Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi all,
Thanks for all of your response.
If there's no more comments, I would like to bring up the VOTE.
Best,
Wei
> 在 2020年3月13日，20:50，Xingbo Huang 写道：
>
> Hi Wei,
> Thanks a lot for drafting the FLIP and kicking off the discussion.
> Big +1 for this feature.
> This feature will greatly facilitate PyFlink users to use Python UDF in SQL
> scenarios.
>
> Best,
> Xingbo
>
> Hequn Cheng 于2020年3月13日周五 下午5:10写道：
>
>> Big +1 on this feature! It would be great to extend the usage of Python UDF
>> in SQL scenarios.
>> The design doc looks good from my side now. Thank you for the update.
>>
>> Best,
>> Hequn
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:50 PM Wei Zhong wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Timo,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>
>>> If we aim for the option 1, it makes sense for me to include the change
>> in
>>> this FLIP as the option 1 does not change any public API. I'll update the
>>> FLIP page to illustrate this.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Wei
>>>
在 2020年3月9日，17:58，Timo Walther 写道：
Hi Wei,
I agree with Dawid that we should defer the instantiation of temporary
>>> functions to compile time. In the long-term, we would like to integrate
>>> FunctionCatalog as a component of CatalogManager and unify the handling
>> of
>>> catalog objects as much as possible.
We should aim for your proposed option 1. For fluent definition of
>>> functions in Table API, we would still like to offer passing instances
>> like
>>> `t.select(call(new ScalarFunction() { ... }))` that would be registered
>> as
>>> temporary system functions.
Regrds,
Timo
On 09.03.20 09:24, Wei Zhong wrote:
> Hi Dawid,
> I think defering the instantiation of temporary functions to compile
>>> time is quite a good idea but needs further discussion. As it is
>> orthogonal
>>> with this FLIP, we could continue the discussion in a new thread later.
>>> What do you think?
> Best,
> Wei
>> 在 2020年3月5日，21:11，Wei Zhong 写道：
>>
>> Hi Dawid,
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestion.
>>
>> After some investigation, there are two designs in my mind about how
>>> to defer the instantiation of temporary system function and temporary
>>> catalog function to compile time.
>>
>> 1. FunctionCatalog accepts both FunctionDefinitions and
>> uninstantiated
>>> temporary functions. The uninstantiated temporary functions will be
>>> instantiated when compiling. There is no public API change in this
>> design,
>>> but the FunctionCatalog needs to store and process both
>> FunctionDefinitions
>>> and uninstantiated temporary functions.
>>
>> 2. FunctionCatalog accepts only uninstantiated temporary functions.
>> In
>>> this design we need to remove those APIs that accepts FunctionDefinitions
>>> from TableEnvironment, i.e. `void createTemporaryFunction(String path,
>>> UserDefinedFunction functionInstance)` and `void
>>> createTemporarySystemFunction(String name, UserDefinedFunction
>>> functionInstance)`. But the FunctionCatalog only needs to store and
>> process
>>> uninstantiated temporary functions.
>>
>> As I don't know the details about the plan to store temporary
>>> functions as catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, I'm not
>> sure
>>> which solution fits more. It would be great if you could share more
>> details
>>> or share some thoughts on these two solutions?
>>
>> Best,
>> Wei
>>
>>> 在 2020年3月4日，16:17，Dawid Wysakowicz 写道：
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I had a really quick look and from my perspective the proposal looks
>>> fine.
>>> I share Jarks opinion that the instantiation could be done at a
>> later
>>> stage. I agree with Wei it requires some changes in the internal
>>> implementation of the FunctionCatalog, to store temporary functions
>> as
>>> catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, but we have that
>> on
>>> our
>>> agenda anyway. I would suggest investigating if we could do that as
>>> part of
>>> this flip already. Nevertheless this in theory can be also done
>> later.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Dawid
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 14:58 Jark Wu, wrote:
>>>
Thanks for the explanation, Wei!
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong
>>> wrote:
> Hi Jark,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.
>
> Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the
>> UDF
type,
> because the Python process is used to provide the necessary
>>> information
to
> instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For
>>> catalog
> function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when
>>> compiling the
> job, which means the Python process is required during the
>>> compilation
> instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and
>>> temporary
> catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi Wei,
Thanks a lot for drafting the FLIP and kicking off the discussion.
Big +1 for this feature.
This feature will greatly facilitate PyFlink users to use Python UDF in SQL
scenarios.
Best,
Xingbo
Hequn Cheng 于2020年3月13日周五 下午5:10写道：
> Big +1 on this feature! It would be great to extend the usage of Python UDF
> in SQL scenarios.
