On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is in a name? :)
> "Which SQL feature you are talking about here, that forces single reducer
> and hence should not be supported?"
> Joining on anything besides = comes to mind
> Pretty sure the query mentioned here will not work (without being
> SELECT isbn, title, price
> FROM Book
> WHERE price < (SELECT AVG(price) FROM Book)
> ORDER BY title;
Don't you think hive should be supporting this ? Don't you think our
users would want this ?
You can do theta joins without using single reducer (cartesian product
can be done in parallel). But that is besides the point. I don't
expect hive to be 100% sql compliant. I don't see 100% sql compliance
as a goal, but I see more SQL compliance as desirable.
That is why I prefer the term Hive-SQL.
> Hive-SQL looks like it is trying to convey the idea that hive supports
> extensions like T-SQL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transact-SQL or PL/SQL.
If I refert to something as Oracle-SQL or DB2-SQL, I think people
understand that it is a Oracle or DB2 dialect of SQL that I refer to.
> Lessons from my mother.
> You can't be half a saint.
> "considering how much other databases deviate from the standard -
> http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/ . See how much deviation is there for
> example in 'limit clause' or the data types supported (and details of
> data type support) -"
> If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it?
My friends are very smart, if they jump of the bridge, there is
probably a very good reason to do so, and I would seriously consider
I think hive has many smart friends like DB2, Oracle, teradata,
vertica, impala, and even phoenix
As you can see there is a wide range in SQL compliance across
products. I don't see anything wrong in saying that hive is "SQL on
I think I have conveyed everything I wanted to say on this topic. I
will stop and listen to what others think before we go from half
saints and jumping over the bridge to Hitler :)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) (there I said it!!)
I am looking forward to hearing if anybody else thinks calling it
"Hive-SQL" will make them confuse it for something like PL/SQL. Also
want to know if others think calling it HiveQL gives more clarity
about it aiming to be "SQL on hadoop"