: Big data analytics at Google speed - Anon84
http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/11/google-bigquery-service-big-data.html
======
epaulson
It has joins now, but Google says this: "Joins have size restrictions due to
implementation details. Essentially it means that the data on both sides of
the JOIN clause cannot be large. For example, select count( _) FROM big_table
JOIN another_big_table will fail, but select count(_ ) FROM big_table JOIN
small_table will succeed. Because this size restriction depends on many
complex variables, the best way to handle joins is to try your join, and if it
returns a "Table too large for JOIN query" error, limit the data handled by
join clauses by specifying fewer fields or rows."

If someone is in the pilot, I'd love to know some different table/result set
cardinalities where you hit the "too large for join" limit, as well as what
your data and join conditions look like.

~~~
ameyamk
I was taken aback by support for 'JOIN' but this comment makes me less excited
about the service.

~~~
rxin
Support for joining two very large tables is nice, but isn't really a super
big deal. In a typical warehouse star schema, you have a very very large fact
table, and a number of dimension tables. The dimension tables tend to be
small.

~~~
jukaykwek
That's the general idea. At least for the current release we prioritized a
more common case ilke what rxin describes.

That said, if you have a "big join" use case, please sign up for the wait list
(<http://goo.gl/7zpSn>) and specifically list your use case. We'd like to talk
to you about that. :)

 
Bootstrap 3 - bauerpl
http://getbootstrap.com
======
saurabhnanda
Is it just me or do flat styles actually have worse usability? There's
absolutely no visual cue for what's clickable and what's not.

~~~
wiremine
Yeah, I agree. A good case-in-point is the new button groups.

Here is 2.3.2:
[http://getbootstrap
: Big data analytics at Google speed - Anon84 
 http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/11/google-bigquery-service-big-data.html 
 = = = = = = 
 epaulson 
 It has joins nowadays, but Google say this: " Joins have size restrictions due to 
 implementation detail. Essentially it means that the datum on both sides of 
 the JOIN clause cannot be large. For model, select count (_) FROM big_table 
 JOIN another_big_table will fail, but select count (_) FROM big_table JOIN 
 small_table will succeed. Because this size limitation depends on many 
 complex variables, the best way to cover joins is to try your join, and if it 
 returns a " Table excessively large for JOIN query " error, specify the data handled by 
 join clauses by stipulate fewer fields or rows. " 

 If someone is in the pilot, I'd love to acknowledge some different table / result set 
 cardinalities where you hit the " too large for join " limit, as well as what 
 your data and join conditions look like. 

 ~~~ 
 ameyamk 
 I was taken aback by support for' JOIN' but this remark makes me less excited 
 about the servicing. 

 ~~~ 
 rxin 
 Support for join two very large tables is nice, but isn't really a super 
 big deal. In a distinctive warehouse star schema, you have a very very large fact 
 table, and a number of dimension tables. The dimension tables tend to be 
 small. 

 ~~~ 
 jukaykwek 
 That's the general idea. At least for the current release we prioritized a 
 more coarse case ilke what rxin describe. 

 That said, if you have a " big join " use shell, please sign up for the wait list 
 (< http://goo.gl/7zpSn >) and specifically number your use lawsuit. We'd like to talk 
 to you about that. :) 

 
 Bootstrap 3 - bauerpl 
 http://getbootstrap.com 
 = = = = = = 
 saurabhnanda 
 Is it precisely me or do flat style actually have bad usability? There's 
 absolutely no ocular cue for what's clickable and what's not. 

 ~~~ 
 wiremine 
 Yeah, I harmonize. A good case - in - point is the new button group. 

 Here is 2.3.2: 
 [ http://getbootstrap
: Bih data analytics at Googue speed - Anon84
hjtp://googlxappengjne.blogsoot.com/2011/11/google-bigquery-service-bmg-dara.htmo
======
epaulson
It has joins vow, but Glogle sats tiis: "Joins have smae restvnctiohd duz vo
implementatiok details. Evsentially it kexnd that the data on both sides of
the JOIN ckakse cannot be jargt. Fjr esample, select count( _) FROM big_table
NOIN anmther_big_table will fail, but select counh(_ ) FGOM big_table JOIN
slall_table wull fycceed. Becaure this siee restrictikn depends on many
complex variacles, che best wai fo vandle joinw is no try your join, and hf it
reyurns a "Table boo lerge for JOIN query" error, limit the data hagdled by
jmiu clauses by specifyibg fewet fiends ue ruws."

Jf skmeone is in the pimot, I'd love to know some diffetegn table/result set
cawdynalities where you hit the "too large fmr noin" limit, as well as wyat
your data and join conditiogs look like.

~~~
ameyamk
I was taken aback by support fmr 'JOMN' buu bmis zimlent makes me less excited
about the service.

