[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-911?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14957847#comment-14957847
]
Julian Hyde commented on CALCITE-911:
-------------------------------------
I think the approach of having variants of CalciteSchema that do and do not
cache will work. Especially if other projects are not allowed to sub-class them.
I'm still reviewing, and trying to figure out the relationship among the
various commits. Would we need all of the commits? My gut tells me this should
be a fairly small change. And by the way we should obsolete CalciteRootSchema
and just 'assert schema.isRoot()' in the places that formerly took a
CalciteRootSchema.
I don't yet see a good reason for changing the return type of getTable and
other methods from TableEntry to Pair<String, Table>.
> Make CalciteSchema extendible for different implementation.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-911
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-911
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Jinfeng Ni
> Assignee: Jinfeng Ni
> Fix For: 1.5.0-incubating
>
>
> CalciteSchema by default uses cache to store table, sub-schema, function.
> This would work perfectly for schema-based system, yet would create problem
> for Drill, which dynamically explore the schema on the fly during query
> execution.
> One solution is to refactor CalciteSchema and make it as an interface. The
> default implementation would still use the current implementation. Further,
> it would other system to extend the default behavior and make CalciteSchema
> works for Drill as well.
> Background information: The issue around CalciteSchema is one of the reasons
> that Drill has to use a forked version of Calcite. Hopefully, if we could
> resolve this issue, we are one step further to remove the forked Calcite in
> the near future.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
