > > > > > > > > were >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > added >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the remaining filters. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Planner should push predicate expressions >> as >> > > more >> > > > as >> > > > > > > > > possible. >> > > > > > > > > > >> If >> > > > > > > > > > >> > we >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > add >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > flag for each new filter, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the interface will be filled with lots of >> > flags >> > > > > (e.g., >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > supportsBetween, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > supportsIN). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. >> > > NestedFieldReferenceExpression#nestedFieldName >> > > > > should >> > > > > > > > be >> > > > > > > > > an >> > > > > > > > > > >> > array >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > field names? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Each string represents a field name part of >> > the >> > > > > field >> > > > > > > > path. >> > > > > > > > > > Just >> > > > > > > > > > >> > keep >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > aligning with `nestedFieldIndexArray`. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 3. My concern about making >> > > > FieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > support >> > > > > > > > > > >> nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > fields >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is the compatibility. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > It is a public API and users/connectors are >> > > > already >> > > > > using >> > > > > > > > > it. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > People >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > assumed it is a top-level column >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > reference, and applied logic on it. But >> that's >> > > not >> > > > > true >> > > > > > > > now >> > > > > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > >> > this >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > may >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > lead to unexpected errors. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Having a separate >> > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > sounds >> > > > > > > > > safer >> > > > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > >> > me. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Mixing >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > them in a class may >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > confuse users what's the meaning of >> > > > getFieldName() >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > getFieldIndex(). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding using >> NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > SupportsProjectionPushDown, do you >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > have any concerns @Timo Walther < >> > > > twal...@apache.org> >> > > > > ? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Jark >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 at 05:55, >> Venkatakrishnan >> > > > > Sowrirajan < >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > vsowr...@asu.edu >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sounds like a great suggestion, Becket. >> +1. >> > > > Agree >> > > > > with >> > > > > > > > > > >> cleaning >> > > > > > > > > > >> > up >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > APIs >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > and making it consistent in all the >> pushdown >> > > > APIs. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Your suggested approach seems fine to me, >> > > unless >> > > > > anyone >> > > > > > > > > else >> > > > > > > > > > >> has >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > any >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > other >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > concerns. Just have couple of clarifying >> > > > > questions: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. Do you think we should standardize the >> > APIs >> > > > > across >> > > > > > > > all >> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > pushdown >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > supports like SupportsPartitionPushdown, >> > > > > > > > > > >> SupportsDynamicFiltering >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > etc >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the end state? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The current proposal works if we do not >> want >> > > to >> > > > > migrate >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > SupportsFilterPushdown to also use >> > > > > > > > > > >> > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > long term. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Did you mean *FieldReferenceExpression* >> > > instead >> > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > *NestedFieldReferenceExpression*? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2. Extend the FieldReferenceExpression to >> > > > support >> > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> fields. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - Change the index field type from >> int >> > > to >> > > > > int[]. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > - Add a new method int[] >> > > > getFieldIndexArray(). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - Deprecate the int getFieldIndex() >> > > > method, >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > code >> > > > > > > > > > >> will >> > > > > > > > > > >> > be >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > removed >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the next major version bump. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I assume getFieldIndex would return >> > > > > fieldIndexArray[0], >> > > > > > > > > > right? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Venkat >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 4:47 PM Becket >> Qin < >> > > > > > > > > > >> becket....@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal, Venkata. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The current proposal works if we do not >> > want >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > migrate >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > SupportsFilterPushdown to also use >> > > > > > > > > > >> > NestedFieldReferenceExpression >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > long term. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Did you mean *FieldReferenceExpression* >> > > instead >> > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > *NestedFieldReferenceExpression*? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Otherwise, the alternative solution >> > briefly >> > > > > mentioned >> > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > rejected >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > alternatives would be the following: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Phase 1: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. Introduce a supportsNestedFilters() >> > > method >> > > > > to the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SupportsFilterPushdown >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interface. (same as current proposal). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2. Extend the FieldReferenceExpression >> to >> > > > > support >> > > > > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > fields. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - Change the index field type from >> int >> > > to >> > > > > int[]. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > - Add a new method int[] >> > > > getFieldIndexArray(). >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - Deprecate the int getFieldIndex() >> > > > method, >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > code >> > > > > > > > > > >> will >> > > > > > > > > > >> > be >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > removed >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the next major version bump. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3. In the SupportsProjectionPushDown >> > interface >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - add a new method >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> applyProjection(List<FieldReferenceExpression>, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DataType), with default implementation >> > > > invoking >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > applyProjection(int[][], >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DataType) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - deprecate the current >> > > > > applyProjection(int[][], >> > > > > > > > > > >> DataType) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > method >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Phase 2 (in the next major version >> bump) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. remove the deprecated methods. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Phase 3 (optional) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. deprecate and remove the >> > > > > supportsNestedFilters() / >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > supportsNestedProjection() methods from >> > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > SupportsFilterPushDown >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > / >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > SupportsProjectionPushDown interfaces. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Personally I prefer this alternative. >> It >> > > takes >> > > > > longer >> > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > >> finish >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > work, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but the API eventually becomes clean >> and >> > > > > consistent. >> > > > > > > > > But I >> > > > > > > > > > >> can >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > live >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > with >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the current proposal. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 12:09 AM >> > > > Venkatakrishnan >> > > > > > > > > > Sowrirajan >> > > > > > > > > > >> < >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > vsowr...@asu.edu> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Gentle ping for reviews/feedback. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, 5:37 PM >> > > > Venkatakrishnan >> > > > > > > > > > Sowrirajan < >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > vsowr...@asu.edu >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi All, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I am opening this thread to discuss >> > > > > FLIP-356: >> > > > > > > > > Support >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Fields >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Filter Pushdown. The FLIP can be >> found >> > > at >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-356*3A*Support*Nested*Fields*Filter*Pushdown__;JSsrKysr!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!clxXJwshKpn559SAkQiieqgGe0ZduXCzUKCmYLtFIbQLmrmEEgdmuEIM8ZM1M3O_uGqOploU4ailqGpukAg$ >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > This FLIP adds support for pushing >> > down >> > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > fields >> > > > > > > > > > >> > filters >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > underlying TableSource. In our data >> > > lake, >> > > > > we find >> > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > lot >> > > > > > > > > > >> of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > datasets >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > nested fields and also user queries >> > with >> > > > > filters >> > > > > > > > > > >> defined on >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > fields. This would drastically >> improve >> > > the >> > > > > > > > > performance >> > > > > > > > > > >> for >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > those >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sets >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > queries. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Appreciate any comments or feedback >> > you >> > > > may >> > > > > have >> > > > > > > > on >> > > > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > proposal. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Regards >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Venkata krishnan >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
