hive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Harish Butani (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HIVE-4080) Add Lead & Lag UDAFs
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:57:13 GMT


Harish Butani commented on HIVE-4080:

Yes, there are several related issues:

1. Lead/Lag as UDAFs
- this jira only addresses this
- will work on your comments.

2. Support expressions with over clause
- filed JIRA 4081 for this
- will work on this next

3. Support for lead/lag UDFs. Based on our offline conversation and as you point out here
the options are:
- should we continue to support
- should we completely remove support?
- support lead/lag as UDFs, but only within argument expressions of other UDAFs.
The consensus seems to be option 3 is nice to have; 1 is problematic. 
Will address this in a separate JIRA

4. The notion of default partitions
- you have given more proof, why supporting lead/lag as UDFs generally (option 1) is problematic.
- in general, should we continue to support this?
- Your approach, makes sense
Will address this in separate JIRA.

Does this break down of issues make sense? Will address the first 3 asap; and then work on
supporting multiple partitions(4041). The 4th one will have to wait a bit.
> Add Lead & Lag UDAFs
> --------------------
>                 Key: HIVE-4080
>                 URL:
>             Project: Hive
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: PTF-Windowing
>            Reporter: Harish Butani
>            Assignee: Harish Butani
>         Attachments: HIVE-4080.1.patch.txt, HIVE-4080.D8961.1.patch
> Currently we support Lead/Lag as navigation UDFs usable with Windowing.
> To be standard compliant we need to support Lead & Lag UDAFs.
> Will continue to support Lead/Lag UDFs as arguments to UDAFs when Windowing is in play.

> Currently allow Lead/Lag expressions to appear in SelectLists even when they are not
arguments to UDAFs. Support for this feature will probably be removed. Causes ambiguities
when Query contains different partition clauses. Will provide more details with associated
Jira to remove this feature.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message