One SQL to rule them all: an efficient and syntactically idiomatic approach to management of streams and tables Begoli et al., SIGMOD’19

In data processing it seems, all roads eventually lead back to SQL! Today’s paper choice is authored by a collection of experts from the Apache Beam, Apache Calcite, and Apache Flink projects, outlining their experiences building SQL interfaces for streaming. The net result is a set of proposed extensions to the SQL standard itself, being worked on under the auspices of the international SQL standardization body.

The thesis of this paper, supported by experience developing large open-source frameworks supporting real-world streaming use cases, is that the SQL language and relational model as-is and with minor non-intrusive extensions, can be very effective for manipulation of streaming data.

Many of the ideas presented here are already implemented by Apache Beam, Calcite, and Flink in some form, as one option amongst several. The streaming SQL interface has been adopted by Alibaba, Hauwei, Lyft, Uber and others, with the following feedback presented to the authors as to why they made this choice:

Development and adoption costs are significantly lower compared to non-declarative stream processing APIs

Familiarity with standard SQL eases adoption compared to non-standardized query languages

Common stream processing tasks such as windowed aggregations and joins can be easily expressed and efficiently executed due to event time semantics

In case of faulty application logic or service outages, a recorded data stream can be reprocessed by the same query that processes the live data stream.

Foundational principles

The big goal is to unify the abstractions of tables and streams in one common framework:

Combined, tables and streams cover the critical spectrum of business operations ranging from strategic decision making supported by historical data to near- and real-time data used in interactive analysis… We believe, based on our experience and nearly two decades of research on streaming SQL extensions, that using the same SQL semantics in a consistent manner is a productive and elegant way to unify these two modalities of data…

As the authors point out, there has been a lot of prior work in this space over many years, and the proposals presented in this paper draw on much of it. At the sharp end, they are based on lessons learned working an Apache Flink, Beam, and Calcite.

The thing that streaming adds to a traditional relational view is the concept of time. Note that a mutable database table, as perceived by a consumer across multiple queries, is already a time-varying relation (TVR). It’s just that for any one query the results always show the relation at a single point in time.

A time-varying relation is exactly what the name implies: a relationship whose contents may vary over time… The key insight, stated but under-utilized in prior work, is that streams and tables are two representations for one semantic object.

The TVR, by definition, supports the entire suite of relational operators, even in scenarios involving time-varying relational data. So the first part of the proposal is essentially a no-op! We want TVRs, and that’s what relations already are, so let’s just use them – and make it explicit that SQL operates over TVRs as we do so.

We do need some extensions to deal with the notion of event time though. In particular, we need to take care to separate the event time from the processing time (which could be some arbitrary time later). We also need to understand that events will not necessarily be presented for processing in event-time order.

We propose to support event time semantics via two concepts: explicit event timestamps and watermarks. Together, these allow correct event time calculation, such as grouping into intervals (or windows) of event time, to be effectively expressed and carried out without consuming unbounded resources.

The watermarking model used traces its lineage back to Millwheel, Google Cloud Dataflow, and from there to Beam and Flink. For each moment in processing time, the watermark specifies the event timestamp up to which the input is believed to be complete at that point in processing time.

The third piece of the puzzle is to provide some control over how relations are rendered and when rows are materialized. For example: should a query’s output change instantaneously to reflect any new input (normally overkill), or do we just want to see batched updates at the end of a window?

Example

Query 7 from the NEXmark stream querying benchmark monitors the highest price items in an auction. Every ten minutes, it returns the highest bid and associated itemid for the most recent ten minutes.

Here’s what it looks like expressed using the proposed SQL extensions. Rather than give a lengthy prose description of what’s going on, I’ve chosen just to annotate the query itself. Hopefully that’s enough for you to get the gist…

Given the following events

Then a query evaluated at 8:21 would yield the following TVR:

Whereas an evaluation at 8:13 would have looked different:

Note that as currently expressed, the query returns point in time results, but we can use the materialisation delay extensions to change that if we want to. For example, SELECT ... EMIT AFTER WATERMARK; will only emit rows once the watermark has passed the end of the a window.

So at 8:16 we’d see

And at 8:21:

If we want to see rows for windows regardless of watermark, but only get periodic aggregated snapshots we can use SELECT ... EMIT STREAM AFTER DELAY ( STREAM here indicates we want streamed results too).

SQL Extensions

Hopefully that’s given you a good flavour. As it stands, the proposal contains 7 extensions to standard SQL:

Watermarked event time column: an event time column in a relation is a distinguished column of type TIMESTAMP with an associated watermark. The watermark is maintained by the system. Grouping on event timestamps: when a GROUP BY clause groups on an event time column, only groups with a key less than the watermark for the column are included Event-time windowing functions: starting with Tumble and Hop which take a relation and event time column descriptor and return a relation with additional event-time columns as output. Tumble produces equally spaced disjoint windows, Hop produces equally sized sliding windows. Stream materialization: EMIT STREAM results in a time-varying relation representing changes to the classic result of the query. Additional columns indicate whether or not the row is a retraction of the previous row, the changelog processing time offset of the row, and a sequence number relative to other changes to the same event time grouping. Materialization delay: when a query has an EMIT AFTER WATERMARK modifier, only complete rows from the results are materialized Periodic materialization: when a query has EMIT AFTER DELAY d rows are materialized with period d, instead of continuously. Combined materialization delay: when a query has EMIT AFTER DELAY d AND AFTER WATERMARK rows are materialized with period d as well as when complete.

Hop example

Emit Stream example

Lessons learned along the way

Section 5 in the paper contains a list of lessons learned from Apache Calcite, Flink, and Beam that have informed the design. I don’t have the space to cover them all here, but as a flavour here are a couple that caught my eye:

Because event timestamps are just regular attributes and can be referenced in ordinary expressions, it’s possible that an expression result may not remain aligned with watermarks, which needs to be taken into account during query planning.

Users find it hard to reason about the optimal use of event time in queries, which can lead to expensive execution plans with undesirable semantics.

Future work

For me, the impressive thing about this work is how much can be achieved with so little. A read through the future work section though (§8) soon shows that the set of extensions is going to need to grow some more before this is done.