spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maciej <>
Subject Re: [Spark SQL]: SQL, Python, Scala and R API Consistency
Date Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:35:18 GMT
Just thinking out loud ‒ if there is community need for providing
language bindings for less popular SQL functions, could these live
outside main project or even outside the ASF?  As long as expressions
are already implemented, bindings are trivial after all.

If could also allow usage of more scalable hierarchy (let's say with
modules / packages per function family).

On 1/29/21 5:01 AM, Hyukjin Kwon wrote:
> FYI exposing methods with Column signature only is already documented
> on the top of functions.scala, and I believe that has been the current
> dev direction if I am not mistaken.
> Another point is that we should rather expose commonly used
> expressions. Its best if it considers language specific context. Many
> of expressions are for SQL compliance. Many data silence python
> libraries don't support such features as an example.
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, 12:04 Matthew Powers,
> < <>>
> wrote:
>     Thanks for the thoughtful responses.  I now understand why adding
>     all the functions across all the APIs isn't the default.
>     To Nick's point, relying on heuristics to gauge user interest, in
>     addition to personal experience, is a good idea.  The
>     regexp_extract_all SO thread has 16,000 views
>     <>,
>     so I say we set the threshold to 10k, haha, just kidding!  Like
>     Sean mentioned, we don't want to add niche functions.  Now we just
>     need a way to figure out what's niche!
>     To Reynolds point on overloading Scala functions, I think we
>     should start trying to limit the number of overloaded functions. 
>     Some functions have the columnName and column object function
>     signatures.  e.g. approx_count_distinct(columnName: String, rsd:
>     Double) and approx_count_distinct(e: Column, rsd: Double).  We can
>     just expose the approx_count_distinct(e: Column, rsd: Double)
>     variety going forward (not suggesting any backwards incompatible
>     changes, just saying we don't need the columnName-type functions
>     for new stuff).
>     Other functions have one signature with the second object as a
>     Scala object and another signature with the second object as a
>     column object, e.g. date_add(start: Column, days: Column) and
>     date_add(start: Column, days: Int).  We can just expose the
>     date_add(start: Column, days: Column) variety cause it's general
>     purpose.  Let me know if you think that avoiding Scala function
>     overloading will help Reynold.
>     Let's brainstorm Nick's idea of creating a framework that'd test
>     Scala / Python / SQL / R implementations in one-fell-swoop.  Seems
>     like that'd be a great way to reduce the maintenance burden. 
>     Reynold's regexp_extract code from 5 years ago is largely still
>     intact - getting the job done right the first time is another
>     great way to avoid maintenance!
>     On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Reynold Xin <
>     <>> wrote:
>         There's another thing that's not mentioned … it's primarily a
>         problem for Scala. Due to static typing, we need a very large
>         number of function overloads for the Scala version of each
>         function, whereas in SQL/Python they are just one. There's a
>         limit on how many functions we can add, and it also makes it
>         difficult to browse through the docs when there are a lot of
>         functions.
>         On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 1:09 PM, Maciej
>         < <>> wrote:
>             Just my two cents on R side.
>             On 1/28/21 10:00 PM, Nicholas Chammas wrote:
>>             On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:40 PM Sean Owen
>>             < <>> wrote:
>>                 It isn't that regexp_extract_all (for example) is
>>                 useless outside SQL, just, where do you draw the
>>                 line? Supporting 10s of random SQL functions across 3
>>                 other languages has a cost, which has to be weighed
>>                 against benefit, which we can never measure well
>>                 except anecdotally: one or two people say "I want
>>                 this" in a sea of hundreds of thousands of users.
>>             +1 to this, but I will add that Jira and Stack Overflow
>>             activity can sometimes give good signals about API gaps
>>             that are frustrating users. If there is an SO question
>>             with 30K views about how to do something that should have
>>             been easier, then that's an important signal about the API.
>>                 For this specific case, I think there is a fine
>>                 argument that regexp_extract_all should be added
>>                 simply for consistency with regexp_extract. I can
>>                 also see the argument that regexp_extract was a step
>>                 too far, but, what's public is now a public API.
>>             I think in this case a few references to where/how people
>>             are having to work around missing a direct function
>>             for regexp_extract_all could help guide the decision. But
>>             that itself means we are making these decisions on a
>>             case-by-case basis.
>>             From a user perspective, it's definitely conceptually
>>             simpler to have SQL functions be consistent and available
>>             across all APIs.
>>             Perhaps if we had a way to lower the maintenance burden
>>             of keeping functions in sync across SQL/Scala/Python/R,
>>             it would be easier for everyone to agree to just have all
>>             the functions be included across the board all the time.
>             Python aligns quite well with Scala so that might be fine,
>             but R is a bit tricky thing. Especially lack of proper
>             namespaces makes it rather risky to have packages that
>             export hundreds of functions. sparkly handles this neatly
>             with NSE, but I don't think we're going to go this way.
>>             Would, for example, some sort of automatic testing
>>             mechanism for SQL functions help here? Something that
>>             uses a common function testing specification to
>>             automatically test SQL, Scala, Python, and R functions,
>>             without requiring maintainers to write tests for each
>>             language's version of the functions. Would that address
>>             the maintenance burden?
>             With R we don't really test most of the functions beyond
>             the simple "callability". One the complex ones, that
>             require some non-trivial transformations of arguments, are
>             fully tested.
>             -- 
>             Best regards,
>             Maciej Szymkiewicz
>             Web: <>
>             Keybase: <>
>             Gigs: <>
>             PGP: A30CEF0C31A501EC

Best regards,
Maciej Szymkiewicz


View raw message