I don't want to derail this thread, but I would like to correct any
misperceptions which may exist in the community.
1) HiveQL intends to include SQL as a subset of its syntax: see the VLDB
paper for more (
http://www.slideshare.net/namit_jain/hive-demo-paper-at-vldb-2009). As it
stands today, a reasonable subset of SQL is already supported, and most
users of MySQL, Oracle, or PostgreSQL will be able to work comfortably in
2) There's a patch for SQL support in Pig:
Every database implements a different dialect of SQL (e.g. express a Top K
query in your favorite database and compare to the rest), and the Pig and
HiveQL dialects are as valid as any other. If you disagree, I'd love to hear
your perspective on why these languages are "not SQL".
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> uhhh... neither pig nor hive are really SQL. Higher level of abstraction
> than pure MR, but not SQL.
> You are right to include Greenplum, though. They slipped my mind, probably
> because they don't have a google ad running everything 30 seconds like
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Jeff Hammerbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Do you want to tightly integrate SQL and map-reduce? Asterdata has a
> > > product that might help you.
> > >
> > As does Greenplum. You could also get this functionality from Pig or
> > which are Apache 2.0-licensed subprojects of Hadoop.
> Ted Dunning, CTO