No worries. I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-15921 for this.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, at 16:43, Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> Agreed. Sorry I didn't do a better job in the original comments in the proto 
> file. 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 1:42 PM David Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>> __
>> Ah, thanks for the clarification Jacques - we should perhaps clarify that in 
>> the spec itself.
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, at 16:37, Jacques Nadeau wrote:
>>> The intention was that a flight consumer could use any of the location 
>>> values and they produced equivalent data. Similar to the concept of block 
>>> location in the hdfs api. This could allow a single flight dataset to be 
>>> served from multiple locations (and/or protocols) and temhe consumer can 
>>> choose the optimal path of access (to maximize locality, etc).
>>> 
>>> It was never meant to be application specified. 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 1:24 PM Kyle Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I would second that - let's just make it part of implementing Flight SQL 
>>>> in terms of how this should be interpreted. I don't have a specific 
>>>> opinion on what the best interpretation would be, however.
>>>> 
>>>> *Kyle Porter*
>>>> CEO
>>>> Bit Quill Technologies Inc.
>>>> Office: +1.778.331.3355 | Direct: +1.604.441.7318 | [email protected]
>>>> https://www.bitquill.com
>>>> 
>>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and 
>>>> may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized 
>>>> review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not 
>>>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and 
>>>> destroy all copies of the original message.  Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 1:21 PM David Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> __
>>>>> Are existing services really a concern? Implementing Flight SQL means 
>>>>> you're in control already, and I'd rather see a single clear 
>>>>> specification over a lot of toggles/flags.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, at 16:08, James Duong wrote:
>>>>>> I propose for Flight SQL, we make this an always existing GetSqlInfo 
>>>>>> property, so clients can understand the server's intent. (As opposed to 
>>>>>> mandating behavior one way or the other, which could make Flight SQL 
>>>>>> harder to adapt to existing Flight services if we pick the wrong way).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With regular Flight, the application will already be tuned to the 
>>>>>> server's behavior so there's no need for metadata around this there.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 1:02 PM Kyle Porter <[email protected]> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> It seems like we should probably specify the behaviour for Flight SQL, 
>>>>>>> at the very least, to ensure that the behaviour is consistent, which is 
>>>>>>> one of the goals of Flight SQL.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *Kyle Porter*
>>>>>>> CEO
>>>>>>> Bit Quill Technologies Inc.
>>>>>>> Office: +1.778.331.3355 | Direct: +1.604.441.7318 | 
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> https://www.bitquill.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and 
>>>>>>> may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized 
>>>>>>> review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not 
>>>>>>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and 
>>>>>>> destroy all copies of the original message.  Thank you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 1:01 PM David Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> __
>>>>>>>> The perhaps unsatisfactory answer is that it is up to the application 
>>>>>>>> how to interpret this. For instance, it could be used to indicate 
>>>>>>>> multiple servers that can all handle the request, allowing the client 
>>>>>>>> to pick one at its choosing (say, for load balancing, or because the 
>>>>>>>> client only supports certain protocols).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, at 15:58, James Duong wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This seems inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In this c++ performance test it looks like it just gets the first 
>>>>>>>>> location in every endpoint (though it gets data from every endpoint 
>>>>>>>>> in parallel):
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/dc2e0b2e44fdaa3d5ad0bb358ff8ce9db3bc7416/cpp/src/arrow/flight/flight_benchmark.cc#L297
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The protobuf definition is a bit unclear too. It says the client can 
>>>>>>>>> redeem the ticket at every location, but doesn't say the client
>>>>>>>>> must retrieve data at every location to get the whole dataset (so 
>>>>>>>>> it's not clear if this is for redundancy or partitioning):
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/dc2e0b2e44fdaa3d5ad0bb358ff8ce9db3bc7416/format/Flight.proto#L283
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The Java and C++ examples posted also do not handle the case where 
>>>>>>>>> the location is empty.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:53 PM Rafael Telles <[email protected]> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What is the user supposed to do with the Location list in a 
>>>>>>>>>> FlightEndpoint?
>>>>>>>>>> Looking at this integration test 
>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/dc2e0b2e44fdaa3d5ad0bb358ff8ce9db3bc7416/java/flight/flight-integration-tests/src/main/java/org/apache/arrow/flight/integration/tests/IntegrationTestClient.java#L151)
>>>>>>>>>>  it's iterating on Location list and issuing multiple getStream() 
>>>>>>>>>> calls with the same ticket.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> *James Duong*
>>>>>>>>> Lead Software Developer
>>>>>>>>> Bit Quill Technologies Inc.
>>>>>>>>> Direct: +1.604.562.6082 | [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bitquilltech.com
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
>>>>>>>>> and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any 
>>>>>>>>> unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.  
>>>>>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by 
>>>>>>>>> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.  Thank 
>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> *James Duong*
>>>>>> Lead Software Developer
>>>>>> Bit Quill Technologies Inc.
>>>>>> Direct: +1.604.562.6082 | [email protected]
>>>>>> https://www.bitquilltech.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and 
>>>>>> may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized 
>>>>>> review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not 
>>>>>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and 
>>>>>> destroy all copies of the original message.  Thank you.
>>>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to