OK，thank you for your suggestions ，I will revise the CEP and copy table OPTIONS by default.
Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com>于2024年10月23日 周三下午9:18写道： > Also strongly +1 to copying all the options. > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 5:52 AM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> I'm a very strong +1 to having the default functionality be to copy *ALL* >> options. >> >> Intuitively, as a user, if I tell a software system to make a clone of >> something I don't expect it to be shallow or a subset defined by some >> external developer somewhere. I expect it to be a clone. >> >> Adding in some kind of "lean" mode or "column only" is fine if someone >> can make a cogent argument around its inclusion. I don't personally see a >> use-case for it right now but definitely open to being educated. >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024, at 3:03 AM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: >> >> options are inherently part of that table as well, same as schema. In >> fact, _schema_ includes all options. Not just columns and its names. If you >> change some option, you effectively have a different schema, schema version >> changes by changing an option. So if we do not copy options too, we are >> kind of faking it (when we do not specify WITH OPTIONS). >> >> Also, imagine a situation where Accord is merged to trunk. It introduces >> a new schema option called "transactional = full" which is not default. (I >> am sorry if I did the spelling wrong here). So, when you have a table with >> transactional support and you do "create table ks.tb_copy like ks.tb", when >> you _do not_ copy all options, this table will _not_ become transactional. >> >> The next thing you go to do is to execute some transactions against this >> table but well ... you can not do that, because your table is not >> transactional, because you have forgotten to add "WITH OPTIONS". So you >> need to go back to that and do "ALTER ks.tb_copy WITH transactional = full" >> just to support that. >> >> I think that you see from this pattern that it is way better if we copy >> all options by default instead of consciously opt-in into them. >> >> also: >> >> "but I think there are also some users want to do basic column >> information copy" >> >> where is this coming from? Do you have this idea somehow empirically >> tested? I just do not see why somebody would want to have Cassandra's >> defaults instead of what a base table contains. >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 8:28 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The reason for using OPTION keyword is that I want to provide users with >> more choices . >> The default behavior for copying a table is to copy the basic item of >> table （column and their data type，mask，constraint），others thing belongs to >> the table like option，views，trigger >> are optional in my mind. >> You are absolutely right that users may want to copy all stuff but I >> think there are aslo some users want to do basic column information copy，So >> I just give them a choice。As we know that the number of table parameters is >> not small，compression，compaction，gc_seconds，bf_chance，speculative_retry and >> so on. >> >> Besides we can see that pg have also the keyword COMMENT，COMPRESSION >> which have the similar behavior as our OPTION keyword。 >> >> So that is why I add this keyword OPTION. >> >> >> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org>于2024年10月22日 周二下午11:40写道： >> >> The problem is that when I do this minimal CQL which shows this feature: >> >> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb; >> >> then you are saying that when I _do not_ specify WITH OPTIONS then I get >> Cassandra's defaults. Only after I specify WITH OPTIONS, it would truly be >> a copy. >> >> This is not a good design. Because to have an exact copy, I have to make >> a conscious effort to include OPTIONS as well. That should not be the case. >> I just want to have a copy, totally the same stuff, when I use the minimal >> version of that statement. It would be better to opt-out from options like >> >> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITHOUT OPTIONS (you feel me) but we >> do not support this (yet). >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:28 PM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> I just don't see OPTIONS as important. When I want to copy a table, I am >> copying a table _with everything_. Options included, by default. Why would >> I want to have a copy of a table with options different from the base one? >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:55 PM Bernardo Botella < >> conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Guo, >> >> +1 for the CONSTRAINTS keyword to be added into the default behavior. >> >> Bernardo >> >> On Oct 21, 2024, at 12:01 AM, guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think the CONSTRAINTS keyword keyword may be in the same situation as >> datamask. >> Maybe it is better to include constraints into the default behavior of >> table copy together with column name, column data type and data mask. >> >> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月21日周一 14:56写道： >> >> To yifan : >> I don't mind adding the ALL keyword, and it has been updated into CEP. >> >> As all you can see, our original intention was that the