Sounds good to me
On 4/9/13 12:04 AM, "Jitendra Pandey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree that we shouldn't wait too long before merging the branch.
>We are targeting to have basic queries working within a month from now and
>will definitely propose to merge the branch back into trunk at that point.
>We will limit the scope of the work on the branch to just a few operators
>and primitive datatypes. Does that sound reasonable?
>On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Namit Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is no right answer, but I feel if you go this path a long way, it
>> will be very difficult
>> to merge back. Given that this is not a new functionality, and
>> to existing code
>> (which will also evolve), it will become difficult to maintain/review a
>> big diff in the future.
>> I haven't thought much about it, but can start by creating the
>> interfaces first, and then
>> going from there. For e.g.: create interfaces for operators which take
>> an array of rows instead of
>> a single row - initially the array size can always be 1. Now, proceed
>> What makes you think, merging a branch 6 months/1 year from now will be
>> easier than working on the
>> current branch ?
>> Having said that, both approaches can be made to work - but I think you
>> are just delaying the
>> merging work instead of taking the hit upfront.
>> On 4/4/13 2:40 AM, "Jitendra Pandey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > We did consider implementing these changes on the trunk. But, it
>> >take several patches in various parts of the code before a simple end
>> >end query can be executed on vectorized path. For example a patch for
>> >vectorized expressions will be a significant amount of code, but will
>> >be used in a query until a vectorized operator is implemented and the
>> >plan is modified to use the vectorized path. Vectorization of even
>> >expressions becomes non trivial because we need to optimize for various
>> >cases like chain of expressions, for non-null columns or repeating
>> >and also handle case for nullable columns, or short circuit
>> >etc. Careful handling of these is important for performance gains.
>> > Committing those intermediate patches in trunk without stabilizing
>> >in a branch first might be a cause of concern.
>> > A separate branch will let us make incremental changes to the system
>> >that each patch addresses a single feature or functionality and is
>> >enough to review.
>> > We will make sure that the branch is frequently updated with the
>> >in the trunk to avoid conflicts at the time of the merge.
>> > Also, we plan to propose merger of the branch as soon as a basic end
>> >end query begins to work and is sufficiently tested, instead of waiting
>> >all operators to get vectorized. Initially our target is to make select
>> >filter operators work with vectorized expressions for primitive types.
>> > We will have a single global configuration flag that can be used to
>> >off the entire vectorization code path and we will specifically test to
>> >make sure that when this flag is off there is no regression on the
>> >system. When vectorization is turned on, we will have a validation
>> >make sure the given query is supported on the vectorization path
>> >it will fall back to current code path.
>> > Although, we intend to follow commit then review policy on the branch
>> >speed of development, each patch will have an associated jira and will
>> >available for review and feedback.
>> >On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Namit Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> It will be difficult to merge back the branch.
>> >> Can you stage your changes incrementally ?
>> >> I mean, start with the making the operators vectorized - it can be a