Roman. > Nikolay, Maxim, I understand that our arguments may not be as obvious > for you as it obvious for SQL team. So, please arrange your questions in > a more constructive way.
What is SQL team? I only know Ignite community :) Please, share you knowledge in IEP. I want to join to the process of engine *selection*. It should start with the requirements to such engine. Can you write it in IEP, please? My point is very simple: 1. We made the wrong decision with H2 2. We should make a well-thought decision about the new engine. > How many tickets would satisfy you? You write about "issueS" with the H2. All I see is one open ticket. IEP doesn't provide enough information. So it's not about the number of tickets, it's about > These two points (single map-reduce execution and inflexible optimizer) > are the main problems with the current engine. We may come to the point when Calcite(or any other engine) brings us third and other "main problems". This is how it happens with H2. Let's start from what we want to get with the engine and move forward from this base. What do you think? В Пт, 27/09/2019 в 16:15 +0300, Roman Kondakov пишет: > Maxim, Nikolay, > > I've listed two issues which show the ideological flaws of the current > engine. > > 1. IGNITE-11448 - Open. This ticket describes the impossibility of > executing queries which can not be fit in the hardcoded one pass > map-reduce paradigm. > > 2. IGNITE-6085 - Closed (won't fix) - This ticket describes the second > major problem with the current engine: H2 query optimizer is very > primitive and can not perform many useful optimizations. > > These two points (single map-reduce execution and inflexible optimizer) > are the main problems with the current engine. It means that our engine > is currently suitable for execution only a very limited subset of the > typical SQL queries. For example it can not even run most of the TPC-H > benchmark queries because they don't fit to the simple map-reduce paradigm. > > > All I see is links to two tickets: > > How many tickets would satisfy you? I named two. And it looks like it is > not enough from your point of view. Ok, so how many is enough? The set > of problems caused by listed above tickets is infinite, therefore I can > not create a ticket for each of them. > > Tech details also should be added. > > Tech details are in the tickets. > > > We can't discuss such a huge change as an execution engine replacement with > > descrition like: > > "No data co-location control, i.e. arbitrary data can be returned silently" > > or > > "Low control on how query executes internally, as a result we have limited > > possibility to implement improvements/fixes." > > Why not? Don't you understand these problems? Or you don't think this is > a problem? > > > Let's make these descriptions more specific. > > What do you mean by "more specific"? What is the criteria of the > specific description? > > > > Nikolay, Maxim, I understand that our arguments may not be as obvious > for you as it obvious for SQL team. So, please arrange your questions in > a more constructive way. > > Thank you!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