grammar would not >> be too complicated, which is what I described in cep >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >> . >> We gave up PG-related grammar, including INCLUDING/EXCLUDING and so on . >> >> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月21日周一 14:52写道： >> >> Hi , >> To sefan : >> I may want to explain that if there is no OPTION keyword in the CQL >> statement, then the newly created table will only have the >> original table's column name 、column type and data mask ,I think this is >> the most basic choice when copying tables to users. >> Then we do some addition, we can add original table's table options >> like compaction strategy/compress strategy、index and so on. >> >> Recently, I have also thought about the situation of CONSTRAINTS keyword. >> I think it is similar to data mask. Agree that it should be included in the >> basic options of table copy (column name, column data type , column data >> mask and constraints). >> >> >> Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> 于2024年10月19日周六 01:15写道： >> >> It seems like a natural extension of the CREATE TABLE statement. Looking >> forward to using it in the future. >> >> -Dave >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:11 PM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> Right?! Reads like English, the impact on the existing CQL is minimal. >> One LIKE which basically needs to be there and keywords of logical >> "components" which seamlessly integrate with WITH. >> >> I would _not_ use WITH CONSTRAINTS because constraints will be inherently >> part of a table schema. It is not an "option". We can not "opt-out" from >> them. Remember we are copying a table here so if a base one has >> constraints, its copy will have them too. A user can subsequently "ALTER" >> them. >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:31 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >> wrote: >> >> Basing it on CREATE TABLE, the BNF definition of the simple >> implementation would look something like this: >> >> create_table_statement::= CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] table_name LIKE >> base_table_name >> [ WITH included_objects ] [ [ AND ] table_options ] >> table_options::= COMPACT STORAGE [ AND table_options ] >> | CLUSTERING ORDER BY '(' clustering_order ')' >> [ AND table_options ] | options >> clustering_order::= column_name (ASC | DESC) ( ',' column_name (ASC | >> DESC) )* >> included_objects::= dependent_objects [ AND dependent_objects ] >> dependent_objects:= INDEXES | TRIGGERS | CONSTRAINTS | VIEWS >> >> >> CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] [<keyspace_name>.]<table_name> LIKE >> [<keyspace_name>.]<base_table_name> >> [ WITH [ <included_objects > ] >> [ [ AND ] [ <table_options> ] ] >> [ [ AND ] CLUSTERING ORDER BY [ <clustering_column_name> (ASC | DESC) ] >> ] >> ; >> >> Examples: >> >> -- Create base table: >> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name ( >> id UUID PRIMARY KEY, >> lastname text, >> firstname text >> ); >> >> -- Create an exact copy of the base table, but do not create any >> dependent objects: >> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name2 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name; >> >> -- Create an exact copy with all dependent objects (constraints excluded >> for now): >> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name3 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name >> WITH INDEXES AND TRIGGERS AND VIEWS; >> >> -- Create a copy with LCS compaction, a default TTL and all dependent >> objects except indexes: >> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name4 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name >> WITH TRIGGERS AND VIEWS >> AND compaction = { 'class' : 'LeveledCompactionStrategy' } >> AND default_time_to_live = 86400; >> >> >> >> >> This seems pretty clean & straightforward. >> >> -Dave >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 4:05 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >> wrote: >> >> This simple approach resonates with me. I think the Cassandra doc uses >> "INDEXES" as the plural for index, i.e.: >> https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/stable/cassandra/cql/indexes.html >> >> -Dave >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 2:39 PM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> Well we could do something like: >> >> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDICES AND TRIGGERS AND >> compaction = {'class': '.... } AND ... >> >> but I can admit it might be seen as an overreach and I am not sure at all >> how it would look like in the implementation because we would need to >> distinguish WITH INDICES from table options. >> >> I would >> >> 1. +0 on ALL. - we don't need this. If we have just INDICES, >> TRIGGERS, VIEWS at this point, I don't think enumerating it all is too >> much >> to ask. This is just an implementation detail and if we find it necessary >> we can add it later. If you feel strongly about this then add that but it >> is not absolutely necessary. >> 2. omit OPTIONS - aren't all options copied by default? That is the >> goal of the CEP, no? We might just use normal CQL while overriding >> from the base table >> 3. mix keywords like TRIGGERS / INDICES / CONSTRAINTS into normal >> table creation statement >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 