I don't see any objections to the rest of the proposal (loading functions
from the catalog, function binding stuff, etc.) and I assume everyone is OK
with it. We can commit that part first.
Currently, the discussion focuses on the `ScalarFunction` API, where I
think it's better to directly take th
I'm on Ubuntu 20, Java 8, Maven, with most every profile enabled (Hive,
YARN, Mesos, K8S, SparkR, etc). I think it's probably transient or specific
to my env; just checking if anyone else sees this. Obviously the main test
builds do not fail on Jenkins.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:47 PM Dongjoon Hy
I didn't see them. Could you describe your environment: OS, Java,
Maven/SBT, profiles?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 6:26 PM Sean Owen wrote:
> I think I'm +1 on this, in that I don't see any more test failures than I
> usually do, and I think they're due to my local env, but is anyone seeing
> these
I think I'm +1 on this, in that I don't see any more test failures than I
usually do, and I think they're due to my local env, but is anyone seeing
these failures?
- includes jars passed in through --jars *** FAILED ***
Process returned with exit code 1. See the log4j logs for more detail.
(Spark
+1
I've looked around the jira tickets and I couldn't find any blocker in the
SQL part.
Also, I ran the tests on aws env and I couldn't find any critical error
there, too.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:21 PM John Zhuge wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:11 PM Maxim Gekk
> wr
Thanks, Hyukjin. I think that's a fair summary. And I agree with the idea
that we should focus on what Spark will do by default.
I think we should focus on the proposal, for two reasons: first, there is a
straightforward path to incorporate Wenchen's suggestion via
`SupportsInvoke`, and second, th
Thank you so much for sharing the progress, Wenchen! Also, thank you,
Hyukjin.
Bests,
Dongjoon.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 2:49 AM Wenchen Fan wrote:
> I did a simple benchmark (adding two long values) to compare the
> performance between
> 1. native expression
> 2. the current UDF
> 3. new UDF wi
I did a simple benchmark (adding two long values) to compare the
performance between
1. native expression
2. the current UDF
3. new UDF with individual parameters
4. new UDF with a row parameter (with the row object cached)
5. invoke a static method (to explore the possibility of speeding up
statel
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:11 PM Maxim Gekk
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:54 AM Wenchen Fan wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 1:43 PM Dongjoon Hyun
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Bests,
>>> Dongjoon.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 2:27 AM
