tajo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hyunsik Choi <hyun...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Timezone issues
Date Mon, 08 Dec 2014 01:52:32 GMT
Hi Jaewoong and CharSyam,

I submitted the patch that fixes timezone-related problems discussed
here. I rearranged all time zone usages throughout Tajo.

Thanks to the discussion of this mailing list with you guys, I was
clear enough to find or fix the problems.

Warm regards,

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm happy to work with you and fix a major nuisance :) Later, I'll
> share the timezone related problem with you when I found additional
> bugs.
> Warm regards,
> Hyunsik
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jaewoong Jung <jungjw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Everything is very clear now thanks to your explanation. :)
>> Okay, then I'll fix the issue by making DateDatum timezone-neutral and
>> TimeDatum UTC-based. Also, I'll play with PostgreSQL to understand its
>> timezone model better.
>> Meanwhile, please feel free to assign timezone-related bugs to me as
>> you see fit.
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Thank you all guys for your comments.
>>> Jaewoong,
>>> I leave inline comments. If my answers are not enough for your
>>> question or I misunderstood your question, please feel free to ask
>>> additional questions.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Hyunsik
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Jaewoong Jung <jungjw@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There's another issue that hopefully Hyunsik would be able to clarify,
>>>> and it's very crucial to handling timezones in these data types.
>>>> Q: So, let's say (and I agree) TimeDatum represents an instant, so can
>>>> be timezoned. Then, is it a UTC time or a local time?
>>> TimeDatum is UTC or should be UTC if some parts are not.
>>>> Let me explain why this question is important.
>>>> DateDatum represents an instant. And, it is implicitly timezoned to
>>>> the user local time. Which means, if I use '11/20/2014', it's
>>>> '11/20/2014 0:00:00 PST' and is equivalent to a TimestampDatum for
>>>> '11/20/2014 8:00:00 UTC'. (BTW, the compareTo implementation for
>>>> DateDatum is broken in this regard. I'll file a separate issue for
>>>> that.)
>>> I agree with your proposal. I also think that DateDatum does not need
>>> to be timezoned. We should keep it as DateDatum instead of
>>> TimestampDatum. Thank you for nice finding!
>>>> What about TimeDatum? It is currently timezoned to UTC, (surprise,
>>>> anyone?) if I understood the code correctly. When we add a TimeDatum
>>>> to a DateDatum, we convert the TimeDatum to the user local time, which
>>>> implies TimeDatum is UTC-based. (Also, the comment next to the line
>>>> explicitly mentions it.)
>>> You are right. TimeDatum represents UTC time.
>>> FYI, I'd like to describe additional background. There are only two
>>> entry points to take time or timestamp values. One is records in input
>>> tables, and another is SQL statements. Currently, Input table uses the
>>> system global timezone specified in TajoConf (tajo-site.xml file).
>>> Later, we will add one table property to allow users to specify
>>> timezone for each table. For SQL statement (e.g., SELECT time
>>> '03:00:00'), we will use client timezone. Also, we will provide some
>>> expression to allow users to specify timezone for time or timestamp in
>>> SQL statements.
>>> Consequently, only two entry points have to deal with timezone for
>>> Timestamp and Time. Other parts in Tajo should deal with all values in
>>> UTC.
>>>> So, here's the problem.
>>>> Why do they have different timezones? They're incomplete as an instant
>>>> when used alone and are complementary to each other. This is an
>>>> important concept. To understand it, you have to think about why
>>>> adding DateDatum and TimeDatum is allowed in the code. Originally,
>>>> instants can't be added. (And, that's why I thought TimeDatum is not
>>>> an instant.) You can't add (say) 11/20/2014 to 11/23/2019. Subtracting
>>>> an instant from an instant makes sense and results in a period, but
>>>> they can't be added.
>>>> However, in the case of DateDatum and TimeDatum, additions are allowed
>>>> because they're complementary to each other, and what the code does
>>>> **conceptually** is concatenate the two.
>>> Great insight! So far, I haven't thought it.
>>>> Therefore, because they're intended to be used together, I'd argue
>>>> they shouldn't have different timezones. Also, if they have different
>>>> timezones, additions can't have a simple correct answer. What's the
>>>> correct answer of 11/20/2014 (PST) + 8:00:00 (UTC)? There's no clear
>>>> answer because they can't be simply concatenated.
>>>> (FWIW, the current Tajo code thinks the answer is 11/20/2014 8:00:00
>>>> in UTC. How many of you got it right?)
>>> You are definitely right :) If they have different timezone, the
>>> problem becomes very complicated. Nobody wants it :) As I mentioned,
>>> Timezone problem of Timestamp and Time data types should be addressed
>>> in two entry points and client. We need to keep the processing
>>> approach simple.
>>>> This can cause a lot of confusion to users. When they use a date
>>>> alone, it is interpreted as a local time. But, as soon as they add a
>>>> time to it, it is silently converted to UTC in a way which is very
>>>> unexpected to many users.
>>>> Why am I emphasizing it is unexpected? Look at the comparison below.
