You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There should be a way to define different table name (and schema) to be created in DB than the one specified in repository.
E.g. this should be possible to instantiate tpcds.customer in DB under schema foo and name bar.
Example of syntax:
would create two tables: tpch_customer and tpcds_customer, both in schema public based on tables registered in TableRegistry as tpch.customer and tpcds.customer respectively.
This would simplify table names resolution and make it less confusing. What's possible now: referring to fully qualified table name, e.g. public.nation can return nation (schemaless).
When this is implemented, we could enforce fully qualified names as source tables. This would make test definitions more explicit.
There should be a way to define different table name (and schema) to be created in DB than the one specified in repository.
E.g. this should be possible to instantiate
tpcds.customer
in DB under schemafoo
and namebar
.Example of syntax:
would create two tables:
tpch_customer
andtpcds_customer
, both in schemapublic
based on tables registered inTableRegistry
astpch.customer
andtpcds.customer
respectively.This would simplify table names resolution and make it less confusing. What's possible now: referring to fully qualified table name, e.g.
public.nation
can returnnation
(schemaless).When this is implemented, we could enforce fully qualified names as source tables. This would make test definitions more explicit.
CC: @kokosing
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: