[Discussion] Migrate CarbonData to support PrestoSQL

[Naman Rastogi]

As we all know, *Presto Software Foundation (presto sql) *has been formed
recently in Jan 2019. and is currently very active in taking and
implementing many open source features like support for Hive 3.0, Hadoop
3.2.0. Support for Hive 3.1 is also in progress.
Now, old Presto DB is only used by Facebook.

So, it is better for CarbonData to support Presto SQL instead of Presto DB.

I have raised a PR https://github.com/apache/carbondata/pull/3205 to
migrate CarbonData code to support Presto SQL 310 instead of Presto DB
0.217.

Any suggestions/opinions from the community is greatly appreciated.

Regards
Naman Rastogi

[Ajantha Bhat]

+1 for carbondata to support prestoSQL.
As prestoSQL community is very active and prestoDB is more restricted to
only facebook driven changes.

However we need to take a call now, whether carbondata needs to supports
both prestoDB and prestoSQL in future?
I think supporting only prestoSQL is good enough as users are migrating to
prestoSQL
and prestodb can still use older version of carbondata.

Thanks,
Ajantha



On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 6:26 PM Naman Rastogi <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> As we all know, *Presto Software Foundation (presto sql) *has been formed
> recently in Jan 2019. and is currently very active in taking and
> implementing many open source features like support for Hive 3.0, Hadoop
> 3.2.0. Support for Hive 3.1 is also in progress.
> Now, old Presto DB is only used by Facebook.
>
> So, it is better for CarbonData to support Presto SQL instead of Presto DB.
>
> I have raised a PR https://github.com/apache/carbondata/pull/3205 to
> migrate CarbonData code to support Presto SQL 310 instead of Presto DB
> 0.217.
>
> Any suggestions/opinions from the community is greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards
> Naman Rastogi
>

[xm_zzc]

Hi:
  IMO, currently there are still many users using original PrestoDB(0.217),
and replacing it is costly for users. I think it's better to add new
PrestoSQL(310) as new module if possible, and don't replace old one
directly.



--
Sent from: http://apache-carbondata-dev-mailing-list-archive.1130556.n5.nabble.com/

[ravipesala]

Hi,

It is better to move to PrestoSQL as the community is more active compared
to PrestoDB.  But we should consider the current users of PrestoDB as well.
Maintaining two modules in carbondata is not a viable solution as the
maintenance becomes diffcult.
   I feel we can wait for one more version and give time to users to move to
PrestoSQL and we can migrate in 1.7.0. We better first  announce in
community few months before we migrate to PrestoSQL instead of abruptly
migrating.

Regards,
Ravindra.



--
Sent from: http://apache-carbondata-dev-mailing-list-archive.1130556.n5.nabble.com/

[xm_zzc]

I agree with this way.



--
Sent from: http://apache-carbondata-dev-mailing-list-archive.1130556.n5.nabble.com/

[Jacky Li]

+1 for carbondata to support PrestoSQL, which is an active presto community
for Presto.

Regards,
Jacky



--
Sent from: http://apache-carbondata-dev-mailing-list-archive.1130556.n5.nabble.com/