3:20 PM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I would second Štefan's option for functionality simplicity. It seems to >> be unnecessary to have the keywords for both inclusion and exclusion in the >> CEP. If needed, the exclusion (WITHOUT) can be introduced later. It would >> still be backward compatible. >> >> Regarding "CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH compaction = {'class': >> '.... } AND ... ", I think it only overrides the table options. The CEP >> suggests the coarse-grained keyword for each category like table options, >> indexes, etc. The functionality provided is not identical. >> >> I understand that the suggestions are to make operators' life easier by >> achieving table creation in a single statement. What is being proposed in >> the CEP seems to be at a good balance point. Operators can alter the table >> options if needed in the follow-up ALTER table statement. >> >> - Yifan >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:41 PM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> I think we are starting to complicate it. For me the most important >> question is who is actually this feature for? If people want to just >> prototype something fast or they just want to have "the same table just >> under a different name", I think that is going to be used in 99% of cases. >> >> >> My assumption of using WITH which I think I proposed first (4th post in >> this thread) was to just blindly copy the most important "parts" logically >> related to a table, be it indices, materialized views, or triggers and >> enable / disable them as we wish. If no "WITH" is used, then we just get a >> table with nothing else. "WITH" will opt-in into that. >> >> Seeing us contemplating using "INCLUDING" and "EXCLUDING" on individual >> options makes me sad a little bit. I think we are over-engineering this. I >> just don't see a reasonable use-case where users would need to cherry-pick >> what they want and what not. Isn't that just too complicated? If a table >> being copied drifts away too much from the original one then users would be >> better off with creating a brand new table with CQL as they are used to, >> not dealing with "copying" at all. More we drift from what the original >> table was like, the less useful this feature is. >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:03 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >> wrote: >> >> Sorry that I overlooked the definition of the default in the CEP. I did >> look for it but I didn’t see it. >> >> I think the default behavior you explained makes perfect sense & what one >> would expect. >> >> I like the flexibility of INCLUDING and EXCLUDING that you are >> considering. >> >> Would it make sense to use WITH for table options, which would make it >> easy (and less confusing IMHO) to override the defaults from the source >> table, then use INCLUDING/EXCLUDING for all non-table options such as >> constraints and indices? >> >> It seems this would be easier to document as well, as it could just point >> to the CREATE TABLE doc for the options, rather than trying to explain a >> bunch of keywords that map to table options. >> >> -Dave >> >> David A. Herrington II >> President and Chief Engineer >> RhinoSource, Inc. >> >> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >> >> www.rhinosource.com >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:57 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> To yifan : >> At the beginning of the period, I also thought about adding the keyword >> ALL, refer to pg >> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html> , but I >> give up when writing cep as I find that there may be not so many properties >> (only three) to copy for C* and >> It is possible to decide what is needed and what is not in a very simple >> cql, as our ALL is only three properties here. I want to keep it as simple >> as possible (based on the advice given by Benjamin), So I grouped >> the properties of the table into one category and expressed it with >> OPTION keyword. >> >> But if we are going to split the first keyword OPTION to COMPRESSION >> 、COMPACTION、COMMENT and so on. I am +1 on adding ALL back as the properties >> are so many and it is simple to use ALL instead of >> list all properties. Besides I may change my keyword WITH to INCLUDING >> and adding another keyword EXCLUDING to flexibly copy table >> properties through simple sql statements, like using 1 not 2 >> >> >> 1. CREATE TABLE newTb like oldTb INCLUDING ALL EXCLUDING INDEXES AND >> COMMENTS. >> 2. CREATE TABLE newTb like oldTb INCLUDING COMPRESSION CONSTRAINTS >> GENERATED IDENTITY STATISTICS STORAGE >> >> Conclusion: If there may be more keywords to consider in the future, such >> as more than 4 , I am +1 on adding ALL back . >> >> To Dave : >> Default behavior is only copy column name, data type ,data mask , you >> can see more detail from CEP-43 >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >> . >> >> >> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月17日周四 06:43写道： >> >> +1 That makes much more sense in my experience. >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:12 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >> wrote: >> >> I'm coming at this with both a deep ANSI SQL background as well as CQL >> background. >> >> Defining the default behavior is the starting