Problem
The core specification
defines Dataset.source as a string that may identify a physical table/view or contain a query.
For a query-backed source, the specification provides neither:
- a discriminator that distinguishes a relation identifier from SQL text; nor
- a SQL dialect for parsing or validating the query.
Consumers therefore cannot interpret query-backed sources consistently.
Questions
-
Is a query-backed Dataset.source intended to be portable core behavior?
-
If so, should the specification provide a structured form such as:
source:
type: query
dialect: ANSI_SQL
query: SELECT ...
-
Should the existing string form remain the relation-identifier form for compatibility?
-
If query interpretation is intentionally consumer-specific, should the specification
explicitly allow consumers to reject query-backed sources?
Context
Gravitino maps an OSI dataset source to a catalog Table or View. Because the query dialect is
currently unspecified, its proposed structured Metric View model requires a query to be registered
as a logical View before it can be referenced as a dataset source.
Related discussions: #52, #294, and #104.
Problem
The core specification
defines
Dataset.sourceas a string that may identify a physical table/view or contain a query.For a query-backed source, the specification provides neither:
Consumers therefore cannot interpret query-backed sources consistently.
Questions
Is a query-backed
Dataset.sourceintended to be portable core behavior?If so, should the specification provide a structured form such as:
Should the existing string form remain the relation-identifier form for compatibility?
If query interpretation is intentionally consumer-specific, should the specification
explicitly allow consumers to reject query-backed sources?
Context
Gravitino maps an OSI dataset source to a catalog Table or View. Because the query dialect is
currently unspecified, its proposed structured Metric View model requires a query to be registered
as a logical View before it can be referenced as a dataset source.
Related discussions: #52, #294, and #104.