> The design doc looks good from my side now. Thank you for the update.
>
> Best,
> Hequn
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:50 PM Wei Zhong wrote:
>
> > Hi Timo,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
> >
> > If we aim for the option 1, it makes sense for me to include the change
> in
> > this FLIP as the option 1 does not change any public API. I'll update the
> > FLIP page to illustrate this.
> >
> > Best,
> > Wei
> >
> > > 在 2020年3月9日，17:58，Timo Walther 写道：
> > >
> > > Hi Wei,
> > >
> > > I agree with Dawid that we should defer the instantiation of temporary
> > functions to compile time. In the long-term, we would like to integrate
> > FunctionCatalog as a component of CatalogManager and unify the handling
> of
> > catalog objects as much as possible.
> > >
> > > We should aim for your proposed option 1. For fluent definition of
> > functions in Table API, we would still like to offer passing instances
> like
> > `t.select(call(new ScalarFunction() { ... }))` that would be registered
> as
> > temporary system functions.
> > >
> > > Regrds,
> > > Timo
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09.03.20 09:24, Wei Zhong wrote:
> > >> Hi Dawid,
> > >> I think defering the instantiation of temporary functions to compile
> > time is quite a good idea but needs further discussion. As it is
> orthogonal
> > with this FLIP, we could continue the discussion in a new thread later.
> > What do you think?
> > >> Best,
> > >> Wei
> > >>> 在 2020年3月5日，21:11，Wei Zhong 写道：
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Dawid,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for your suggestion.
> > >>>
> > >>> After some investigation, there are two designs in my mind about how
> > to defer the instantiation of temporary system function and temporary
> > catalog function to compile time.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. FunctionCatalog accepts both FunctionDefinitions and
> uninstantiated
> > temporary functions. The uninstantiated temporary functions will be
> > instantiated when compiling. There is no public API change in this
> design,
> > but the FunctionCatalog needs to store and process both
> FunctionDefinitions
> > and uninstantiated temporary functions.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. FunctionCatalog accepts only uninstantiated temporary functions.
> In
> > this design we need to remove those APIs that accepts FunctionDefinitions
> > from TableEnvironment, i.e. `void createTemporaryFunction(String path,
> > UserDefinedFunction functionInstance)` and `void
> > createTemporarySystemFunction(String name, UserDefinedFunction
> > functionInstance)`. But the FunctionCatalog only needs to store and
> process
> > uninstantiated temporary functions.
> > >>>
> > >>> As I don't know the details about the plan to store temporary
> > functions as catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, I'm not
> sure
> > which solution fits more. It would be great if you could share more
> details
> > or share some thoughts on these two solutions?
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Wei
> > >>>
> > 在 2020年3月4日，16:17，Dawid Wysakowicz 写道：
> >
> > Hi all,
> > I had a really quick look and from my perspective the proposal looks
> > fine.
> > I share Jarks opinion that the instantiation could be done at a
> later
> > stage. I agree with Wei it requires some changes in the internal
> > implementation of the FunctionCatalog, to store temporary functions
> as
> > catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, but we have that
> on
> > our
> > agenda anyway. I would suggest investigating if we could do that as
> > part of
> > this flip already. Nevertheless this in theory can be also done
> later.
> >
> > Best,
> > Dawid
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 14:58 Jark Wu, wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the explanation, Wei!
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Jark,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your suggestion.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the
> UDF
> > > type,
> > >> because the Python process is used to provide the necessary
> > information
> > > to
> > >> instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For
> > catalog
> > >> function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when
> > compiling the
> > >> job, which means the Python process is required during the
> > compilation
> > >> instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and
> > temporary
> > >> catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated
> > during the
> > >> UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at
> that
> > time.
> > >>
> > >> But this FLIP will only suppo
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Big +1 on this feature! It would be great to extend the usage of Python UDF
in SQL scenarios.
The design doc looks good from my side now. Thank you for the update.
Best,
Hequn
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:50 PM Wei Zhong wrote:
> Hi Timo,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> If we aim for the option 1, it makes sense for me to include the change in
> this FLIP as the option 1 does not change any public API. I'll update the
> FLIP page to illustrate this.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> > 在 2020年3月9日，17:58，Timo Walther 写道：
> >
> > Hi Wei,
> >
> > I agree with Dawid that we should defer the instantiation of temporary
> functions to compile time. In the long-term, we would like to integrate
> FunctionCatalog as a component of CatalogManager and unify the handling of
> catalog objects as much as possible.
> >
> > We should aim for your proposed option 1. For fluent definition of
> functions in Table API, we would still like to offer passing instances like
> `t.select(call(new ScalarFunction() { ... }))` that would be registered as
> temporary system functions.
> >
> > Regrds,
> > Timo
> >
> >
> > On 09.03.20 09:24, Wei Zhong wrote:
> >> Hi Dawid,
> >> I think defering the instantiation of temporary functions to compile
> time is quite a good idea but needs further discussion. As it is orthogonal
> with this FLIP, we could continue the discussion in a new thread later.
> What do you think?
> >> Best,
> >> Wei
> >>> 在 2020年3月5日，21:11，Wei Zhong 写道：
> >>>
> >>> Hi Dawid,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your suggestion.
> >>>
> >>> After some investigation, there are two designs in my mind about how
> to defer the instantiation of temporary system function and temporary
> catalog function to compile time.
> >>>
> >>> 1. FunctionCatalog accepts both FunctionDefinitions and uninstantiated
> temporary functions. The uninstantiated temporary functions will be
> instantiated when compiling. There is no public API change in this design,
> but the FunctionCatalog needs to store and process both FunctionDefinitions
> and uninstantiated temporary functions.
> >>>
> >>> 2. FunctionCatalog accepts only uninstantiated temporary functions. In
> this design we need to remove those APIs that accepts FunctionDefinitions
> from TableEnvironment, i.e. `void createTemporaryFunction(String path,
> UserDefinedFunction functionInstance)` and `void
> createTemporarySystemFunction(String name, UserDefinedFunction
> functionInstance)`. But the FunctionCatalog only needs to store and process
> uninstantiated temporary functions.
> >>>
> >>> As I don't know the details about the plan to store temporary
> functions as catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, I'm not sure
> which solution fits more. It would be great if you could share more details
> or share some thoughts on these two solutions?
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Wei
> >>>
> 在 2020年3月4日，16:17，Dawid Wysakowicz 写道：
>
> Hi all,
> I had a really quick look and from my perspective the proposal looks
> fine.
> I share Jarks opinion that the instantiation could be done at a later
> stage. I agree with Wei it requires some changes in the internal
> implementation of the FunctionCatalog, to store temporary functions as
> catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, but we have that on
> our
> agenda anyway. I would suggest investigating if we could do that as
> part of
> this flip already. Nevertheless this in theory can be also done later.
>
> Best,
> Dawid
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 14:58 Jark Wu, wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the explanation, Wei!
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jark,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your suggestion.
> >>
> >> Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the UDF
> > type,
> >> because the Python process is used to provide the necessary
> information
> > to
> >> instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For
> catalog
> >> function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when
> compiling the
> >> job, which means the Python process is required during the
> compilation
> >> instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and
> temporary
> >> catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated
> during the
> >> UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at that
> time.
> >>
> >> But this FLIP will only support registering the temporary system
> function
> >> and temporary catalog function in SQL DDL because registering
> Python UDF
> > to
> >> catalog is not supported yet. We plan to support the registeration
> of
> >> Python catalog function (via Table API and SQL DDL) in a separate
> FLIP.
> >> I'll add a non-goal section to the FLIP page to illustrate this.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Wei
> >>
> >>
> >>> 在 2020年3月2日，15:11，Jark Wu 写道：
> >>>
> >>> Hi Weizhong,
> >>>
> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi Timo,
Thanks for your reply.
If we aim for the option 1, it makes sense for me to include the change in this
FLIP as the option 1 does not change any public API. I'll update the FLIP page
to illustrate this.
Best,
Wei
> 在 2020年3月9日，17:58，Timo Walther 写道：
>
> Hi Wei,
>
> I agree with Dawid that we should defer the instantiation of temporary
> functions to compile time. In the long-term, we would like to integrate
> FunctionCatalog as a component of CatalogManager and unify the handling of
> catalog objects as much as possible.
>
> We should aim for your proposed option 1. For fluent definition of functions
> in Table API, we would still like to offer passing instances like
> `t.select(call(new ScalarFunction() { ... }))` that would be registered as
> temporary system functions.
>
> Regrds,
> Timo
>
>
> On 09.03.20 09:24, Wei Zhong wrote:
>> Hi Dawid,
>> I think defering the instantiation of temporary functions to compile time is
>> quite a good idea but needs further discussion. As it is orthogonal with
>> this FLIP, we could continue the discussion in a new thread later. What do
>> you think?
>> Best,
>> Wei
>>> 在 2020年3月5日，21:11，Wei Zhong 写道：
>>>
>>> Hi Dawid,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your suggestion.
>>>
>>> After some investigation, there are two designs in my mind about how to
>>> defer the instantiation of temporary system function and temporary catalog
>>> function to compile time.
>>>
>>> 1. FunctionCatalog accepts both FunctionDefinitions and uninstantiated
>>> temporary functions. The uninstantiated temporary functions will be
>>> instantiated when compiling. There is no public API change in this design,
>>> but the FunctionCatalog needs to store and process both FunctionDefinitions
>>> and uninstantiated temporary functions.
>>>
>>> 2. FunctionCatalog accepts only uninstantiated temporary functions. In this
>>> design we need to remove those APIs that accepts FunctionDefinitions from
>>> TableEnvironment, i.e. `void createTemporaryFunction(String path,
>>> UserDefinedFunction functionInstance)` and `void
>>> createTemporarySystemFunction(String name, UserDefinedFunction
>>> functionInstance)`. But the FunctionCatalog only needs to store and process
>>> uninstantiated temporary functions.
>>>
>>> As I don't know the details about the plan to store temporary functions as
>>> catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, I'm not sure which
>>> solution fits more. It would be great if you could share more details or
>>> share some thoughts on these two solutions?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Wei
>>>
在 2020年3月4日，16:17，Dawid Wysakowicz 写道：
Hi all,
I had a really quick look and from my perspective the proposal looks fine.
I share Jarks opinion that the instantiation could be done at a later
stage. I agree with Wei it requires some changes in the internal
implementation of the FunctionCatalog, to store temporary functions as
catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, but we have that on our
agenda anyway. I would suggest investigating if we could do that as part of
this flip already. Nevertheless this in theory can be also done later.
Best,
Dawid
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 14:58 Jark Wu, wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation, Wei!
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong wrote:
>
>> Hi Jark,
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestion.
>>
>> Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the UDF
> type,
>> because the Python process is used to provide the necessary information
> to
>> instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For catalog
>> function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when compiling the
>> job, which means the Python process is required during the compilation
>> instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and temporary
>> catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated during the
>> UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at that time.
>>
>> But this FLIP will only support registering the temporary system function
>> and temporary catalog function in SQL DDL because registering Python UDF
> to
>> catalog is not supported yet. We plan to support the registeration of
>> Python catalog function (via Table API and SQL DDL) in a separate FLIP.
>> I'll add a non-goal section to the FLIP page to illustrate this.
>>
>> Best,
>> Wei
>>
>>
>>> 在 2020年3月2日，15:11，Jark Wu 写道：
>>>
>>> Hi Weizhong,
>>>
>>> Thanks for proposing this feature. In geneal, I'm +1 from the table's
>> view.
>>>
>>> I have one suggestion: I think the register python function into
> catalog
>>> doesn't need to startup python process (the "High Level Sequence
> Diagram"
>>> in your FLIP).
>>> Because only meta-information is persisted into catalog,
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi Wei,
I agree with Dawid that we should defer the instantiation of temporary
functions to compile time. In the long-term, we would like to integrate
FunctionCatalog as a component of CatalogManager and unify the handling
of catalog objects as much as possible.
We should aim for your proposed option 1. For fluent definition of
functions in Table API, we would still like to offer passing instances
like `t.select(call(new ScalarFunction() { ... }))` that would be
registered as temporary system functions.
Regrds,
Timo
On 09.03.20 09:24, Wei Zhong wrote:
Hi Dawid,
I think defering the instantiation of temporary functions to compile time is
quite a good idea but needs further discussion. As it is orthogonal with this
FLIP, we could continue the discussion in a new thread later. What do you think?
Best,
Wei
在 2020年3月5日，21:11，Wei Zhong 写道：
Hi Dawid,
Thanks for your suggestion.
After some investigation, there are two designs in my mind about how to defer
the instantiation of temporary system function and temporary catalog function
to compile time.
1. FunctionCatalog accepts both FunctionDefinitions and uninstantiated
temporary functions. The uninstantiated temporary functions will be
instantiated when compiling. There is no public API change in this design, but
the FunctionCatalog needs to store and process both FunctionDefinitions and
uninstantiated temporary functions.
2. FunctionCatalog accepts only uninstantiated temporary functions. In this
design we need to remove those APIs that accepts FunctionDefinitions from
TableEnvironment, i.e. `void createTemporaryFunction(String path,
UserDefinedFunction functionInstance)` and `void
createTemporarySystemFunction(String name, UserDefinedFunction
functionInstance)`. But the FunctionCatalog only needs to store and process
uninstantiated temporary functions.
As I don't know the details about the plan to store temporary functions as
catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, I'm not sure which solution
fits more. It would be great if you could share more details or share some
thoughts on these two solutions?
