tajo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jaehwa Jung <blrun...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] 0.8.0 release and next roadmap
Date Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:43:52 GMT
Hi Hyunsk

+1

I agree with you, and we need to release minor versions quickly between 0.8
and 0.9 as follows:

- 0.8.1
- 0.8.2
- 0.8.3


Cheers
Jaehwa


2014-04-11 22:30 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>:

> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to discuss the next version number. In Jira, we have provisionally
> used 1.0, and we didn't decide the next major version. I propose 0.9 as the
> next major version. What do you think about this?
>
> Regards,
> Hyunsik
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Jihoon Son <jihoonson@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Min, thanks for reminding us!
> > It's a mandatory issue.
> > We need to implement that feature ASAP.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jihoon
> >
> >
> > 2014-04-10 3:19 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Min,
> > >
> > > Yes, you are right. I'm thinking it everyday, but I missed it. Thank
> you
> > > for reminding me. It would be achieved by modifying Query class to
> > execute
> > > independent execution blocks in parallel. I'll add it to the wiki.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Hyunsik
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Min Zhou <coderplay@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah.. Another issue,  seems a query like A join B. Tajo will scan A
> at
> > > > first stage, after that in the 2nd stage scan B. Doesn't run it in
> > > > parallel, right?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Min
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I've just updated the roadmap page. Please take a look at the
> section
> > > > > 'After 0.8.0'
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAJO/Tajo+Roadmap
> > > > >
> > > > > If there are missed or additional ideas, feel free to add them on
> > that
> > > > > page or suggest them here. After we discuss them more, we would
> > decide
> > > > > their priorities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Hyunsik
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Hyoungjun,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, TPC-H and TPC-DS scripts for Tajo are necessary. If we
> provide
> > > > > > users with some prepared benchmark environment, users can test
> Tajo
> > > > > > easily. I'll file your idea on the wiki. Thank you for your
> > > > > > suggestion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Hyunsik
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:48 PM, 김형준 <babokim@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >> Hi Hyunsik ,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I did benchmark test with TPC-H, TPC-DS data. Benchmark
script
> > like
> > > > hive
> > > > > >> and impala is more helpful to test.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> https://github.com/rxin/TPC-H-Hive
> > > > > >> https://github.com/cartershanklin/hive-testbench
> > > > > >> https://github.com/cloudera/impala-tpcds-kit
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > > >> Hyoungjun
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2014-04-04 23:40 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi Jihoon,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> CUBE and ROLL-UP are key features for analytic problems.
I
> filed
> > it
> > > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> wiki.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> TAJO-266 and TAJO-161 will give more optimization opportunities
> > to
> > > > > >>> logical planning and distributed query planning. But,
I'm not
> > sure
> > > it
> > > > > >>> can be included in short-term roadmap. They are necessary,
but
> > they
> > > > > >>> are not required right now. In my view, it would be
reasonable
> to
> > > > > >>> schedule them on long-term roadmap.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Warm regards,
> > > > > >>> Hyunsik
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jihoon Son <
> jihoonson@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>> > Hi Hyunsik,
> > > > > >>> > I'm very glad that we can release the next version,
soon.
> > > > > >>> > Also, appreciate for the guideline of the next
roadmap.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > Addition to the aforementioned features, I have
the two
> > > > suggestions.
> > > > > >>> > First is the support of CUBE operator (TAJO-259).
Acutally, I
> > > > > started it
> > > > > >>> > quite a long time ago, but it is delayed due to
the lower
> > > priority
> > > > > than
> > > > > >>> > other stability issues. But, since this operator
is widely
> used
> > > in
> > > > > >>> analytic
> > > > > >>> > applications, we need to add this feature as soon
as
> possible.
> > > So,
> > > > > in my
> > > > > >>> > opinion, it would be good to add this feature to
the next