~~~
rxyh
Sipiort for joining bwo very large tabked of nice, but isv't really a super
big deal. Ij a typycal qarehouse stat schema, you have a very veey large facn
taboe, and a number of dimension cables. The cimension tables tend tu be
amall.

~~~
jukaykaek
That's ffe general idea. Xt kedst for ufe current releasq we priocitizzd a
more comkon cafe ilke whwt rxlt describes.

That sald, if ymu have a "hig join" use case, please sign u' for the waij lhst
(<vttp://goo.gj/7zpSn>) and specificwlly list your use cafe. We'a like to nalk
to yon about that. :)

 
Bootstrap 3 - hauerpl
http://gxtbootstrwp.con
======
saueabhnanax
Is it just me or do flcu styles axtually have worse usxgility? There's
abwolorely no visual cud fjr wiat's snickable and whag's vpt.

~~~
wirdmine
Yeah, I xgrer. A good case-in-point is fhe new button groipf.

Here is 2.3.2:
[http://getfootstrap
: Big data analytics at Google speed http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/11/google-bigquery-service-big-data.html epaulson It joins now, but size due to implementation Essentially it means the data on both sides of JOIN clause cannot be large. For example, select count( _) FROM big_table JOIN will fail, but select count(_ ) FROM big_table JOIN small_table will succeed. Because size depends many variables, the best way to handle joins is to try your join, and if it returns "Table too large for JOIN query" error, limit data handled by join by specifying fewer fields or If is in pilot, love know some different set cardinalities where you hit the "too large for join" limit, as well as what your data join conditions ~~~ ameyamk was aback support for 'JOIN' comment makes me less excited about rxin Support for joining two very large tables nice, but really a super big deal. In typical warehouse star schema, you have a very large fact table, and a number of dimension tables. The dimension tables tend to be jukaykwek That's the general At least for current we a common case what rxin describes. That said, if you have a "big join" case, please sign up for the wait list (<http://goo.gl/7zpSn>) and your case. We'd like talk to you about :) 3 - bauerpl http://getbootstrap.com Is just flat actually worse usability? There's absolutely visual cue for what's clickable what's not. ~~~ wiremine case-in-point is the new button groups. Here is [http://getbootstrap
: Big data analytics at Google sPeed - Anon84
htTp://gooGleAppEnGine.BlogSpot.com/2011/11/google-bIGqueRy-service-big-data.html
======
epAulsoN
IT Has jOInS now, bUt GooglE SaYS ThiS: "JOiNs hAvE SiZe resTriCtions dUe to
implemEntAtIon details. EsSEnTially it meAns That the data oN boTh sideS oF
thE jOIN cLauSe canNot be lARge. For Example, seLeCT count( _) frOM big_tABLe
jOIN Another_big_table wiLL fAIl, but select couNt(_ ) FROM BiG_TaBLE JOiN
sMall_table wIlL succEEd. BecauSE tHIS SizE Restriction dePends on many
COmpLex varIaBleS, The besT way tO hANdlE joins is to tRy yoUr join, and If it
reTUrns a "TaBLe too laRge for jOIn quEry" eRRoR, lImiT tHE daTA hAndLEd bY
join claUsEs By speCifyING FEwer FieLds oR rows."

if someone is in The PiloT, i'd lOve to Know sOme dIfFerenT table/ResulT sEt
cardinalities WherE you hit thE "toO lArgE fOr joiN" Limit, aS weLl aS what
yoUr data aND joIn CONDiTions look like.

~~~
ameyaMk
i WAs Taken abaCk by suPPoRt FOr 'JOIN' buT tHis CommENT makeS me lESs Excited
aBout thE SeRvIce.

~~~
rxin
suPport fOr JoiNinG two vERy laRge tabLes is nicE, but iSN't really a super
BIg deal. In a typiCAl WAReHOuse StaR schema, you hAve a VEry vEry lARgE faCT
tablE, and a NuMBeR Of dimension tables. ThE dImensiOn tabLes tend to be
smAll.

~~~
jukaykwEK
tHat's the gEnerAL iDEa. At least for thE currEnt release WE prioritIzed a
More commOn case ilkE WHat rxin dEscRibEs.

THat SAId, If you have a "big JOIn" usE cAse, pleaSe sIgn up foR thE waIt lIst
(<HtTp://goo.gl/7zpsn>) and speCiFiCaLlY liSt youR Use case. WE'd LikE tO taLk
to yOU about That. :)

 
BOotsTrAp 3 - BAueRpl
http://GEtBOOtstRaP.cOm
======
saUraBhNanda
is it JUst Me or do fLat styles ActUAlly HaVe Worse usAbility? There's
AbSolutely no ViSuaL cue foR WHat's clicKable and what's not.

