Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks Fabian, Rui and Jark for the nice discussion! It seems everyone involved in this discussion has reached a consensus. I will start another vote thread later. Best, Leonard > 在 2020年8月24日，20:54，Fabian Hueske 写道： > > Hi everyone, > > Thanks for the good discussion! > > I'm fine keeping

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi everyone, Thanks for the good discussion! I'm fine keeping the names "event-time temporal join" and "processing-time temporal join". Also +1 for Rui's proposal using "versioned table" for versioned dynamic table and "regular table" for regular dynamic table. Thanks, Fabian Am Mo., 24. Aug.

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

I think we have to make some compromise here. Either updating the definition of "temporal table", or extending the definition of "temporal join". I'm also fine with Rui's proposal that "temporal join" can also work with a regular table. Best, Jark On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 23:49, Leonard Xu wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks @Fabian @Jark @Rui for sharing your opinions. For the the small divergence about choose a temporal join name or temporal table name, I don't have strong inclination. Regarding to choose a different name for this join: I agree with Jark and Rui to keep the existing "event-time temporal jo

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi guys, Just my two cents. I agree with Jark that we should use "event-time/processing-time temporal join" as the name for this join. But I'm not sure about the definition of "temporal table". Then the "temporal join" (i.e. FOR SYSTEM_TIME AS OF syntax) joins a > non-temporal table, which also

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi everyone, Thank you for the great discussion @Leonard and @Fabian. *Regarding to choose a different name for this join:* >From my point of view, I don't agree to introduce a new grammar called whatever "lookup join" or "version join", because: 1. "lookup" is a physical behavior not a logical

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi everyone, Yes, just to help user distinguish the difference between versioned > temporal table and latest-only temporal table. > > I don't think we help users to understand the differences if we invent new (IMO confusing) terms ("temporal table without version" or "latest-only temporal table")

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks Fabian > Isn't a table that has only the latest version just a regular table? > Why invent a fancy name for something that is the standard behavior of > (non-temporal) tables in all database systems? Yes, just to help user distinguish the difference between versioned temporal table and

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi Leonard, Not sure if "Latest-only temporal table" is much better than "temporal table without version". Isn't a table that has only the latest version just a regular table? Why invent a fancy name for something that is the standard behavior of (non-temporal) tables in all database systems? Cou

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks Fabian and Seth for the feedback I agree the name “temporal table without version” is less accurate because this kind of temporal table has a latest version rather than has no version. How about “Latest-only temporal table” ? The related concept section updated as following: Temporal T

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

+1 to the updated design. I agree with Fabian that the naming of "temporal table without version" is a bit confusing but the actual semantics make sense to me. I think just saying its a Flink managed lookup join makes sense. Seth On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 3:07 PM Fabian Hueske wrote: > Thanks fo

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks for the updated FLIP Leonard! In my opinion this was an improvement. So +1 for this design. I have just one remark regarding the terminology. I find the term "Temporal Table without Version" somewhat confusing. IMO, versions are the core principle of temporal tables and temporal tables with

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks Leonard for the clarifications! On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 9:17 PM Leonard Xu wrote: > > > But are we still able to track different views of such a > > table through time, as rows are added/deleted to/from the table? > > Yes, in fact we support temporal table from changlog which contains all

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

> But are we still able to track different views of such a > table through time, as rows are added/deleted to/from the table? Yes, in fact we support temporal table from changlog which contains all possible message types(INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE). > For > example, suppose I have an append-only tabl

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hey Leonard, Thanks for summarizing the document. I have one quick question. I understand a temporal table w/o version means each row in the table only has one version. But are we still able to track different views of such a table through time, as rows are added/deleted to/from the table? For exa

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi, all After a detailed offline discussion about the temporal table related concept and behavior, we had a reliable solution and rejected several alternatives. Compared to rejected alternatives, the proposed approach is a more unified story and also friendly to user and current Flink framework.

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi, all I’ve updated the FLIP[1] with the terminology `ChangelogTime`. Best Leonard [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-132+Temporal+Table+DDL > 在 2020年8月4日，20:58，Leonard Xu 写道： > > Hi, Ti

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi, Timo Thanks for you response. > 1) Naming: Is operation time a good term for this concept? If I read "The > operation time is the time when the changes happened in system." or "The > system time of DML execution in database", why don't we call it > `ChangelogTime` or `SystemTime`? Introduc

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi Leonard, sorry for jumping into the discussion so late. But I have two questions: 1) Naming: Is operation time a good term for this concept? If I read "The operation time is the time when the changes happened in system." or "The system time of DML execution in database", why don't we call i

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks Konstantin, Regarding your questions, hope my comments has address your questions and I also add a few explanation in the FLIP. Thank you all for the feedback, It seems everyone involved in this thread has reached a consensus. I will start a vote thread later. Best, Leonard > 在 20

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks Lennard for driving this FLIP. Looks good to me. Best, Godfrey Jark Wu 于2020年8月3日周一 下午12:04写道： > Thanks Leonard for the great FLIP. I think it is in very good shape. > +1 to start a vote. > > Best, > Jark > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 17:56, Fabian Hueske wrote: > > > Hi Leonard, > > > > T

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Thanks Leonard for the great FLIP. I think it is in very good shape. +1 to start a vote. Best, Jark On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 17:56, Fabian Hueske wrote: > Hi Leonard, > > Thanks for this FLIP! > Looks good from my side. > > Cheers, Fabian > > Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 22:15 Uhr schrieb Seth Wiesma

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi Leonard, Thanks for this FLIP! Looks good from my side. Cheers, Fabian Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 22:15 Uhr schrieb Seth Wiesman : > Hi Leondard, > > Thank you for pushing this, I think the updated syntax looks really good > and the semantics make sense to me. > > +1 > > Seth > > On Wed, Jul 2

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi Leondard, Thank you for pushing this, I think the updated syntax looks really good and the semantics make sense to me. +1 Seth On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:36 AM Leonard Xu wrote: > Hi, Konstantin > > > > > 1) A "Versioned Temporal Table DDL on source" can only be joined on the > > PRIMARY

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi, Konstantin > > 1) A "Versioned Temporal Table DDL on source" can only be joined on the > PRIMARY KEY attribute, correct? Yes, the PRIMARY KEY would be join key. > > 2) Isn't it the time attribute in the ORDER BY clause of the VIEW definition > that defines > whether a event-time or proces

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hi Leonard, Thank you for preparing this FLIP. I have a few questions. 1) A "Versioned Temporal Table DDL on source" can only be joined on the PRIMARY KEY attribute, correct? 2) The "processing time temporal table join" example under "how to correlate a temporal table" does not make sense to me

[DISCUSS] FLIP-132: Temporal Table DDL

Hello everyone, Currently, user can correlate temporal table by temporal table join to enrich their fact table, a temporal table can be a changing history table which tracks the changes(e.g. database changelog) or a changing dimensioned table which materializes the changes(e.g. database table)