I am not quite sure of the need to rename the vectors. Why do we need to rename? This would first require us to remove all the vectors generated by FixedValueVectors.java as they are non-nullable scalar vectors. Removing non-nullable vectors is one of the goals, but it can be done once the new infrastructure is properly setup?
In order to merge the existing patch, I first need to address some (10-15) failures -- few of them are correctness issues w.r.t TestVectorUnloadLoad, TestArrowFile and rest all are related to getMutator(), getAccessor() throwing UnsupportedOperationException. This is why I was saying earlier that I will end up doing a lot of rework by writing redundant code where (if vector instanceof NullableInt or vector instanceof NullableVarChar) we don't use the mutator/accessor and for other vectors we use it for the current patch. These if conditions are getting complicated with ugly type casting in some parts of the code -- https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1164/files#diff-0876c9a0005d1dbaea321ea8d39d79ae So I thought we can probably implement other vectors (remaining scalars, map and list) where no vector has mutator/accessor and then for every ValueVector, we can remove all calls to getMutator(), getAccessor() as opposed to doing them selectively --- https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1164/files#diff-e9273a7b3b35ff7f40f101dc2cf95242 I will try to address these failures by EOD and see if this patch can be merged first. Regarding readers and writers, can we address them subsequently? On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Li Jin <ice.xell...@gmail.com> wrote: > Siddharth, > > Thanks for the update. I think it's fine to move forward with more vectors, > but in the mean time, I think we should also prioritize to merge > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1164, here are a few comments needs > to > be addressed. > > (1) Backward-compatibility: > I think there is no way to maintain backward compability as the new vector > classes will be renamed, but want to confirm we are OK with this decision. > We also think the disruption on the Spark side are OK as Spark's use case > is simple and Bryan and I can take care of the code change. > > (2) Reader/writer classes: > How does the reader/writer classes interact with the new and legacy vector > classes: > > Discussion: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1164#discussion_ > r144074264 > > My thoughts are: > (1) ArrowReader classes should only return new vector classes > (2) ArrowWriter classes should only work with new vector classes > (3) To read/write legacy vectors, we can use adapters to turn legacy > vectors to new vectors (zero-copy, as the underlying buffers should be > transferred directly) > > Jacques also has a few comments, I don't know if they have been addressed. > > For other comments, I think we can add TODO and do it later. I think we can > merge this PR if we address (1) (2) above. > > Comments? > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Siddharth Teotia <siddha...@dremio.com> > wrote: > > > The patch that I have put up https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1198 > > seems to be in a reasonable state. We are now working off a different > > branch "java vector refactor". > > > > Now that we have the basic structure, in order to make quick forward > > progress, I would like to go ahead and do for other types (FLOAT, BIGINT > > etc), list, map and create their legacy > > counter parts -- doing them in subsequent patches is requiring me to > write > > some duplicate code and redundant if conditions in code that expects all > > the vectors to have mutator/accessor. > > > > Is that fine? Just wanted to check with people and ensure there aren't > any > > major concerns. > > > > The feedback on the PR (original one for master > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1164) has been really good -- some > of > > the comments are yet to be addressed and we jointly decided to address > few > > things (like Minor Type etc) after the refactoring has been done. > > > > On the testing front, as far as the correctness is concerned, I have two > > failures in TestArrowFile and TestValueVector. I have added some more > tests > > too. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Siddharth Teotia <siddha...@dremio.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Yes, that is the intention. Good that we all are on the same page. I > will > > > move the PR https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1164 to new branch. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Li Jin <ice.xell...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> To make clear, I think it's fine to have Legacy Vectors in 0.8 as a > > >> deprecated API. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Li Jin <ice.xell...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Siddharth, > > >> > > > >> > For working off a branch, Wes has created > https://github.com/apache/ > > >> > arrow/tree/java-vector-refactor that we can submit PR to. > > >> > > > >> > For Legacy vectors, I think it's fine because it's really just a > > >> migration > > >> > path to help Dremio to migrate to the new vectors. I don't think > other > > >> > users, i.e., Spark will use the Legacy vector class. Bryan and I > will > > >> just > > >> > migrate Spark to new vectors directly because Spark's use of Arrow > is > > >> very > > >> > simple. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Siddharth Teotia < > > siddha...@dremio.com > > >> > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Thanks Bryan and Li. > > >> >> > > >> >> Yes, the goal is to get this (and the subsequent patches) merged to > > the > > >> >> new > > >> >> branch. Once it is stabilized from different aspects, we can move > to > > >> >> master. I am not sure of the exact mechanics when we work off a > > >> different > > >> >> project branch and not master. > > >> >> > > >> >> Does that sound good? > > >> >> > > >> >> Regarding compatibility, are we suggesting that let's not create > > Legacy > > >> >> Nullable vectors at all? The initial thoughts were to generate > Legacy > > >> >> vectors from NullableValueVectors template and these vectors are > > >> >> mutator/accessor based (in today's world). Internally each > operation > > >> will > > >> >> be delegated to new vectors (non code generated). > > >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Bryan Cutler <cutl...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks for the update Siddharth. From the Spark side of this, I > > >> >> definitely > > >> >> > want to try to upgrade to the latest Arrow before the Spark 2.3 > > >> release > > >> >> but > > >> >> > if it the refactor is too disruptive then others might get > > squeamish > > >> >> about > > >> >> > upgrading. On the other hand, I don't think we should hold back > on > > >> >> > refactoring for compatibility sake and the way it's looking now > > >> trying > > >> >> to > > >> >> > be backwards-compatible will be too much of a pain. I will try > to > > >> >> figure > > >> >> > out the timeline for Spark 2.3 and what the feeling is for > > upgrading > > >> >> > Arrow. Can we hold off on merging this to master for now and > just > > >> work > > >> >> out > > >> >> > of the separate branch until we can get a better feeling for the > > >> impact? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Bryan > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Li Jin <ice.xell...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Hi Siddharth, > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Thanks for the update. This looks good. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > A few thoughts: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > *Compatibility:* > > >> >> > > It sounds like we will introduce some back-compatibility with > the > > >> new > > >> >> > > Vector class. At this point I think our main Java users should > be > > >> >> Spark > > >> >> > and > > >> >> > > Dremio, is this right? > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > - For Spark: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > It seems fine since Spark uses just the basic functionality of > > >> Vector > > >> >> > > classes and the existing code should work with the new Vector > > >> classes, > > >> >> > > maybe even without any code change on the Spark side. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > - For Dremio: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Sounds like you are already taking care of this by introducing > > the > > >> >> > > LegacyVector classes. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > *Testing:* > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > - Spark Integration Tests: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Bryan and I can help with integration test with Spark. I think > > the > > >> >> target > > >> >> > > timeline for Spark 2.3 release is some time in mid Nov (Bryan > > >> please > > >> >> > > correct me if I am wrong). > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > I will take a look at the PR today. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Siddharth Teotia < > > >> >> siddha...@dremio.com> > > >> >> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Hi All, > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I wanted to update everyone on state of this mini-project: > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - Requirements document and initial design proposal were > > sent > > >> >> out to > > >> >> > > the > > >> >> > > > community for review and we have received some good > > feedback. > > >> All > > >> >> > > > required > > >> >> > > > docs are attached with corresponding JIRAs. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - The initial prototype is in a reasonable state > > >> (code-complete). > > >> >> > You > > >> >> > > > can see the PR here - https://github.com/apache/arro > > >> w/pull/1164 > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - The prototype has code changes for the new hierarchy, > > >> abstract > > >> >> > > > interfaces for fixed width and variable width vectors and > > >> >> concrete > > >> >> > > > implementation of NullableIntVector and > > NullableVarCharVector. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Plan for testing and integrating into existing > infrastructure: > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - My initial thoughts are that this particular patch will > > >> >> require a > > >> >> > > lot > > >> >> > > > of testing, reviews etc since the foundation of rest of > the > > >> >> > > > implementation > > >> >> > > > more or less depends on how the APIs are flushed out here. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - So the goal is to get this properly tested and merged > into > > >> >> master > > >> >> > > > first. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - The idea is to slowly deprecate and remove the existing > > >> >> vectors in > > >> >> > > > stages. In this patch itself, we change the existing > > >> >> > > > NullableValueVectors.java template to generate > > >> >> > LegacyNullableIntVector > > >> >> > > > and > > >> >> > > > LegacyNullableVarCharVector. Each operation on these > vectors > > >> will > > >> >> > > > delegate > > >> >> > > > to the corresponding NullableIntVector and > > >> NullableVarCharVector > > >> >> > that > > >> >> > > > are > > >> >> > > > newly implemented. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - This achieves two goals w.r.t testing: > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - Firstly, our existing JAVA unit tests will automatically > > >> >> exercise > > >> >> > > the > > >> >> > > > newly written code and its APIs (API names have not > > >> changed) > > >> >> for > > >> >> > > > NullableInt and NullableVarChar vectors. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - Secondly, let's say we rebase Dremio on top of Arrow > > master > > >> and > > >> >> > > > replace all references to NullableIntVector and > > >> >> > > > NullableVarCharVector with > > >> >> > > > their Legacy counterparts, things should still work. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - After this patch gets merged, we can do the following > work > > >> in > > >> >> > > multiple > > >> >> > > > patches: > > >> >> > > > - Write concrete implementations for rest of the > nullable > > >> >> types > > >> >> > -- > > >> >> > > > FLOAT4, FLOAT8, BIGINT, VARBINARY etc > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - Write additional tests (definitely needed but the first > > goal > > >> >> is to > > >> >> > > > make sure existing tests are not broken). > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - Ensure NullableValueVectors template generates Legacy > > >> vectors > > >> >> and > > >> >> > > each > > >> >> > > > operation is merely a delegation to the API in new > > >> >> > implementation. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - In the next Arrow release, remove all Legacy vectors and > > >> >> > > > NullableValueVectors template since we will have the > > >> >> > implementation > > >> >> > > > for > > >> >> > > > each type that passes existing tests. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > - I am currently inspecting the newly written code and > > making > > >> >> > changes > > >> >> > > to > > >> >> > > > the template to generate Legacy vector types for > Nullable > > >> Int > > >> >> > > > and Nullable > > >> >> > > > VarChar and delegating the operations. The changes > should > > >> be > > >> >> > > > available in > > >> >> > > > the PR in a couple of hours. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I am wondering if there are any other ideas around testing, > > >> merging > > >> >> > etc. > > >> >> > > > Please feel free to reply here or comment on the PR. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I would appreciate if people can take time to review the code > > in > > >> PR > > >> >> -- > > >> >> > > > especially the abstract classes BaseNullableFixedWidth and > > >> >> > > > BaseNullableVariableWidth. Writing concrete implementations > for > > >> >> other > > >> >> > > types > > >> >> > > > will be much less hassle if these abstract classes have > proper > > >> code. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks, > > >> >> > > > Siddharth > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
