Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Pig, mail # dev - CUBE/ROLLUP/GROUPING SETS syntax

Prasanth J 2012-05-28, 05:36
Jonathan Coveney 2012-05-29, 20:05
Prasanth J 2012-05-29, 22:55
Alan Gates 2012-05-30, 16:35
Jonathan Coveney 2012-05-30, 17:43
Alan Gates 2012-05-30, 20:42
Copy link to this message
Prasanth J 2012-05-31, 00:02
Thanks Alan and Jon for expressing your views.

I agree with Jon's point, if the syntax contains CUBE then user expects it to perform CUBE operation. So Jon's syntax seems more meaningful and concise

rel = CUBE rel BY (dims);
rel = ROLLUP rel BY (dims);
rel = GROUPING_SET rel BY (dims);

2 reasons why I do not prefer using SQL syntax is
1) I do not want to break into existing Group operator implementation :)
2) The syntax gets longer in case of partial hierarchical cubing/rollups
For ex:

rel = GROUP rel BY dim0, ROLLUP(dim1, dim2, dim3), ROLLUP(dim4,dim5,dim6), ROLLUP(dim7,dim8,dim9);

whereas same thing can be expressed like

rel = ROLLUP rel BY dim0, (dim1,dim2,dim3),(dim4,dim5,dim6),(dim7,dim8,dim9);

Thanks Alan for pointing out the way for independently managing the operators in parser and logical/physical plan. So for all these operators (CUBE, ROLLUP, GROUPING_SET) I can just generate LOCube and use flags to differentiate between these three operations.

But, yes we are proliferating operators in this case.

-- Prasanth

On May 30, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Alan Gates wrote:

> On May 30, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Jonathan Coveney wrote:
>> I was going to say the same thing Alan said w.r.t. operators: operators in
>> the grammar can correspond to whatever logical and physical operators you
>> want.
>> As far as the principle of least astonishment compared to SQL... Pig is
>> already pretty astonishing. I don't know why we would bend over backwards
>> to make the syntax so similar in this case when even getting to the point
>> of doing a CUBE means understanding an object model that is pretty
>> different from SQL.
>> On that note,
>> rel = CUBE rel BY GROUPING SETS(cols);
>> seems really confusing. I'd much rather overload the group operating than
>> the cube operator. If I see "cube," I expect a cube. If you start doing
>> rollups etc, that's not a cube, it's a group. Or it's just a rollup. Pig
>> latin is simple enough that I don't think having a rollup, group_set, etc
>> operator will be so confusing, because they're already going to be typing
>> that stuff in the conext of
>> group rel by rollup(cols); and so on. I don't see how it's worth adding
>> more, confusing syntax for the sake of creating parallels with a language
>> we now share very little with.
> Fair points.
>> But I won't beat it any further... if people prefer a different syntax,
>> that's fine. Just excited to have the features in Pig!
> +1, I can live with any of the 3 syntax choices (near SQL, original, and Jon's).
> Alan.
>> Jon
>> 2012/5/30 Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Some thoughts on this:
>>> 1) +1 to what Dmitriy said on HAVING
>>> 2) We need to be clear about separating operators in the grammar versus
>>> logical plan versus physical plan.  The choices you make in the grammar are
>>> totally independent of the other two.  That is, you could choose the syntax:
>>> rel = GROUP rel BY CUBE (a, b, c)
>>> and still have a separate POCube operator.  When the parser sees GROUP BY
>>> CUBE it will generate an LOCube operator for the logical plan rather than
>>> an LOGroup operator.  You can still have a separate POCube physical
>>> operator.  Separate optimizations can be applied to LOGroup vs. LOCube and
>>> POGroup vs. POCube.
>>> 3) On syntax I can see arguments for keeping as close to SQL as possible
>>> and for the syntax proposed by Prasanth.  The argument for sticking close
>>> to SQL is it conforms to the law of least astonishment.  It wouldn't be
>>> exactly SQL, as it would end up looking like:
>>> rel = GROUP rel BY CUBE (cols)
>>> rel = GROUP rel BY ROLLUP (cols)
>>> rel = GROUP rel BY GROUPING SETS(cols);
>>> The argument I see for sticking with Prasanth's approach is that GROUP is
>>> really short for COGROUP in Pig Latin, and I don't think we're proposing
>>> doing COGROUP rel BY CUBE, nor can I see a case where you'd want to do such
>>> a thing.  This makes CUBE really a separate operation.  But if we go this
Jonathan Coveney 2012-05-31, 00:10
Prasanth J 2012-06-21, 20:28
Alan Gates 2012-06-21, 21:11
Prasanth J 2012-06-21, 21:52
Dmitriy Ryaboy 2012-06-22, 20:14
Jonathan Coveney 2012-06-21, 20:41
Prasanth J 2012-06-21, 20:43
Jonathan Coveney 2012-06-21, 20:50