Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxprimer | Hacker News Reader

Been using both 1.x and 2.x for telemetry (oss & paid both). I am pretty excited with 3.x's interoperability. Archiving to standard data formats makes the data science team's job's easier, and with a more standard ANSI SQL query engine with jdbc support, and high cardinality tags, it will greatly speed up front end development and analysis use cases.

As well, I am one of those folks that happens to find the Flux query language powerful, but it's not easy enough for folks to just make that jump from SQL. Flux is much closer to Splunk's search language. It is good at what it does. FluxQL doesn't even have date parsing (which is really odd for a time series query language), but FlightSQL in 3.x seems to be more complete.

View on HN

Yes I think v3 is pretty solid, and it's nice that they are still supporting v1 and v2. But I think the "migration" from v1 to v2 was the "painful" part. Not because it was too hard to migrate (I guess you don't even have to, since it's still supported), but because it introduced a very different approach, that was supposed to be the future of influx, that was just basically dropped in the next release. I think some commitment towards v3 might help in that regard. As you said, flux is powerful and took some time to get used to but it's now basically useless if you took the time to get into it.

I like that they are converging towards SQL, but at the same time it's a bit like going back to square one. They seem more convinced about going full SQL this time though, but yeah

Just searching for this, I stumbled on this documentation page that illustrates the point very well:

https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v1/query_language/

In the same page (about the original influxql in v1), there is a depecration notice for v1 stating that v2 is the stable version, implying that InfluxQL is not recommended. And a pop up notice stating that v2 (flux) is basically deprecated and just in maintenance mode, and that you should use InfluxQL. But as I said in my earlier comment, I guess in some ways that's better than being too rigid and sticking with bad or less ideal technical decisions.

For v3 we're supporting InfluxQL natively in addition to SQL. The InfluxQL implementation is actually just a front end on top of DataFusion, the SQL engine we use.

We really wanted to bring Flux along too, but found that it was too difficult in the near term to have it work well with v3. We spent a bunch of time building a gRPC API that Flux uses to talk to v3 (the same thing we have in our Cloud v2 product), but that API was designed with the previous storage engine in mind. It ended up being brittle and performed very poorly.

So at this point the long term supported languages for InfluxQL and SQL, but we're continuing to support Flux for our customers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com