point. What gets copied if >> we do "CREATE TABLE new_table LIKE original_table;" without a WITH clause? >> >> Then, you build on that with the specific WITH options. WITH ALL catches >> everything. >> >> -Dave >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:16 AM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> "WITH ALL" seems to be a natural addition to the directives. What do you >> think about adding the fifth keyword ALL to retain all fields of the table >> schema? >> >> For instance, CREATE TABLE new_table LIKE original_table WITH ALL, it >> replicates options, indexes, triggers, constraints and any applicable kinds >> that are introduced in the future. >> >> - Yifan >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:46 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Disscussed with Bernardo on slack，and +1 with his advice on adding a >> fourth keyword. >> >> The keyword would be CONSTRAINTS ， any more suggestion ？ >> >> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com>于2024年10月16日 周三上午9:55写道： >> >> Hi yifan, >> Thanks for bringing this up. The SELECT permission on the original table >> is needed. Mysql and PG all have mentioned this, and I also specifically >> noticed this in my code. >> >> I probably missed this in the cep documentation. 😅 >> >> Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月16日周三 07:46写道： >> >> Thanks for creating the CEP! I think it is missing Bernardo's comment on >> "the need for read permissions on the source table". >> >> CreateTableStatement does not check the permissions outside of the >> enclosing keyspace. Having the SELECT permission on the original table is a >> requirement for CREATE TABLE LIKE. >> >> - Yifan >> >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 11:01 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hello, everyone , >> I have finished the doc for CEP-43 for CREATE_TABLE_LIKE >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >> as >> said before, looking forward to your suggestions. >> >> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> 于2024年9月25日周三 03:51写道： >> >> I am sorry I do not follow what you mean, maybe an example would help. >> >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 6:18 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> If there are multiple schema information changes in one ddl statement, >> will there be schema conflicts in extreme cases? >> For example, our statement contains both table creation and index >> creation. >> >> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com>于2024年9月24日 周二下午8:12写道： >> >> +1 on splitting this task and adding the ability to copy tables through >> different keyspaces in the future. >> >> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> 于2024年9月23日周一 22:05写道： >> >> If we have this table >> >> CREATE TABLE ks.tb2 ( >> id int PRIMARY KEY, >> name text >> ); >> >> I can either specify name of an index on my own like this: >> >> CREATE INDEX name_index ON ks.tb2 (name) ; >> >> or I can let Cassandra to figure that name on its own: >> >> CREATE INDEX ON ks.tb2 (name) ; >> >> in that case it will name that index "tb2_name_idx". >> >> Hence, I would expect that when we do >> >> ALTER TABLE ks.to_copy LIKE ks.tb2 WITH INDICES; >> >> Then ks.to_copy table will have an index which is called >> "to_copy_name_idx" without me doing anything. >> >> For types, we do not need to do anything when we deal with the same >> keyspace. For simplicity, I mentioned that we might deal with the same >> keyspace scenario only for now and iterate on that in the future. >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 8:53 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Cep is being written, and I encountered some problems during the process. >> I would like to discuss them with you. If you read the description of this >> CASSANDRA-7662 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7662>, >> we will find that initially the original creator of this jira did not >> intend to implement structural copying of indexes, views, and triggers >> only the column and its data type. >> >> However, after investigating some db related syntax and function >> implementation, I found that it may be necessary for us to provide some >> rich syntax to support the replication of indexes, views, etc. >> >> In order to support selective copy of the basic structure of the table >> (columns and types), table options, table-related indexes, views, triggers, >> etc. We need some new syntax, it seems that the syntax of pg is relatively >> comprehensive, it use the keyword INCLUDING/EXCLUDING to flexibly control >> the removal and retention of indexes, table information, etc. see pg >> create table like >> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/sql-createtable.html> , the new >> created index name is different from the original table's index name , >> seenewly >> copied index names are different from original >> <https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml#L749> >> , the name is based on some rule. >> Mysql is relatively simple and copies columns and indexes by default. see >> mysql >> create table like >> <https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/create-table-like.html> and the >> newly created index name is the same with the original table's index name. >> >> So for Casandra, I hope it can also support the information