Hi Becket, I share the same view as you regarding the prefix for this configuration option.
For the JDBC connector, I prefer setting 'filter.handling.policy' = 'FOO' and throwing an exception when the database do not support that specific policy. Not using a prefix can reduce the learning curve for users and avoid introducing a new set of configuration options for every supported JDBC database. I think the policies we provide can be compatible with most databases that follow the JDBC protocol. However, there may be cases where certain databases cannot support some policies. Nevertheless, we can ensure fast failure and allow users to choose a suitable policy in such situations. I have removed the contents about the configuration prefix. Please help review it again. Thanks, Jiabao > 2023年12月19日 19:46，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： > > Hi Jiabao, > > Thanks for updating the FLIP. > > One more question regarding the JDBC connector, since it is a connector > shared by multiple databases, what if there is a filter handling policy > that is only applicable to one of the databases, but not the others? In > that case, how would the users specify that policy? > Unlike the example of orc format with 2nd+ level config, JDBC connector > only looks at the URL to decide which driver to use. > > For example, MySql supports policy FOO while other databases do not. If > users want to use FOO for MySql, what should they do? Will they set > '*mysql.filter.hanlding.policy' > = 'FOO', *which will only be picked up when the MySql driver is used? > Or they should just set* 'filter.handling.policy' = 'FOO', *and throw > exceptions when other JDBC drivers are used? Personally, I prefer the > latter. If we pick that, do we still need to mention the following? > > *The prefix is needed when the option is for a 2nd+ level. * >> 'connector' = 'filesystem', >> 'format' = 'orc', >> 'orc.filter.handling.policy' = 'NUBERIC_ONY' >> >> *In this case, the values of this configuration may be different depending >> on the format option. For example, orc format may have INDEXED_ONLY while >> parquet format may have something else. * >> > > I found this is somewhat misleading, because the example here is not a part > of the proposal of this FLIP. It is just an example explaining when a > prefix is needed, which seems orthogonal to the proposal in this FLIP. > > Thanks, > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:09 AM Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn.invalid> > wrote: > >> Thanks Becket for the suggestions, >> >> Updated. >> Please help review it again when you have time. >> >> Best, >> Jiabao >> >> >>> 2023年12月19日 09:06，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： >>> >>> Hi JIabao, >>> >>> Thanks for updating the FLIP. It looks better. Some suggestions / >> questions: >>> >>> 1. In the motivation section: >>> >>>> *Currently, Flink Table/SQL does not expose fine-grained control for >> users >>>> to control filter pushdown. **However, filter pushdown has some side >>>> effects, such as additional computational pressure on external >>>> systems. Moreover, Improper queries can lead to issues such as full >> table >>>> scans, which in turn can impact the stability of external systems.* >>> >>> This statement sounds like the side effects are there for all the >> systems, >>> which is inaccurate. Maybe we can say: >>> *Currently, Flink Table/SQL does not expose fine-grained control for >> users >>> to control filter pushdown. **However, filter pushdown may have side >>> effects in some cases, **such as additional computational pressure on >>> external systems. The JDBC source is a typical example of that. If a >> filter >>> is pushed down to the database, an expensive full table scan may happen >> if >>> the filter involves unindexed columns.* >>> >>> 2. Regarding the prefix, usually a prefix is not required for the top >> level >>> connector options. This is because the *connector* option is already >> there. >>> So >>> 'connector' = 'jdbc', >>> 'filter.handling.policy' = 'ALWAYS' >>> is sufficient. >>> >>> The prefix is needed when the option is for a 2nd+ level. For example, >>> 'connector' = 'jdbc', >>> 'format' = 'orc', >>> 'orc.some.option' = 'some_value' >>> In this case, the prefix of "orc" is needed to make it clear this option >> is >>> for the format. >>> >>> I am guessing that the reason that currently the connector prefix is >> there >>> is because the values of this configuration may be different depending on >>> the connectors. For example, jdbc may have INDEXED_ONLY while MongoDB may >>> have something else. Personally speaking, I am fine if we do not have a >>> prefix in this case because users have already specified the connector >> type >>> and it is intuitive enough that the option value is for that connector, >> not >>> others. >>> >>> 3. can we clarify on the following statement: >>> >>>> *Introduce the native configuration [prefix].filter.handling.policy in >> the >>>> connector.* >>> >>> What do you mean by "native configuration"? From what I understand, the >>> FLIP does the following: >>> - introduces a new configuration to the JDBC and MongoDB connector. >>> - Suggests a convention option name if other connectors are going to add >> an >>> option for the same purpose. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 5:45 PM Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >> .invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Becket, >>>> >>>> The FLIP document[1] has been updated. >>>> Could you help take a look again? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Jiabao >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=276105768 >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2023年12月18日 16:53，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： >>>>> >>>>> Yes, that sounds reasonable to me. We can start with ALWAYS and NEVER, >>>> and >>>>> add more policies as needed. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 4:48 PM Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>> .invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Bucket, >>>>>> >>>>>> The jdbc.filter.handling.policy is good to me as it provides >> sufficient >>>>>> extensibility for future filter pushdown optimizations. >>>>>> However, currently, we don't have an implementation for the AUTO mode, >>>> and >>>>>> it seems that the AUTO mode can easily be confused with the ALWAYS >> mode >>>>>> because users don't have the opportunity to MANUALLY decide which >>>> filters >>>>>> to push down. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest that we only introduce the ALWAYS and NEVER modes for now, >> and >>>>>> we can consider introducing more flexible policies in the future, >>>>>> such as INDEX_ONLY, NUMBERIC_ONLY and so on. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2023年12月18日 16:27，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please see the reply inline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The MySQL connector is currently in the flink-connector-jdbc >>>> repository >>>>>>>> and is not a standalone connector. >>>>>>>> Is it too unique to use "mysql" as the configuration option prefix? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the intended behavior makes sense to all the supported JDBC >> drivers, >>>>>> we >>>>>>> can make this a JDBC connector configuration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, I would like to ask about the difference in behavior between >> AUTO >>>>>> and >>>>>>>> ALWAYS. >>>>>>>> It seems that we cannot guarantee the pushing down of all filters to >>>> the >>>>>>>> external system under the ALWAYS >>>>>>>> mode because not all filters in Flink SQL are supported by the >>>> external >>>>>>>> system. >>>>>>>> Should we throw an error when encountering a filter that cannot be >>>>>> pushed >>>>>>>> down in the ALWAYS mode? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea of AUTO is to do efficiency-aware pushdowns. The source will >>>>>> query >>>>>>> the external system (MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server, etc) first to >> retrieve >>>>>> the >>>>>>> information of the table. With that information, the source will >> decide >>>>>>> whether to further push a filter to the external system based on the >>>>>>> efficiency. E.g. only push the indexed fields. In contrast, ALWAYS >> will >>>>>>> just always push the supported filters to the external system, >>>> regardless >>>>>>> of the efficiency. In case there are filters that are not supported, >>>>>>> according to the current contract of SupportsFilterPushdown, these >>>>>>> unsupported filters should just be returned by the >>>>>>> *SupportsFilterPushdown.applyFilters()* method as remaining filters. >>>>>>> Therefore, there is no need to throw exceptions here. This is likely >>>> the >>>>>>> desired behavior for most users, IMO. If there are cases that users >>>>>> really >>>>>>> want to get alerted when a filter cannot be pushed to the external >>>>>> system, >>>>>>> we can add another value like "ENFORCED_ALWAYS", which behaves like >>>>>> ALWAYS, >>>>>>> but throws exceptions when a filter cannot be applied to the external >>>>>>> system. But personally I don't see much value in doing this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:54 PM Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Becket, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The MySQL connector is currently in the flink-connector-jdbc >>>> repository >>>>>>>> and is not a standalone connector. >>>>>>>> Is it too unique to use "mysql" as the configuration option prefix? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, I would like to ask about the difference in behavior between >>>> AUTO >>>>>>>> and ALWAYS. >>>>>>>> It seems that we cannot guarantee the pushing down of all filters to >>>> the >>>>>>>> external system under the ALWAYS >>>>>>>> mode because not all filters in Flink SQL are supported by the >>>> external >>>>>>>> system. >>>>>>>> Should we throw an error when encountering a filter that cannot be >>>>>> pushed >>>>>>>> down in the ALWAYS mode? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2023年12月18日 15:34，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi JIabao, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for updating the FLIP. Maybe I did not explain it clearly >>>>>> enough. >>>>>>>> My >>>>>>>>> point is that given there are various good flavors of behaviors >>>>>> handling >>>>>>>>> filters pushed down, we should not have a common config of >>>>>>>>> "ignore.filter.pushdown", because the behavior is not *common*. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It looks like the original motivation of this FLIP is just for >> MySql. >>>>>>>> Let's >>>>>>>>> focus on what is the best solution for MySql connector here first. >>>>>> After >>>>>>>>> that, if people think the best behavior for MySql happens to be a >>>>>> common >>>>>>>>> one, we can then discuss whether that is worth being added to the >>>> base >>>>>>>>> implementation of source. For MySQL, if we are going to introduce a >>>>>>>> config >>>>>>>>> to MySql, why not have something like >> "mysql.filter.handling.policy" >>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> value of AUTO / NEVER / ALWAYS? Isn't that better than >>>>>>>>> "ignore.filter.pushdown"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:30 PM Jiabao Sun < >> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Becket, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The FLIP document has been updated as well. >>>>>>>>>> Please take a look when you have time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月17日 22:54，Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn.INVALID> >> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Becket, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I apologize for not being able to continue with this proposal due >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> being too busy during this period. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The viewpoints you shared about the design of Flink Source make >>>> sense >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>> The native configuration ‘ignore.filter.pushdown’ is good to me. >>>>>>>>>>> Having a unified name or naming style can indeed prevent >> confusion >>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> users regarding >>>>>>>>>>> the inconsistent naming of this configuration across different >>>>>>>>>> connectors. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Currently, there are not many external connectors that support >>>> filter >>>>>>>>>> pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>> I propose that we first introduce it in flink-connector-jdbc and >>>>>>>>>> flink-connector-mongodb. >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think this is feasible? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年11月16日 17:45，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Arguments like "because Spark has it so Flink should also have >> it" >>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> make sense. Different projects have different API flavors and >>>>>> styles. >>>>>>>>>> What >>>>>>>>>>>> is really important is the rationale and the design principle >>>> behind >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> API. They should conform to the convention of the project. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, Spark Source API itself has a few issues and they >>>>>> ended >>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce DataSource V2 in Spark 3.0, which added the decorative >>>>>>>>>> interfaces >>>>>>>>>>>> like SupportsPushdownXXX. Some of the configurations predating >>>>>>>>>> DataSource >>>>>>>>>>>> V2 may still be there. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For the Spark configurations you mentioned, they are all the >>>>>>>>>> configurations >>>>>>>>>>>> for FileScanBuilder, which is equivalent to FileSource in Flink. >>>>>>>>>> Currently, >>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of the format (ORC, Parquet, Avro, etc), the >> FileSource >>>>>>>>>> pushes >>>>>>>>>>>> back all the filters to ensure correctness. The actual filters >>>> that >>>>>>>> got >>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the specific format might still be different. This >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation is the same in FileScanBuilder.pushFilters() for >>>>>>>> Spark. I >>>>>>>>>>>> don't know why Spark got separate configurations for each >> format. >>>>>>>> Maybe >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> is because the filters are actually implemented differently for >>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>> format. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> At least for the current implementation in FileScanBuilder, >> these >>>>>>>>>>>> configurations can be merged to one configuration like >>>>>>>>>>>> `apply.filters.to.format.enabled`. Note that this config, as >> well >>>> as >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> separate configs you mentioned, are just visible and used by the >>>>>>>>>>>> FileScanBuilder. It determines whether the filters should be >>>> passed >>>>>>>>>> down to >>>>>>>>>>>> the format of the FileScanBuilder instance. Regardless of the >>>> value >>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> these configs, FileScanBuilder.pushFilters() will always be >>>> called, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> FileScanBuilder (as well as FileSource in Flink) will always >> push >>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> the filters to the framework. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A MySql source can have a very different way to handle this. For >>>>>>>>>> example, A >>>>>>>>>>>> MySql source A config in this case might be "my.apply.filters" >>>> with >>>>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>>>>>> different values: >>>>>>>>>>>> - AUTO: The Source will issue a DESC Table request to understand >>>>>>>>>> whether a >>>>>>>>>>>> filter can be applied efficiently. And decide which filters can >> be >>>>>>>>>> applied >>>>>>>>>>>> and which cannot based on that. >>>>>>>>>>>> - NEVER: Never apply filtering. It will always do a full table >>>> read >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> let Flink do the filtering. >>>>>>>>>>>> - ALWAYS: Always apply the filtering to the MySql server. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the above examples of FileSource and MySql Source, I don't >>>> think >>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>> good idea to shoehorn the behaviors into a naive config of >>>>>>>>>>>> `ignore.filter.pushdown`. That is why I don't think this is a >>>> common >>>>>>>>>> config. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To recap, like I said, I do agree that in some cases, we may >> want >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> behave >>>>>>>>>>>> differently when filters are pushed down to the sources, even >> if a >>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>> implements SupportsFilterPushDown, but I don't think there is a >>>>>>>> suitable >>>>>>>>>>>> common config for this. The behavior is very likely source >>>> specific. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 3:41 PM Jiabao Sun < >>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Becket, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I still believe that adding a configuration at the source level >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>>>>>> filter pushdown is needed. This demand exists in spark as >>>> well[1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In Spark, most sources that support filter pushdown provide >> their >>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding configuration options to enable or disable filter >>>>>>>>>> pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>> For PRs[2-4] that support filter pushdown capability, they also >>>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration options to disable this capability. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe this configuration is applicable to most scenarios, >> and >>>>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>>>>>>> no need to dwell on why this configuration option was not >>>>>> introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier than the SupportsFilterPushDown interface. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> spark.sql.parquet.filterPushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>> spark.sql.orc.filterPushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>> spark.sql.csv.filterPushdown.enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>> spark.sql.json.filterPushdown.enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>> spark.sql.avro.filterPushdown.enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>> JDBC Option: pushDownPredicate >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can see that the lack of consistency is caused by each >>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing different configuration options for the same >>>> behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the motivations for advocating the introduction >>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> unified configuration name. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-24288 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/27366 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/26973 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/29145 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年11月16日 08:10，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While we can always fix the formality of the config, a more >>>>>>>>>> fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue here is whether this configuration is common enough. >>>>>>>> Personally >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not convinced it is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember we don't have a common implementation for >>>>>>>>>> SupportsFilterPushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself. Why does a potential behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SupportsFilterPushdown.applyFilters() method deserve a common >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration? A common implementation should always come >> first, >>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration becomes a common configuration as a natural >>>> result. >>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are trying to add an impl to a configuration just to fix >> its >>>>>>>>>>>>> formality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that there might be a few Source implementations that >>>> may >>>>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid additional burdens on the remote system in some >>>>>> circumstances. >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>>>>> these circumstances are very specific: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The source talks to a remote service that can help perform >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtering. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The filtering done by the remote service is inefficient for >>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g. missing index) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. The external service does not want to perform the >> inefficient >>>>>>>>>>>>> filtering >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some reason (e.g. it is a shared service with others) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are multiple approaches to address the issue. Pushing >> back >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> filters is just one way of achieving this. So here we are >>>> talking >>>>>>>>>> about a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> config for one of the possible solutions to a scenario with >> all >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> above >>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations. I don't think there is enough justification for >> the >>>>>>>>>> config to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be common. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is always this trade-off between the proliferation of >>>> public >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces and the API standardization. As an extreme example, >>>> we >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our public API a union of all the configs potentially used in >>>> all >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the name of standardization. Apparently this won't work. So >>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a bar here and this bar might be somewhat subjective. For >>>> this >>>>>>>>>> FLIP, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally I don't think the config meets my bar for the >> reason >>>>>>>> stated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, my suggestion remains the same. Keep the config as >> a >>>>>>>> Source >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation specific configuration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:36 AM Jiabao Sun < >>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Becket for the feedback, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding concerns about common configurations, I think we >> can >>>>>>>>>> introduce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FiltersApplier to unify the behavior of various connectors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static class FiltersApplier { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private final ReadableConfig config; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private final Function<List<ResolvedExpression>, Result> >>>> action; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private FiltersApplier( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ReadableConfig config, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Function<List<ResolvedExpression>, Result> action) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.config = config; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.action = action; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public Result applyFilters(List<ResolvedExpression> filters) >> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (config.get(ENABLE_FILTER_PUSH_DOWN)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return action.apply(filters); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } else { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Result.of(Collections.emptyList(), filters); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static FiltersApplier of( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ReadableConfig config, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Function<List<ResolvedExpression>, Result> action) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return new FiltersApplier(config, action); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For connectors implementation: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public Result applyFilters(List<ResolvedExpression> filters) >> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return FiltersApplier.of(config, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> f -> Result.of(new ArrayList<>(filters), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Collections.emptyList())); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the name, whether it is >>>> "source.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "source.ignore-pushed-down-filters.enabled", I think both are >>>>>> okay. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think this change is feasible? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年11月15日 23:44，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I still have concerns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The FLIP violates the following two principles regarding >>>>>>>>>> configuration: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.* A config of a class should never negate the semantic of >> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> decorative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface implemented by that class. * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A decorative interface is a public contract with other >>>>>> components, >>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config is only internal to the class itself. The >>>> configurations >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sources are not (and should never be) visible or understood >> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other components (e.g. optimizer). A configuration of a >> Source >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controls the behavior of that Source, provided it is not >>>>>> violating >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contract / semantic defined by the decorative interface. So >>>>>> when a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation implements SupportsFilterPushdown, this is a >>>>>> clear >>>>>>>>>>>>> public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contract with Flink that filters should be pushed down to >> that >>>>>>>>>> Source. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, for the same source, there should not be a >>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "source.filter-push-down.enabled" which stops the filters >> from >>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to that Source. However, that specific source >>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own config to control its internal behavior, e.g. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ignore-pushed-down-filters.enabled" which may push back all >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> pushed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down filters back to the Flink optimizer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. When we are talking about "common configs", in fact we >> are >>>>>>>>>> talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "configs for common (abstract) implementation classes". With >>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context, *a common config should always be backed by a >> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation class, so that consistent behavior can be >>>>>>>>>> guaranteed. * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LookupOptions you mentioned are configurations defined >> for >>>>>>>>>> classes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultLookupCache / PeriodicCacheReloadTrigger / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimedCacheReloadTrigger. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These configs are considered as "common" only because the >>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes using them are common building blocks for lookup >> table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations. It would not make sense to have a dangling >>>>>> config >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LookupOptions without the underlying common implementation >>>>>> class, >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relies on a specific source to implement the stated >> behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a bad example, there is this outlier config "max-retries" >>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LookupOptions, which I don't think should be here. This is >>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retry behavior can be very implementation specific. For >>>> example, >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be many different flavors of retry related configurations, >>>>>>>>>>>>> retry-backoff, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retry-timeout, retry-async, etc. Why only max-retry is put >>>> here? >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them be put here? If we put all such kinds of configs in >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configs for "standardization and unification", the number of >>>>>>>> "common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configs" can easily go crazy. And I don't see material >>>> benefits >>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. So here I don't think the configuration "max-retry" >>>> should >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LookupOptions, because it is not backed by any common >>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes. If max-retry is implemented in the HBase source, it >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>> stay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. For the same reason, the config proposed in this FLIP >>>>>>>>>> (probably >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a name less confusing for the first reason mentioned above) >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>> stay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the specific Source implementation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the two reasons above, I am -1 to what the FLIP >> currently >>>>>>>>>> proposes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the right way to address the motivation here is >> still >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config like "ignore-pushed-down-filters.enabled" for the >>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. Please let me know if this solves the >> problem >>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 11:52 AM Jiabao Sun < >>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Becket, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of introducing this configuration is that not >> all >>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdowns can improve overall performance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the filter can hit the external index, then pushdown is >>>>>>>>>> definitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worth it, as it can not only improve query time but also >>>>>> decrease >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overhead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, for filters that do not hit the external index, it >>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of performance overhead on the external system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Undeniably, if the connector can make accurate decisions >> for >>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filters, we may not need to introduce this configuration >>>> option >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing down filters to the external system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, it is currently not easy to achieve. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, supporting filter pushdown does not mean that always >>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is better. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the absence of automatic decision-making, I think we >>>> should >>>>>>>>>> leave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision to users. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The newly introduced configuration option is similar to >>>>>>>>>> LookupOptions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing unified naming and default values to avoid >>>> confusion >>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent naming in different connectors for users. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Setting the default value to true allows it to maintain >>>>>>>>>> compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the default behavior of "always pushdown". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any other concerns about this proposal? Please >>>> let >>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>>> know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月31日 17:29，Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>> .INVALID> >>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Becket, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, for FileSystemSource, it is not always desired, >>>> only >>>>>>>> OCR >>>>>>>>>>>>> file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats support filter pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can disable predicate pushdown for FileSystemSource by >>>>>>>> setting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled' to >> false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can also disable filter pushdown at a more >>>> granular >>>>>>>>>> level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through fine-grained configuration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月31日 16:50，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation. Maybe it's easier to explain >>>> with >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's take FileSystemTableSource as an example. Currently >>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SupportsFilterPushDown interface. With your proposal, >> does >>>> it >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support `source.filter-push-down.enabled` as well? But >> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not quite make sense for the FileSystemTableSource >>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown is always desired. However, because this >>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the SupportsFilterPushDown interface (which sounds >>>>>> confusing >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with), the FileSystemTableSource can only do one of the >>>>>>>>>> following: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Ignore the user configuration to always apply the >> pushed >>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filters - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is an apparent anti-pattern because a configuration >>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it says. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Throw an exception telling users that this >> configuration >>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable to the FileSystemTableSource. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Implement this configuration to push back the pushed >>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>> filters, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though this is never desired. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the above options looks awkward. I am curious >> what >>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 3:11 PM Jiabao Sun < >>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Becket for the further explanation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. If a source does not implement the >>>> SupportsFilterPushDown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the newly added configurations do not need to be added >> to >>>>>>>> either >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiredOptions or optionalOptions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar to LookupOptions, if a source does not implement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LookupTableSource, there is no need to add LookupOptions >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiredOptions or optionalOptions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. "And these configs are specific to those sources, >>>> instead >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configs." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The newly introduced configurations define standardized >>>>>> names >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They still belong to the configuration at the individual >>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose is to avoid scattered configuration items >> when >>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources implement the same logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether a source should accept these configurations is >>>>>>>>>> determined >>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source's Factory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月31日 13:47，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> >> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see the replies inline. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introducing common configurations does not mean that >> all >>>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept these configuration options. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The configuration options supported by a source are >>>>>>>>>> determined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiredOptions and optionalOptions in the Factory >>>>>>>> interface. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not true. Both required and optional options >> are >>>>>>>>>>>>> SUPPORTED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means they are implemented and if one specifies an >>>> optional >>>>>>>>>> config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still take effect. An OptionalConfig is "Optional" >>>> because >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration has a default value. Hence, it is OK that >>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify their own value. In another word, it is >>>> "optional" >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users to set the config, but the implementation and >>>> support >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is NOT optional. In case a source does not support a >>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>> config, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception must be thrown when the config is provided by >>>> the >>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the config we are talking about in this FLIP >> is >>>> a >>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optional to implement, meaning that sometimes the >> claimed >>>>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there even if users specify that config. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar to sources that do not implement the >>>>>>>> LookupTableSource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources that do not implement the >> SupportsFilterPushDown >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not need to accept newly introduced options. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, filter pushdown is a behavior of the >> query >>>>>>>>>>>>> optimizer, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of Sources. The Sources tells the optimizer >> that >>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to accept pushed down filters by implementing >> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SupportsFilterPushDown interface. And this is the only >>>>>>>> contract >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source and Optimizer regarding whether filters should >> be >>>>>>>> pushed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as a specific source implements this decorative >>>>>>>> interface, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown should always take place, i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *SupportsFilterPushDown.applyFilters()* will be called. >>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other config to disable that call. However, Sources can >>>>>>>> decide >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave based on their own configurations after >>>>>>>>>> *applyFilters()* is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And these configs are specific to those sources, >> instead >>>> of >>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see the examples I mentioned in the previous >>>> email. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:27 AM Jiabao Sun < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Becket, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, there was a typo in the second point. Let me >>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>> it: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introducing common configurations does not mean that >> all >>>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept these configuration options. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The configuration options supported by a source are >>>>>>>>>> determined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiredOptions and optionalOptions in the Factory >>>>>>>> interface. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar to sources that do not implement the >>>>>>>> LookupTableSource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources that do not implement the >> SupportsFilterPushDown >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not need to accept newly introduced options. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月31日 10:13，Jiabao Sun < >> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>> .INVALID> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Becket for the feedback. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Currently, the SupportsFilterPushDown#applyFilters >>>>>>>> method >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result that includes acceptedFilters and >>>> remainingFilters. >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide to push down some filters or not accept any of >>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Introducing common configuration options does not >>>> mean >>>>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that supports the SupportsFilterPushDown capability >> must >>>>>>>>>> accept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration. Similar to LookupOptions, only sources >>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LookupTableSource interface are necessary to accept >>>> these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月31日 07:49，Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> >>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao and Ruanhang, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding a configuration of >>>>>> source.filter-push-down.enabled >>>>>>>>>> as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source configuration seems problematic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The config name is misleading. filter pushdown >>>> should >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by whether the SupportsFilterPushdown interface is >>>>>>>>>> implemented >>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The behavior of this configuration is only >>>> applicable >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations. Why is it a common configuration? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's my suggestion for design principles: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Only add source impl specific configuration to >>>>>>>>>> corresponding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The configuration name should not overrule >> existing >>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contracts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in the case of MySql source. There are >>>>>>>> several >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Have a configuration of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `*mysql.avoid.remote.full.table.scan`*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration is set, and a filter pushdown does not >>>> hit >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySql source impl would not further pushdown the >>>> filter >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> MySql >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that this assumes the MySql source can retrieve >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> index >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the MySql servers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. If the MySql index information is not available >> to >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> MySql >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration could be something like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *`mysql.pushback.pushed.down.filters`*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once set to true, MySql source would just add all >> the >>>>>>>>>> filters >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RemainingFilters in the Result returned by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *SupportsFilterPushdown.applyFilters().* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. An alternative to option 2 is to have a ` >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *mysql.apply.predicates.after.scan*`. When it is set >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> true, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySql >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will not push the filter down to the MySql servers, >>>> but >>>>>>>>>> apply >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the MySql source itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you may see, the above configurations do not >>>> disable >>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself. They just allow various implementations of >>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration name does not give any illusion that >>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disabled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:58 PM Jiabao Sun < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Hang for the suggestion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the configuration of TableSource is not >>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>> related >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SourceReader, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I prefer to introduce a independent >> configuration >>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableSourceOptions in the flink-table-common >> module, >>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LookupOptions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the second point, I suggest adding Java doc to >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SupportsXXXPushDown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces, providing detailed information on these >>>>>>>> options >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be supported. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made updates in the FLIP document. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please help check it again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月30日 17:23，Hang Ruan < >> ruanhang1...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the improvements, Jiabao. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some details that I am not sure about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The new option >> `source.filter-push-down.enabled` >>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class? I think it should be `SourceReaderOptions`. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. How are the connector developers able to know >> and >>>>>>>>>> follow >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need an abstract base class or provide a default >>>>>> method? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hang >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> 于2023年10月30日周一 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the lively discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the discussion, I have made some >>>> adjustments >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The name of the newly added option has been >>>>>> changed >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "source.filter-push-down.enabled". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Considering compatibility with older versions, >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> newly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "source.filter-push-down.enabled" option needs to >>>>>>>> respect >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimizer's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>> option. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is a consideration to remove the old >>>> option >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We can provide more options to disable other >>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abilities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects, such as “source.aggregate.enabled” and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “source.projection.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not urgent and can be continuously >>>>>> introduced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月29日 08:45，Becket Qin < >>>> becket....@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for digging into the git history, Jark. I >>>>>> agree >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecate this API in 2.0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 5:47 PM Jark Wu < >>>>>>>>>> imj...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Becket, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked the history of " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> *table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled*", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems it was introduced since the legacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FilterableTableSource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which might be an experiential feature at that >>>>>> time. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this option at the moment. Maybe we can >>>>>> deprecate >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Flink 2.0[1] if it is not necessary anymore. >>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplify this discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32383 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 10:14, Becket Qin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becket....@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal, Jiabao. My two cents >>>>>> below: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. If I understand correctly, the motivation >> of >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> FLIP >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mainly to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make predicate pushdown optional on SOME of >> the >>>>>>>>>> Sources. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the configuration should be Source specific >>>>>> instead >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will end up with general configurations >> that >>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the Source implementations. This >>>> violates >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration - it does what it says, >> regardless >>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While configuration standardization is >> usually a >>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break the basic rules. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we really want to have this general >>>>>>>> configuration, >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this configuration does not apply, they should >>>>>> throw >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it clear that this configuration is not >>>> supported. >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ugly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. I think the actual motivation of this FLIP >> is >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "how a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should implement predicate pushdown >>>> efficiently", >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown should be applied to the source." For >>>>>>>>>> example, >>>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid additional computing load in the >>>> external >>>>>>>>>>>>> system, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read the entire record and apply the >> predicates >>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>> itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Flink perspective, the predicate pushdown >> is >>>>>>>>>> applied, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented differently by the source. So the >>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink only cares about whether a source >> supports >>>>>>>>>>>>> predicate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not care about the implementation >>>>>>>> efficiency / >>>>>>>>>>>>> side >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates pushdown. It is the Source >>>>>>>> implementation's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure the predicates pushdown is implemented >>>>>>>>>> efficiently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impose excessive pressure on the external >>>> system. >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional configurations to achieve this >> goal. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations will be source specific in this >>>>>> case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Regarding the existing configurations of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I am not sure why we need it. Supposedly, if >> a >>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SupportsXXXPushDown interface, the optimizer >>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>> push >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates to the Source. I am not sure in >> which >>>>>>>> case >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be used. Any ideas @Jark Wu < >>>>>> imj...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:55 PM Jiabao Sun >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jane for the detailed explanation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that for users, we should respect >>>>>>>> conventions >>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conventions can be default values explicitly >>>>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations, or they can be behaviors that >>>>>>>> follow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the same code has different behaviors in >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a very bad thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that for regular users, it is not >>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the configurations related to Flink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By following conventions, they can have a >> good >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's get back to the practical situation and >>>>>>>>>> consider >>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Case 1: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user is not familiar with the purpose of >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the convention of allowing predicate pushdown >>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just understanding the >>>>>>>>>> source.predicate-pushdown-enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and performing fine-grained toggle control >> will >>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Case 2: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user understands the meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its value to false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have reason to believe that the user >>>>>> understands >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicate pushdown configuration and the >>>>>> intention >>>>>>>>>> is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown (rather than whether or not to allow >>>>>> it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The previous choice of globally disabling it >> is >>>>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't be disabled on individual sources. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From this perspective, if we provide more >>>>>>>>>> fine-grained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support and provide detailed explanations of >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviors in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the documentation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users can clearly understand the differences >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations and use them correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I don't agree that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled = >>>>>>>>>> true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source.predicate-pushdown-enabled = false >> means >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration overrides the global >>>> configuration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, both configurations are >>>>>>>> functioning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The optimizer allows predicate pushdown to >> all >>>>>>>>>> sources, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can reject the filters pushed down by the >>>>>>>> optimizer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is natural, just like different >> components >>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for different tasks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more serious issue is that if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not respect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled”, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be invalidated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that regardless of whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false, it will have no effect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月25日 22:24，Jane Chan < >>>>>>>> qingyue....@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the in-depth clarification. Here >>>> are >>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>>> cents >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" are >>>>>>>> configurations >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components(optimizer and source operator). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot assume that every user would be >>>>>>>>>> interested in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal components of Flink, such as the >>>>>>>> optimizer >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific configurations associated with each >>>>>>>>>> component. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be more concerned about knowing which >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enables >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disables the filter push-down feature for >> all >>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter provides the flexibility to >> override >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source if needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, from this perspective, I am inclined to >>>>>> divide >>>>>>>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the scope of their impact from the >>>>>> user's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global-level or operator-level), rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>> categorizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component hierarchy from a developer's point >>>> of >>>>>>>>>> view. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this premise, it is intuitive and natural >> for >>>>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand fine-grained configuration >> options >>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, if >>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" is >> defined >>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> true, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it means that just modifying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect, and filter pushdown will still be >>>>>>>>>> performed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we define the default value of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false, it would introduce a difference in >>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <1>If I understand correctly, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector option, which means the only way >> to >>>>>>>>>> configure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify it in DDL (no matter whether disable >>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>> enable), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SET >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> command is not applicable, so I think it's >>>>>> natural >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification here. Otherwise, users might >> be >>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL does not work as expected, and the >> reason >>>> is >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "optimizer" configuration is set to a >>>> different >>>>>>>>>> value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <2> From the implementation side, I am >>>> inclined >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority consistent for all conditions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let "global" denote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and let "per-source" denote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source T, the following Truth table (based >> on >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates the inconsistent behavior for >>>>>>>> "per-source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> .