>>>> What's the answer to 11/20/2014 (DateDatum) + 8 hours (IntervalDatum)?
>>>> It's 11/20/2014 8:00 in a local time (PST on my machine). How about
>>>> 11/20/2014 (DateDatum) + 8:00:00 (TimeDatum)? It's 11/20/2014 8:00 in
>>>> UTC as I wrote above. How many users would be able to expect this?
>>> They are definitely a bug. We follow PostgreSQL in all aspects, and
>>> the following results come from the PostgreSQL. The results of two
>>> operations are the same.
>>> hyunsik=> SELECT date '11/20/2014' + time '08:00';
>>>       ?column?
>>> ---------------------
>>>  2014-11-20 08:00:00
>>> (1 row)
>>> hyunsik=> select date '11/20/2014' + interval '8 hrs';
>>>       ?column?
>>> ---------------------
>>>  2014-11-20 08:00:00
>>> (1 row)
>>>> So, coming back to my original question. What timezone should a
>>>> TimeDatum have? UTC or local time? It's currently UTC. But, I believe
>>>> it should be changed to the local time zone.
>>> TimeDatum is UTC.
>>> In sum, we should keep both TimeDatum and TimestampDatum UTC values.
>>> Then, we should address timezone offsets in two entry points and
>>> client side.
>>>> (Sorry for the long email. But, I think it's critical to get this
>>>> right and build consensus over it so that we can provide a consistent
>>>> behavior going forward. The actual fix will be really simple, though.)
>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik.choi@gmail.com>
>>>>> Those parts have poor documentation.
>>>>> I agree with your investigation. I also could find many misuse of timezone
>>>>> in many parts. We should make them clear and fix them in this chance.
>>>>> I just got off the plane, and I'm still on the road. So, I'll give more
>>>>> comments tomorrow.
>>>>> - hyunsik
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Jaewoong Jung <jungjw@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Wow, this seemingly trivial issue has surprisingly many problems
>>>>>> The most critical one, though, is TimeMeta class. Presumably because
>>>>>> it is poorly documented, it is being used for two different purposes
>>>>>> in Tajo code base. Some code treats it as a date time representation,
>>>>>> which I believe is the original intention, but some treat it as the
>>>>>> human-readable equivalent of TimeDatum by completely ignoring
>>>>>> date-related fields.
>>>>>> For example, DateTimeUtil.date2j(long julianDate, TimeMeta tm), which
>>>>>> converts a julian timestamp to a TimeMeta value, doesn't touch
>>>>>> dayOfMonth, monthOfYear, or years values and just puts all values
>>>>>> hour and above units in hours field.
>>>>>> There are other minor problems like incorrect comments and absent
>>>>>> default values, but the most critical one is misuse of TimeMeta.
>>>>>> I'll try to break up my patches so that each has a clear and
>>>>>> easy-to-understand goal. Sending this heads-up to let you know
>>>>>> there'll be more issues filed and patches sent than you might expect.
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Jaewoong Jung <jungjw@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > Yeah, after some more research, I found that TImeDatum is a
>>>>>> > ambiguous data type.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Its original purpose is to represent a time of a day, i.e. hh:mm:ss
>>>>>> > part of an instant. So, it could be viewed as instant data though
>>>>>> > may argue it's incomplete to fully represent an instant. Anyway,
>>>>>> > that TimestampDatum has limitation in terms of the time range
it can
>>>>>> > represent, and given that Tajo doesn't have DateTime data type,
>>>>>> > clients should be allowed to use it with a timezone.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'll change the direction and try to address the issue by fixing
>>>>>> > underflow error.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thanks for the input. :)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Jong-young Park <eminency@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >> Hi, Jaewoong.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> To express time period value, IntervalDatum is existing
as I know.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> So I think it is right that TimeDatum is for some time point.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> And TimestampDatum seems it is doing both roles of DateDatum
>>>>>> TimeDatum.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Regards,
>>>>>> >> Jongyoung.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Wed Nov 19 2014 at 오후 5:23:40 Jaewoong Jung <jungjw@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> It turns out, TAJO-1191 is slightly more complicated
than I thought.
>>>>>> >>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAJO-1191)
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Basically, it's about whether TimeDatum may have a timezone
tied with
>>>>>> >>> it. I **believe** TimeDatum is originally designed to
hold a time
>>>>>> >>> period value, not an instant. (TimestampDatum seems
to be the
>>>>>> >>> canonical container for instants.) So, it doesn't make
sense to apply
>>>>>> >>> any timezones to TimeDatum values, but it's being done
in a few
>>>>>> >>> places. And, that's why the test is failing on my machines.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> I'm going to try to fix it by removing all timezone-related
>>>>>> >>> around the class, but I want to check my assumption
with you before I
>>>>>> >>> proceed.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> What do you think about it?
>>>>>> >>>

View raw message