> > > roadmap.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > Second is the advanced query optimization. TAJO-266
is an
> issue
> > > for
> > > > > >>> making
> > > > > >>> > the query plan more flexible. After that, we can
employ the
> > > plenty
> > > > > >>> > optimization opportunities like described in TAJO-161.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > How do you guys think about these issues?
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > Best Regards,
> > > > > >>> > Jihoon
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > 2014-04-04 14:24 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> >> Hi folks,
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> I'm very happy to see that our community is
growing! Also,
> > It's
> > > a
> > > > > >>> pleasure
> > > > > >>> >> to discuss the Tajo 0.8.0 release. Recently,
I've tested
> > various
> > > > > >>> features
> > > > > >>> >> in various contexts, and tried to figure out
if there are
> any
> > > > > critical
> > > > > >>> >> problems. I think that there are only a few
issues and we
> can
> > > > > release
> > > > > >>> 0.8.0
> > > > > >>> >> next week. If there are further issues to be
solved before
> the
> > > > 0.8.0
> > > > > >>> >> release, feel free to suggest ideas.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> Also, I'd like to discuss our next roadmap.
We are open to
> any
> > > > > >>> suggestion
> > > > > >>> >> from users, contributors, and committers. Please
fire away!
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> I'm thinking that our next stage should focus
on improving
> the
> > > way
> > > > > Tajo
> > > > > >>> >> runs in thousands of large cluster nodes and
for a number of
> > > > > concurrent
> > > > > >>> >> users. The key issues associated with this
include the
> > > following:
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> * High availability
> > > > > >>> >> * Multi-tenancy scheduling
> > > > > >>> >> * More stability
> > > > > >>> >> * Improved shuffle
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> The current work status is as follows. Min
is working on
> > Tajo's
> > > > new
> > > > > >>> >> scheduler (TAJO-540) based on sparrow. I'll
support him. As
> > far
> > > > as I
> > > > > >>> know,
> > > > > >>> >> Alvin is working on TajoMaster HA (TAJO-704).
Also, some
> guys
> > > > > including
> > > > > >>> >> myself are investigating and solving the issues
which occur
> in
> > > > large
> > > > > >>> >> clusters. These issues should be solved in
order to make
> Tajo
> > a
> > > > > complete
> > > > > >>> >> enterprise-ready production.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> In addition, there are some SQL feature support
issues. Many
> > > > > analytic
> > > > > >>> >> problems require window functions. Also, in-subquery
and
> > scalar
> > > > > subquery
> > > > > >>> >> should be supported. So, I'd like to schedule
them with high
> > > > > priority.
> > > > > >>> In
> > > > > >>> >> my view, there will be very few SQL support
issues if Tajo
> > > > provides
> > > > > >>> these
> > > > > >>> >> features.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> Besides those areas, David is working on a
nested schema and
> > its
> > > > > related
> > > > > >>> >> work (TAJO-710). I guess this will take quite
a while
> because
> > it
> > > > > >>> requires a
> > > > > >>> >> lot of hard work. So, it would be great to
schedule the
> nested
> > > > > schema
> > > > > >>> >> loosely. That's just my thoughts, anyhow.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> Aside from the discussion of our roadmap, I'd
like to
> suggest
> > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > >>> need
> > > > > >>> >> to release more frequently after the 0.8.0
release. So far,
> > > there
> > > > > has
> > > > > >>> been
> > > > > >>> >> a long period between each release because
Tajo is
> undergoing
> > > > heavy
> > > > > >>> >> development. By 'releasing early, releasing
often', we will
> > make
> > > > > more
> > > > > >>> >> tighter feedback loop between users and developers.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> I think that there are many additional many
interesting
> issues
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > >>> >> included in our roadmap. Feel free to suggest
your idea. We
> > will
> > > > > arrange
> > > > > >>> >> our short-term roadmap and long-term roadmap
based on your
> > > > > suggestions.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> Thank you all so much for your contribution!
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> Warm Regards,
> > > > > >>> >> Hyunsik
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Tajo - Big Data Warehouse System on Hadoop
> > > > > >> http://tajo.apache.org/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > My research interests are distributed systems, parallel computing and
> > > > bytecode based virtual machine.
> > > >
> > > > My profile:
> > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/coderplay
> > > > My blog:
> > > > http://coderplay.javaeye.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message