copy of index >> and even view/trigger. And I also hope to be able to flexibly decide which >> information is copied like pg. >> >> Besides, I think the copy can happen between different keyspaces. And UDT >> needs to be taken into account. >> >> But as we know the index/view/trigger name are all under keyspace level, >> so it seems that the newly created index name (or view name/ trigger name) >> must be different from the original tables' ,otherwise names would clash . >> >> So regarding the above problem, one idea I have is that for newly created >> types, indexes and views under different keyspaces and the same keyspace, >> we first generate random names for them, and then we can add the ability of >> modifying the names(for types/indexes/views/triggers) so that users can >> manually change the names. >> >> >> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年9月20日周五 08:06写道： >> >> No，I think still need some discuss on grammar detail after I finish the >> first version >> >> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com>于2024年9月20日 周五上午2:24写道： >> >> Is this CEP ready for a VOTE thread? >> >> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 8:56 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thank you for your replies, I will prepare a CEP later. >> >> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> 于2024年8月20日周二 02:11写道： >> >> +1 This is a CEP >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:50 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >> >> Given the fairly large surface area for this, i think it should be a CEP. >> >> — >> Jon Haddad >> Rustyrazorblade Consulting >> rustyrazorblade.com >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:44 AM Bernardo Botella < >> conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: >> >> Definitely a nice addition to CQL. >> >> Looking for inspiration at how Postgres and Mysql do that may also help >> with the final design (I like the WITH proposed by Stefan, but I would >> definitely take a look at the INCLUDING keyword proposed by Postgres). >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html >> https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/create-table-like.html >> >> On top of that, and as part of the interesting questions, I would like to >> add the permissions to the mix. Both the question about copying them over >> (with a WITH keyword probably), and the need for read permissions on the >> source table as well. >> >> Bernardo >> >> >> On Aug 19, 2024, at 10:01 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> BTW this would be cool to do as well: >> >> ALTER TABLE ks.to_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDICES; >> >> This would mean that if we create a copy of a table, later we can decide >> that we need indices too, so we might "enrich" that table with indices from >> the old one without necessarily explicitly re-creating them on that new >> table. >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:55 PM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> I think this is an interesting idea worth exploring. I definitely agree >> with Benjamin who raised important questions which needs to be answered >> first. Also, what about triggers? >> >> It might be rather "easy" to come up with something simple but it should >> be a comprehensive solution with predictable behavior we all agree on. >> >> If a keyspace of a new table does not exist we would need to create that >> one too before. For the simplicity, I would just make it a must to create >> it on same keyspace. We might iterate on that in the future. >> >> UDTs are created per keyspace so there is nothing to re-create. We just >> need to reference it from a new table, right? >> >> Indexes and MVs are interesting but in theory they might be re-created >> too. >> >> Would it be appropriate to use something like this? >> >> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDEXES AND VIEWS AND TRIGGERS >> .... >> >> Without "WITH" it would just copy a table with nothing else. >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:10 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello， everyone： >> As Jira CASSANDRA-7662 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7662> has described , >> we would like to introduce a new grammer " CREATE TABLE LIKE " >> ,which simplifies creating new tables duplicating the existing ones . >> The format may be like : CREATE TABLE <new_table> LIKE <old_table> >> Before I implement this function, do you have any suggestions on this? >> >> Looking forward to your reply！ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -Dave >> >> David A. Herrington II >> President and Chief Engineer >> RhinoSource, Inc. >> >> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >> >> www.rhinosource.com >> >> >> >> -- >> -Dave >> >> David A. Herrington II >> President and Chief Engineer >> RhinoSource, Inc. >> >> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >> >> www.rhinosource.com >> >> >> >> -- >> -Dave >> >> David A. Herrington II >> President and Chief Engineer >> RhinoSource, Inc. >> >> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >> >> www.rhinosource.com >> >> >> >> -- >> -Dave >> >> David A. Herrington II >> President and Chief Engineer >> RhinoSource, Inc. >> >> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >> >> www.rhinosource.com >> >> >>