Best,
Wei
在 2020年3月4日，16:17，Dawid Wysakowicz 写道：
Hi all,
I had a really quick look and from my perspective the proposal looks fine.
I share Jarks opinion that the instantiation could be done at a later
stage. I agree with Wei it requires some changes in the internal
implementation of the FunctionCatalog, to store temporary functions as
catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, but we have that on our
agenda anyway. I would suggest investigating if we could do that as part of
this flip already. Nevertheless this in theory can be also done later.
Best,
Dawid
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 14:58 Jark Wu, wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, Wei!
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong wrote:
Hi Jark,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the UDF
type,
because the Python process is used to provide the necessary information
to
instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For catalog
function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when compiling the
job, which means the Python process is required during the compilation
instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and temporary
catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated during the
UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at that time.
But this FLIP will only support registering the temporary system function
and temporary catalog function in SQL DDL because registering Python UDF
to
catalog is not supported yet. We plan to support the registeration of
Python catalog function (via Table API and SQL DDL) in a separate FLIP.
I'll add a non-goal section to the FLIP page to illustrate this.
Best,
Wei
在 2020年3月2日，15:11，Jark Wu 写道：
Hi Weizhong,
Thanks for proposing this feature. In geneal, I'm +1 from the table's
view.
I have one suggestion: I think the register python function into
catalog
doesn't need to startup python process (the "High Level Sequence
Diagram"
in your FLIP).
Because only meta-information is persisted into catalog, we don't need
to
store "return type", "input types" into catalog.
I guess the python process is required when compiling a SQL job.
Best,
Jark
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Benchao Li wrote:
Big +1 for this feature.
We built our SQL platform on Java Table API, and most common UDF are
implemented in Java. However some python developers are not familiar
with
Java/Scala, and it's very inconvenient for these users to use UDF in
SQL.
Wei Zhong 于2020年2月28日周五 下午6:58写道：
Thank for your reply Dan!
By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu <
imj...@gmail.com> @Timo could you please take a
look?
Thanks,
Wei
在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道：
+1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API.
This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users!
Best,
Dan
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi Dawid, I think defering the instantiation of temporary functions to compile time is quite a good idea but needs further discussion. As it is orthogonal with this FLIP, we could continue the discussion in a new thread later. What do you think? Best, Wei > 在 2020年3月5日，21:11，Wei Zhong 写道： > > Hi Dawid, > > Thanks for your suggestion. > > After some investigation, there are two designs in my mind about how to defer > the instantiation of temporary system function and temporary catalog function > to compile time. > > 1. FunctionCatalog accepts both FunctionDefinitions and uninstantiated > temporary functions. The uninstantiated temporary functions will be > instantiated when compiling. There is no public API change in this design, > but the FunctionCatalog needs to store and process both FunctionDefinitions > and uninstantiated temporary functions. > > 2. FunctionCatalog accepts only uninstantiated temporary functions. In this > design we need to remove those APIs that accepts FunctionDefinitions from > TableEnvironment, i.e. `void createTemporaryFunction(String path, > UserDefinedFunction functionInstance)` and `void > createTemporarySystemFunction(String name, UserDefinedFunction > functionInstance)`. But the FunctionCatalog only needs to store and process > uninstantiated temporary functions. > > As I don't know the details about the plan to store temporary functions as > catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, I'm not sure which solution > fits more. It would be great if you could share more details or share some > thoughts on these two solutions? > > Best, > Wei > >> 在 2020年3月4日，16:17，Dawid Wysakowicz 写道： >> >> Hi all, >> I had a really quick look and from my perspective the proposal looks fine. >> I share Jarks opinion that the instantiation could be done at a later >> stage. I agree with Wei it requires some changes in the internal >> implementation of the FunctionCatalog, to store temporary functions as >> catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, but we have that on our >> agenda anyway. I would suggest investigating if we could do that as part of >> this flip already. Nevertheless this in theory can be also done later. >> >> Best, >> Dawid >> >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 14:58 Jark Wu, wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the explanation, Wei! >>> >>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong wrote: >>> Hi Jark, Thanks for your suggestion. Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the UDF >>> type, because the Python process is used to provide the necessary information >>> to instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when compiling the job, which means the Python process is required during the compilation instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and temporary catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated during the UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at that time. But this FLIP will only support registering the temporary system function and temporary catalog function in SQL DDL because registering Python UDF >>> to catalog is not supported yet. We plan to support the registeration of Python catalog function (via Table API and SQL DDL) in a separate FLIP. I'll add a non-goal section to the FLIP page to illustrate this. Best, Wei > 在 2020年3月2日，15:11，Jark Wu 写道： > > Hi Weizhong, > > Thanks for proposing this feature. In geneal, I'm +1 from the table's view. > > I have one suggestion: I think the register python function into >>> catalog > doesn't need to startup python process (the "High Level Sequence >>> Diagram" > in your FLIP). > Because only meta-information is persisted into catalog, we don't need >>> to > store "return type", "input types" into catalog. > I guess the python process is required when compiling a SQL job. > > Best, > Jark > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Benchao Li wrote: > >> Big +1 for this feature. >> >> We built our SQL platform on Java Table API, and most common UDF are >> implemented in Java. However some python developers are not familiar with >> Java/Scala, and it's very inconvenient for these users to use UDF in SQL. >> >> Wei Zhong 于2020年2月28日周五 下午6:58写道： >> >>> Thank for your reply Dan! >>> >>> By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu < >>> imj...@gmail.com> @Timo could you please take a >>> look? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Wei >>> 在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道： +1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! Best, Dan Zou
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi Dawid, Thanks for your suggestion. After some investigation, there are two designs in my mind about how to defer the instantiation of temporary system function and temporary catalog function to compile time. 1. FunctionCatalog accepts both FunctionDefinitions and uninstantiated temporary functions. The uninstantiated temporary functions will be instantiated when compiling. There is no public API change in this design, but the FunctionCatalog needs to store and process both FunctionDefinitions and uninstantiated temporary functions. 2. FunctionCatalog accepts only uninstantiated temporary functions. In this design we need to remove those APIs that accepts FunctionDefinitions from TableEnvironment, i.e. `void createTemporaryFunction(String path, UserDefinedFunction functionInstance)` and `void createTemporarySystemFunction(String name, UserDefinedFunction functionInstance)`. But the FunctionCatalog only needs to store and process uninstantiated temporary functions. As I don't know the details about the plan to store temporary functions as catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, I'm not sure which solution fits more. It would be great if you could share more details or share some thoughts on these two solutions? Best, Wei > 在 2020年3月4日，16:17，Dawid Wysakowicz 写道： > > Hi all, > I had a really quick look and from my perspective the proposal looks fine. > I share Jarks opinion that the instantiation could be done at a later > stage. I agree with Wei it requires some changes in the internal > implementation of the FunctionCatalog, to store temporary functions as > catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, but we have that on our > agenda anyway. I would suggest investigating if we could do that as part of > this flip already. Nevertheless this in theory can be also done later. > > Best, > Dawid > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 14:58 Jark Wu, wrote: > >> Thanks for the explanation, Wei! >> >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong wrote: >> >>> Hi Jark, >>> >>> Thanks for your suggestion. >>> >>> Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the UDF >> type, >>> because the Python process is used to provide the necessary information >> to >>> instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For catalog >>> function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when compiling the >>> job, which means the Python process is required during the compilation >>> instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and temporary >>> catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated during the >>> UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at that time. >>> >>> But this FLIP will only support registering the temporary system function >>> and temporary catalog function in SQL DDL because registering Python UDF >> to >>> catalog is not supported yet. We plan to support the registeration of >>> Python catalog function (via Table API and SQL DDL) in a separate FLIP. >>> I'll add a non-goal section to the FLIP page to illustrate this. >>> >>> Best, >>> Wei >>> >>> 在 2020年3月2日，15:11，Jark Wu 写道： Hi Weizhong, Thanks for proposing this feature. In geneal, I'm +1 from the table's >>> view. I have one suggestion: I think the register python function into >> catalog doesn't need to startup python process (the "High Level Sequence >> Diagram" in your FLIP). Because only meta-information is persisted into catalog, we don't need >> to store "return type", "input types" into catalog. I guess the python process is required when compiling a SQL job. Best, Jark On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Benchao Li wrote: > Big +1 for this feature. > > We built our SQL platform on Java Table API, and most common UDF are > implemented in Java. However some python developers are not familiar >>> with > Java/Scala, and it's very inconvenient for these users to use UDF in >>> SQL. > > Wei Zhong 于2020年2月28日周五 下午6:58写道： > >> Thank for your reply Dan! >> >> By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu < >> imj...@gmail.com> @Timo could you please take a >> look? >> >> Thanks, >> Wei >> >>> 在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道： >>> >>> +1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. >>> This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! >>> >>> Best, >>> Dan Zou >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > > Benchao Li > School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking >>> University > Tel:+86-15650713730 > Email: libenc...@gmail.com; libenc...