state of jdbc implementation

["ptr.bojko@gmail.com" <pt...@gmail.com>]

Hey folks,

Reading the site I've the note that pushing as much of query 
computation to the database under the jdbc is planned. I have not found 
anything more at the code level or the site.

Did someone try to make this happen? I would like to know whether some 
stoppers occurred or simply this was not an critical thing to implement?

Thanks,
Pete

Re: state of jdbc implementation

[Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>]

The idea was to start with a simple JDBC adapter, but that people could write rules to push more. And this is happening. Here are some cases:

DML https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1527 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1527>
OVER https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1506 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1506> 
Theta-joins https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-631 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-631> 
EXTRACT https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1987 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1987> 
Sequences https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1940 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1940> (in progress)
LIMIT / OFFSET / FETCH https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1010 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1010> 

And there are many others.

Sorry our documentation is not kept up to date. If you want to know the state of the JDBC adapter, read JdbcAdapterTest and RelToSqlConverterTest.

Julian


> On Jan 11, 2018, at 5:15 AM, ptr.bojko@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hey folks,
> 
> Reading the site I've the note that pushing as much of query computation to the database under the jdbc is planned. I have not found anything more at the code level or the site.
> 
> Did someone try to make this happen? I would like to know whether some stoppers occurred or simply this was not an critical thing to implement?
> 
> Thanks,
> Pete