------------.---------------.------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----.-------------------------------------. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | global | per-source | push-down for T | >>>>>>>>>> per-source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> :-----------+--------------+-----------------------+------------------------------------: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | true | false | false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Y >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> :-----------+--------------+-----------------------+------------------------------------: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | false | true | false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | N >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> .------------.---------------.-----------------------.-------------------------------------. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 6:22 PM Jiabao Sun < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Benchao for the feedback. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that the configuration of >> global >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallelism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> task >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallelism is at different granularities >> but >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" are >>>>>>>> configurations >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components(optimizer and source operator). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a user's perspective, there are two >>>>>>>> scenarios: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Disabling all filter pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, setting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to false is sufficient to meet the >>>> requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Disabling filter pushdown for specific >>>>>> sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this scenario, there is no need to >> adjust >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, the focus should be on the >>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" to meet the >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, users do not need to set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable filter pushdown for specific >> sources. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, if >>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" is >> defined >>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> true, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it means that just modifying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled" as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect, and filter pushdown will still be >>>>>>>>>> performed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we define the default value of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false, it would introduce a difference in >>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same SQL query that could successfully >>>> push >>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version but would no longer do so after the >>>>>>>>>> upgrade. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月25日 17:10，Benchao Li < >>>>>>>>>> libenc...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jiabao for the detailed >> explanations, >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand your rationale now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong. Your perspective >> is >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "developer", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means there is an optimizer and connector >>>>>>>>>> component, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable this feature (pushing filters down >>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable it firstly in optimizer, and only >>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to decide to use it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My perspective is from "user" that (Why a >>>> user >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference of optimizer/connector) , this >>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> feature, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to control it, one way is to config it >>>>>>>>>> job-level, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in table properties. What a user expects >> is >>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature in a tiered way, that setting it >> per >>>>>>>> job, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine-grained tune it per table. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is some kind of similar to other >>>>>> concepts, >>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallelism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users can set a job level default >>>> parallelism, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine-grained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tune it per operator. There may be more >> such >>>>>>>>>> debate >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g., we can have a job level config about >>>>>>>> adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lookup >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> join, and also a hint/table property way >> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine-grained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per lookup operator. Hence we'd better >> find >>>> a >>>>>>>>>> unified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those similar kind of features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao Sun <jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 于2023年10月25日周三 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15:27写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jane for further explanation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These two configurations correspond to >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" does not >> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The planner will still push down >> predicates >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether filter pushdown is allowed or not >>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source's "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, >> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled”. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the planner disables predicate >>>> pushdown, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source-level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown will also not be executed, even if >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever, in point 1 and 2, our >> expectation >>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the 3rd point, I still think that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planner-level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes precedence over the source-level >>>>>>>>>> configuration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may seem counterintuitive when we >>>> globally >>>>>>>>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown but allow filter pushdown at the >>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>> level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月25日 14:35，Jane Chan < >>>>>>>>>> qingyue....@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying this. While by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher priority" I meant that this value >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set explicitly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The conclusion that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. "table.optimizer.source.predicate" = >>>>>> "true" >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" = >> "false" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allow the planner to perform predicate >>>>>>>>>> pushdown, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not enable filter pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This indicates that the option >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled = >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an individual source connector does >> indeed >>>>>>>>>> override >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global-level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planner settings to make a difference. >> And >>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>>>>>> "has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. "table.optimizer.source.predicate" = >>>>>>>> "false" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate pushdown is not allowed for >> the >>>>>>>>>> planner. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of the value of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration, filter pushdown is >>>> disabled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this scenario, the behavior remains >>>>>>>>>> consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still think >>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is enabled for individual connectors. >>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 1:27 PM Jiabao >>>> Sun < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Benchao for the feedback. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the current proposal, we recommend >>>>>>>> keeping >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" as >>>> true, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and setting the the default value of >>>> newly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" to true >>>> as >>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main purpose of doing this is to >>>>>> maintain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions, as whether to perform >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter pushdown in the old version >> solely >>>>>>>>>> depends >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >>>> option. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means by default, as long as a >>>>>>>> TableSource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SupportsFilterPushDown interface, >> filter >>>>>>>>>> pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it seems that we don't have much >>>>>> benefit >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >> to >>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the priority of these two >>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes precedence over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exhibits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. "table.optimizer.source.predicate" = >>>>>>>> "true" >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" = >> "true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the default behavior, allowing >>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. "table.optimizer.source.predicate" = >>>>>>>> "true" >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" = >> "false" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allow the planner to perform predicate >>>>>>>>>> pushdown, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not enable filter pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. "table.optimizer.source.predicate" = >>>>>>>> "false" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate pushdown is not allowed for >> the >>>>>>>>>> planner. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of the value of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration, filter pushdown is >>>> disabled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this scenario, the behavior remains >>>>>>>>>> consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From an implementation perspective, >>>> setting >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" higher >>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" is >>>>>>>>>> difficult to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the >>>>>> PushFilterIntoSourceScanRuleBase >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precedence over the source-level >>>>>>>>>>>>> FilterPushDownSpec. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only when the >>>>>>>> PushFilterIntoSourceScanRuleBase >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source-level filter pushdown be >>>> performed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, in my opinion, there >>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>> seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting a higher priority for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may instead affect compatibility and >>>>>>>>>> increase >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月25日 11:56，Benchao Li < >>>>>>>>>>>>> libenc...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jane that fine-grained >>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority than job level >> configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For current proposal, we can achieve >>>> that: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Set >>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" = >>>>>>>>>> "true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default, and set >>>>>>>>>>>>> ""scan.filter-push-down.enabled" = >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "false" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it per table source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Set >>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" = >>>>>>>>>>>>> "false" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default, and set >>>>>>>>>>>>> ""scan.filter-push-down.enabled" = >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true" to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it per table source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane Chan <qingyue....@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> 于2023年10月24日周二 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 23:55写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that the configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher priority at the planner level >>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems easy to implement now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine-grained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >> should >>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> priority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default value of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turning off filter push-down for a >>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless the default value of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to false, or, alternatively, let >> users >>>>>>>>>> manually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" to >>>>>> false >>>>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable filter push-down for the >> desired >>>>>>>>>> sources, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 6:05 PM >> Jiabao >>>>>> Sun >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jane, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that the configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher priority at the planner level >>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems easy to implement now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月24日 17:36，Jane Chan < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qingyue....@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jiabao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for driving this >> discussion. I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "scan.filter-push-down.enabled" >> take >>>>>>>>>>>>> precedence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.optimizer.source.predicate" >>>> when >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:05 PM >>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>> Sun >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jark, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we only add configuration >> without >>>>>>>>>> adding >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enableFilterPushDown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method in the >> SupportsFilterPushDown >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each connector would have to >> handle >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applyFilters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method to determine whether filter >>>>>>>>>> pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would increase complexity and >>>>>>>> violate >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applyFilters method. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, we only need to >>>> pass >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly added enableFilterPushDown >>>>>> method >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to decide whether to perform >>>> predicate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this approach would be >>>> clearer >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simpler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月24日 16:58，Jark Wu < >>>>>>>>>> imj...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JIabao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the current interface can >>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The connector can reject all the >>>>>>>> filters >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as `Result#remainingFilters`. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So maybe we don't need to >>>> introduce a >>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown, but just introduce an >>>>>> option >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 16:38, >>>> Leonard >>>>>>>> Xu >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjt...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks @Jiabao for kicking off >>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you add a section to >> explain >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector level config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `scan.filter-push-down.enabled` >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> `table.optimizer.source.predicate-pushdown-enabled` ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年10月24日 下午4:18，Jiabao Sun < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jiabao....@xtransfer.cn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .INVALID> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Devs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to start a >>>> discussion >>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-377: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable filter pushdown for >>>>>> Table/SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sources[1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, Flink Table/SQL does >>>> not >>>>>>>>>> expose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine-grained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users to enable or disable >> filter >>>>>>>>>> pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, filter pushdown has >> some >>>>>>>> side >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computational pressure on >> external >>>>>>>>>> systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Improper queries can >>>> lead >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scans, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which in turn can impact the >>>>>> stability >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> external >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we have an SQL query >> with >>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The database is sensitive to >>>>>>>> pressure, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not perform filter pushdown to >> the >>>>>>>>>> database >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we still want to >> perform >>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrease network IO. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to support >>>> configuration >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table/SQL sources to let user >>>> decide >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushdown. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your >> feedback. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=276105768 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jiabao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benchao Li >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benchao Li >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