@pku.edu.cn > > >>> >>> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi all, I had a really quick look and from my perspective the proposal looks fine. I share Jarks opinion that the instantiation could be done at a later stage. I agree with Wei it requires some changes in the internal implementation of the FunctionCatalog, to store temporary functions as catalog functions instead of FunctionDefinitions, but we have that on our agenda anyway. I would suggest investigating if we could do that as part of this flip already. Nevertheless this in theory can be also done later. Best, Dawid On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, 14:58 Jark Wu, wrote: > Thanks for the explanation, Wei! > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong wrote: > > > Hi Jark, > > > > Thanks for your suggestion. > > > > Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the UDF > type, > > because the Python process is used to provide the necessary information > to > > instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For catalog > > function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when compiling the > > job, which means the Python process is required during the compilation > > instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and temporary > > catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated during the > > UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at that time. > > > > But this FLIP will only support registering the temporary system function > > and temporary catalog function in SQL DDL because registering Python UDF > to > > catalog is not supported yet. We plan to support the registeration of > > Python catalog function (via Table API and SQL DDL) in a separate FLIP. > > I'll add a non-goal section to the FLIP page to illustrate this. > > > > Best, > > Wei > > > > > > > 在 2020年3月2日，15:11，Jark Wu 写道： > > > > > > Hi Weizhong, > > > > > > Thanks for proposing this feature. In geneal, I'm +1 from the table's > > view. > > > > > > I have one suggestion: I think the register python function into > catalog > > > doesn't need to startup python process (the "High Level Sequence > Diagram" > > > in your FLIP). > > > Because only meta-information is persisted into catalog, we don't need > to > > > store "return type", "input types" into catalog. > > > I guess the python process is required when compiling a SQL job. > > > > > > Best, > > > Jark > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Benchao Li wrote: > > > > > >> Big +1 for this feature. > > >> > > >> We built our SQL platform on Java Table API, and most common UDF are > > >> implemented in Java. However some python developers are not familiar > > with > > >> Java/Scala, and it's very inconvenient for these users to use UDF in > > SQL. > > >> > > >> Wei Zhong 于2020年2月28日周五 下午6:58写道： > > >> > > >>> Thank for your reply Dan! > > >>> > > >>> By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu < > > >>> imj...@gmail.com> @Timo could you please take a > > >>> look? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Wei > > >>> > > 在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道： > > > > +1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. > > This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! > > > > Best, > > Dan Zou > > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Benchao Li > > >> School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking > > University > > >> Tel:+86-15650713730 > > >> Email: libenc...@gmail.com; libenc...@pku.edu.cn > > >> > > >> > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Thanks for the explanation, Wei! On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Wei Zhong wrote: > Hi Jark, > > Thanks for your suggestion. > > Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the UDF type, > because the Python process is used to provide the necessary information to > instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For catalog > function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when compiling the > job, which means the Python process is required during the compilation > instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and temporary > catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated during the > UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at that time. > > But this FLIP will only support registering the temporary system function > and temporary catalog function in SQL DDL because registering Python UDF to > catalog is not supported yet. We plan to support the registeration of > Python catalog function (via Table API and SQL DDL) in a separate FLIP. > I'll add a non-goal section to the FLIP page to illustrate this. > > Best, > Wei > > > > 在 2020年3月2日，15:11，Jark Wu 写道： > > > > Hi Weizhong, > > > > Thanks for proposing this feature. In geneal, I'm +1 from the table's > view. > > > > I have one suggestion: I think the register python function into catalog > > doesn't need to startup python process (the "High Level Sequence Diagram" > > in your FLIP). > > Because only meta-information is persisted into catalog, we don't need to > > store "return type", "input types" into catalog. > > I guess the python process is required when compiling a SQL job. > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Benchao Li wrote: > > > >> Big +1 for this feature. > >> > >> We built our SQL platform on Java Table API, and most common UDF are > >> implemented in Java. However some python developers are not familiar > with > >> Java/Scala, and it's very inconvenient for these users to use UDF in > SQL. > >> > >> Wei Zhong 于2020年2月28日周五 下午6:58写道： > >> > >>> Thank for your reply Dan! > >>> > >>> By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu < > >>> imj...@gmail.com> @Timo could you please take a > >>> look? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Wei > >>> > 在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道： > > +1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. > This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! > > Best, > Dan Zou > > > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Benchao Li > >> School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking > University > >> Tel:+86-15650713730 > >> Email: libenc...@gmail.com; libenc...