A fair point indeed.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:32 PM Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> C* fares much better with their (very limited) CQL than HBase with its
> advanced Phoenix.
> Just saying.
>
> My 2c
>
> -Vlad
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > It would be helpful if someone could forward the relevant bits of Phoenix
> > discussion to the Phoenix dev list. One thing I know that project lacks
> is
> > usability feedback. I don't see anyone writing in with suggestions,
> mainly
> > complaining about it on a HBase list somewhere. Could just be I lack
> > perspective and those conversations are happening somewhere, but I am a
> > subscriber to all of the relevant lists and this is my observation. If a
> > correct observation, this is not really fair. I work somewhere that has
> > Phoenix in production. There is no doubt the attempt to implement RDBMS
> > functionality *inside* HBase as an add on component is a challenging
> > undertaking. However, any would be substitute I have seen to date either
> > doesn't actually attempt the same challenges, or takes a shortcut which
> > renders any comparison to the proverbial "apples and oranges". The tell
> > here is the notion of *lightweight* SQL access. Reads as a tremendous
> > limitation of scope. SQL is a huge standard incorporating 30+ years of
> > development in relational systems capabilities and semantics. We will get
> > into trouble if we ever attempt a "lightweight" SQL interface to HBase
> that
> > fails to match expectations which automatically attach to the effort
> > whenever you claim it to be a SQL interface. This is a cross the Phoenix
> > project already bears. If SQL support is really the goal it would be
> better
> > to assist there. Or, if the goal is the barest minimal SQL-like thing
> > someone needs to support their use case, and then contribute to HBase,
> call
> > it something else, like Cassandra did with CQL. Would be like the other
> > connectors - thrift, REST, Kafka, etc. - and should go into the
> connectors
> > repo, in my opinion.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 3:50 AM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Next we went over backburner items mention on previous day staring with
> > > SQL-like access.
> > > What about lightweight SQL support?
> > > At Huawei... they have a project going for lightweight SQL support in
> > hbase
> > > based-on calcite.
> > > For big queries, they'd go to sparksql.
> > > Did you look at phoenix?
> > > Phoenix is complicated, difficult. Calcite migration not done in
> Phoenix
> > > (Sparksql is not calcite-based).
> > > Talk to phoenix project about generating a lightweight artifact. We
> could
> > > help with build. One nice idea was building with a cut-down grammar,
> one
> > > that removed all the "big stuff" and problematics. Could return to the
> > user
> > > a nice "not supported" if they try to do a 10Bx10B join.
> > > An interesting idea about a facade query analyzer making transfer to
> > > sparksql if big query. Would need stats.
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrew

Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
   - A23, Crosstalk

Reply via email to