Subject: Time to deprecate AQL?

From: Michael Carey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:44:03 -0700

As AsterixDB evolves, and additional features are added - e.g., DISTINCT 
aggregate support, or properly implemented query-bodied functions, 
supporting two query languages is hugely expensive:  Updating two 
grammars, parsers, rules, tests, ... IMO it is time to let go of AQL as 
an externally supported interface to AsterixDB and only have SQL++ going 
forward.  I think "everyone" has migrated - and if not we should force 
that migration.  (Cloudberry is on SQL++ nowadays, BAD is on SQL++ 
nowadays, ...)  Any objections?  If not, I think we should make this 
decision officially and stop putting energy into carrying the AQL legacy 
around with us.  Thoughts?

---

From: Yingyi Bu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:45:44 -0700

+1!

Best,
Yingyi

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Michael Carey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> supporting two query languages is hugely expensive:  Updating two grammars,
> parsers, rules, tests, ... IMO it is time to let go of AQL as an externally
> supported interface to AsterixDB and only have SQL++ going forward.  I
> think "everyone" has migrated - and if not we should force that migration.
> (Cloudberry is on SQL++ nowadays, BAD is on SQL++ nowadays, ...)  Any
> objections?  If not, I think we should make this decision officially and
> stop putting energy into carrying the AQL legacy around with us.  Thoughts?
>
>

---

From: Gerald Sangudi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:49:50 -0700

:-)

On Sep 7, 2017 11:44 AM, "Michael Carey" <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: Xikui Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:04:55 -0700

+1!

Best,
Xikui

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:49, Gerald Sangudi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> :-)
>

---

From: Steven Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 19:04:49 +0000

I’ll give the BADest +1 I can :)
Steven

---

From: Till Westmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:06:59 -0700

I think this seals it :)

---

From: Taewoo Kim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 21:10:06 +0200

For similarity join, we use AQL+ that is based on AQL. I think deprecating
(not removing) AQL is OK. Ultimately, AQL+ should be converted to SQL++ :-)

Best,
Taewoo

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Steven Jacobs <[email-masked]> wrote:

> grammars,

---

From: Chen Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:21:44 -0700

Let's discuss how to move AQL+ to SQL++ after Taewoo comes back.

---

From: Mike Carey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:54:42 -0700

Or possibly how to retire it and then re-do similarity joins using the 
join infrastructure ideas discussed a year or so ago, perhaps.  (We 
should think about whether or not the time it would take to do SQL+++ 
might be better used to not use that approach anymore - it was an 
interesting experiment at the time it was done, but it's probably worth 
having a revisiting discussion 5 years later - and also whether the 
algorithm as it was invented is still the preferred one to support - 
though the required SQL+++ query would surely be an interesting SQL++ 
optimizer test... :-))