@pku.edu.cn > >> > >> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi Jark, Thanks for your suggestion. Actually, the timing of starting a Python process depends on the UDF type, because the Python process is used to provide the necessary information to instantiate the FunctionDefinition object of the Python UDF. For catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated when compiling the job, which means the Python process is required during the compilation instead of the registeration. For temporary system function and temporary catalog function, the FunctionDefinition will be instantiated during the UDF registeration, so the Python process need to be started at that time. But this FLIP will only support registering the temporary system function and temporary catalog function in SQL DDL because registering Python UDF to catalog is not supported yet. We plan to support the registeration of Python catalog function (via Table API and SQL DDL) in a separate FLIP. I'll add a non-goal section to the FLIP page to illustrate this. Best, Wei > 在 2020年3月2日，15:11，Jark Wu 写道： > > Hi Weizhong, > > Thanks for proposing this feature. In geneal, I'm +1 from the table's view. > > I have one suggestion: I think the register python function into catalog > doesn't need to startup python process (the "High Level Sequence Diagram" > in your FLIP). > Because only meta-information is persisted into catalog, we don't need to > store "return type", "input types" into catalog. > I guess the python process is required when compiling a SQL job. > > Best, > Jark > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Benchao Li wrote: > >> Big +1 for this feature. >> >> We built our SQL platform on Java Table API, and most common UDF are >> implemented in Java. However some python developers are not familiar with >> Java/Scala, and it's very inconvenient for these users to use UDF in SQL. >> >> Wei Zhong 于2020年2月28日周五 下午6:58写道： >> >>> Thank for your reply Dan! >>> >>> By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu < >>> imj...@gmail.com> @Timo could you please take a >>> look? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Wei >>> 在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道： +1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! Best, Dan Zou >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Benchao Li >> School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking University >> Tel:+86-15650713730 >> Email: libenc...@gmail.com; libenc...@pku.edu.cn >> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi Weizhong, Thanks for proposing this feature. In geneal, I'm +1 from the table's view. I have one suggestion: I think the register python function into catalog doesn't need to startup python process (the "High Level Sequence Diagram" in your FLIP). Because only meta-information is persisted into catalog, we don't need to store "return type", "input types" into catalog. I guess the python process is required when compiling a SQL job. Best, Jark On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Benchao Li wrote: > Big +1 for this feature. > > We built our SQL platform on Java Table API, and most common UDF are > implemented in Java. However some python developers are not familiar with > Java/Scala, and it's very inconvenient for these users to use UDF in SQL. > > Wei Zhong 于2020年2月28日周五 下午6:58写道： > >> Thank for your reply Dan! >> >> By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu < >> imj...@gmail.com> @Timo could you please take a >> look? >> >> Thanks, >> Wei >> >> > 在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道： >> > >> > +1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. >> > This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! >> > >> > Best, >> > Dan Zou >> > >> > >> >> > > -- > > Benchao Li > School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking University > Tel:+86-15650713730 > Email: libenc...@gmail.com; libenc...@pku.edu.cn > >
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Big +1 for this feature. We built our SQL platform on Java Table API, and most common UDF are implemented in Java. However some python developers are not familiar with Java/Scala, and it's very inconvenient for these users to use UDF in SQL. Wei Zhong 于2020年2月28日周五 下午6:58写道： > Thank for your reply Dan! > > By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu < > imj...@gmail.com> @Timo could you please take a look? > > Thanks, > Wei > > > 在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道： > > > > +1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. > > This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! > > > > Best, > > Dan Zou > > > > > > -- Benchao Li School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking University Tel:+86-15650713730 Email: libenc...@gmail.com; libenc...@pku.edu.cn
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Thank for your reply Dan! By the way, this FLIP is closely related to the SQL API. @Jark Wu @Timo could you please take a look? Thanks, Wei > 在 2020年2月25日，16:25，zoudan 写道： > > +1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. > This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! > > Best, > Dan Zou > >
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
+1 for supporting Python UDF in Java/Scala Table API. This is a great feature and would be helpful for python users! Best, Dan Zou
[DISCUSS] FLIP-106: Support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL
Hi everyone, I would like to start discussion about how to support Python UDF in SQL Function DDL. The SQL Function DDL(FLIP-79[1]) is a great feature which was introduced in the release of 1.10.0. However, it currently only supports creating Java/Scala UDF in the SQL Function DDL. Although FLIP-79 has already proposed a statement about how to create Python UDF in the SQL Function DDL, it’s still not supported yet. We want to introduce the support of Python UDF in the SQL Function DDL to fill this gap. It provides another way of using Python UDF and could extend Python UDF to users of Java/Scala Table API, SQL client, etc. Here is the design doc: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-106%3A+Support+Python+UDF+in+SQL+Function+DDL Looking forward to your feedback! Best, Wei [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-79+Flink+Function+DDL+Support