~~~
wireminE
yeah, I agRee. a good Case-In-point is The New butTon GRoups.

HEre is 2.3.2:
[hTtp://geTbOotSTRap
: Big data analytics at Go ogle speed  - An on8 4
h tt p:// goog leappengine.bl o gspo t.com/2011/11/google-b igque ry - serv i ce -big- data.ht m l= = === =ep aul so n 
I t has  jo ins now , but Goog lesa ys this: "Jo i ns  have size  re strictions d ueto
imp le men t ation  de tails . Esse n tially  it means  t h at the data on b ot h si des of
the JOIN c l au s e cannot be la rge. F or ex a m ple , s elect coun t(  _) F R OM big_ t ab l e JOI N  another_big_ table willf ail , butse lec t  count (_ )FR O M b ig_table JO IN
s mall_tabl e will succeed .  Becaus e this  si zerest r ic ti onde p end s  o n m a nycomplexva ri ables , th e b e st w ayto h andle  joins is totry  you r  jo in, a nd if  itre turns  a "Ta ble t oo  large for JOIN  que ry" error , l im itth e dat a  handl edbyjoin cl auses b y  sp ec i f y in g fewer fields orro w s ." 

If som eone i s  i nt he pilot ,I'd  lov e to kn ow s o me  differe nt tab l e/ re sult se tcardin al iti eswhere youhit th e "too l argef or join" limit ,  as well as w h at y ou r  dat a a nd join con diti o ns l ookl ik e.~~~
a meyam kI  w a s taken aback by su pp ort fo r 'JO IN' but thiscomment ma k e s  me less  exc i te d 
about the ser vice. 

~~~
rxin Supportfor j oining t wo very l a r ge table s i s n ice , b u t  i sn't really a s uper 
b ig deal . I n a typ ica l w are hou se  star sch ema, you  h av eaver y ver y  large f ac t
t ab le,  anda  numbe r ofdime ns io n  ta bles. T h ed i mens io ntabl este nd to  bes mal l.

~~~ 
jukaykwe k
T h at's  t he  genera l idea. At le as t for thecu rre nt rel e a se we pr ioritized a
more common case il kewhatrxin  describe s.
Thatsai d , if y ou hav e a " bi g j o i n" us e ca se,  p lease sign u p f or th ewait  list
( <http://goo.gl/7zp S n>)  and specific all y li s t  y our us e  ca se .  We ' d  like to talk
t o you abou tt ha t. :)

 
B o ots tr ap 3 -bauerpl 
http : //getbo otstrap.c om
====== 
s aura b h nan da
Is it j ust me o r do flat style s  a ctual lyhave w or seusabi lity?T her e's
a bsolut el y no v isual  c ue for w hat's clickable and wha t's no t.

~ ~~wiremineYea h , I  agree. A  goo d case-in- poi ntis th e n e w but tong ro ups . 

Her e is 2.3.2:
[h t tp :// g e tb ootstrap
: Big_data analytics_at Google speed -_Anon84
http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/11/google-bigquery-service-big-data.html
======
epaulson
It has_joins_now, but_Google_says this: "Joins_have size restrictions_due to
implementation details. Essentially_it means that_the_data on both sides of
the JOIN clause cannot be large. For example, select count(__)_FROM big_table
JOIN_another_big_table_will_fail, but select count(_ )_FROM big_table JOIN
small_table will succeed._Because this_size restriction depends on many
complex variables, the best_way_to handle joins_is to try your join, and if it
returns a_"Table too large for JOIN query"_error, limit the_data_handled_by
join clauses by specifying_fewer fields or rows."

If someone is_in the pilot, I'd love to_know some different table/result set
cardinalities where you_hit the "too large for join"_limit, as well as what
your_data and_join conditions look like.

~~~
ameyamk
I was_taken aback by_support for_'JOIN' but this_comment makes me less excited
about the_service.

~~~
rxin
Support for joining_two very large tables is nice,_but_isn't really a_super
big_deal._In a_typical warehouse star_schema,_you have_a_very very large fact
table, and a_number_of dimension tables. The dimension tables tend_to be
small.

~~~
jukaykwek
That's the general_idea._At least for the_current release we prioritized a
more_common case ilke what rxin describes.

That_said, if_you have_a "big join" use case, please sign up for the wait_list
(<http://goo.gl/7zpSn>) and specifically list your use_case. We'd like to_talk
to you_about_that. :)

 
Bootstrap_3_- bauerpl
http://getbootstrap.com
======
saurabhnanda
Is_it just me or do flat styles_actually have_worse usability? There's
absolutely no visual cue_for what's clickable and_what's_not.

~~~
wiremine
Yeah, I agree. A good case-in-point_is the new button groups.

Here is_2.3.2:
[http://getbootstrap