Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

perspective.finos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#61

Post by adamc »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #59
aidenn0 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A data warehouse is a specific use-case for a database. > Sounds like essentially consolidating data in a database and visualizing it Yes, and the database in which you consolidate the data is called a "data warehouse" In many cases the sources of data are ... not optimal for querying. (And I mean like "Spread across a dozen excel spreadsheets that people e-mail out new versions of when they make a change" by "not op…

Consolidating data makes sense and taking it from sources you can't query makes sense, but once you put it into a source you can query, that sounds like a database. I'm not sure why there is a different term here.

The database is often arranged and optimized differently than one used to support operations, and a lot of things are often done to make what would otherwise be long-running, slow queries faster -- e.g., aggregating or otherwise summarizing data likely to be queried in reports. But sure, it's still backed by a database.

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#62

Post by aidenn0 »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #59
aidenn0 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A data warehouse is a specific use-case for a database. > Sounds like essentially consolidating data in a database and visualizing it Yes, and the database in which you consolidate the data is called a "data warehouse" In many cases the sources of data are ... not optimal for querying. (And I mean like "Spread across a dozen excel spreadsheets that people e-mail out new versions of when they make a change" by "not op…

Consolidating data makes sense and taking it from sources you can't query makes sense, but once you put it into a source you can query, that sounds like a database. I'm not sure why there is a different term here.

We have multiple names at different levels of specificity for things all the time. I have a laptop and a desktop, but they are both "computers"

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#63

Post by mock-possum »

andybak wrote: post #26

What the hell is BI?

I know right? Hilariously bad title, especially considering the I/l ambiguity - a Boys Love novel? Bi-sexual computing? Bachine Learning?

Obviously jargon is a thing, we all deal with it, but when you put something up like this to a more general audience, you’ve got to give some thought to presentation, otherwise you end up with apparent word salad.

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#64

Post by supermatt »

egeozcan wrote: post #58
supermatt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we are going to go this way: You previously commented that something doesn't work on Firefox, do all your project superior browser support? It was in a thread specifically discussing browser support for the guys project where he stated he only has the ability to test on chrome/firefox on fedora: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35448674 > a criteria that was set way later than I built that site That criterio…

> That criterion has been there since 1999. Apparently 2001 (and I stand corrected). But well, I'm learning and improving am I not? I was a worse web developer a decade ago than I am now, and I am proud of that. > Stop being so hostile. You are the one who analyzed my personal website and reported a single color contrast issue to dismiss my complaint, why am I hostile? Regardless of that discussion, isn't my point co…

>> That criterion has been there since 1999.

> Apparently 2001

Nope, May 1999: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/WAI-WEBCONTENT

> I do apologize

No problem.

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#65

Post by egeozcan »

supermatt wrote: post #64
egeozcan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That criterion has been there since 1999. Apparently 2001 (and I stand corrected). But well, I'm learning and improving am I not? I was a worse web developer a decade ago than I am now, and I am proud of that. > Stop being so hostile. You are the one who analyzed my personal website and reported a single color contrast issue to dismiss my complaint, why am I hostile? Regardless of that discussion, isn't my point co…

>> That criterion has been there since 1999. > Apparently 2001 Nope, May 1999: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/WAI-WEBCONTENT > I do apologize No problem.

> No problem.

So apparently I didn't have to second-guess myself :)

> Nope, May 1999

That's not what you think it is: https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990324/wai-pagea...

The one which the previous version of my site failed to validate is apparently published in 2008: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/WCAG20 and when I wrote those styles back in who knows when [edit: found it, 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20141219164444/https://egeozcan.... ], I wasn't aware of it. I first said 2001 because I looked at the first draft.

edit: So my 2014 version of the site gets 65, and the current one gets 95 from lighthouse accessibility check with current standards.

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#66

Post by supermatt »

egeozcan wrote: post #65
supermatt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> That criterion has been there since 1999. > Apparently 2001 Nope, May 1999: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/WAI-WEBCONTENT > I do apologize No problem.

> No problem. So apparently I didn't have to second-guess myself :) > Nope, May 1999 That's not what you think it is: https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990324/wai-pagea... The one which the previous version of my site failed to validate is apparently published in 2008: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/WCAG20 and when I wrote those styles back in who knows when [edit: found it, 2014 https://web.archive.o…

> That's not what you think it is:

Its exactly what I think it is: "Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast" (with reference to lighthouse.org for specifics about contrast).

They didn't specifically define that ratio in the doc until WCAG 2, but thats irrelevant really.

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#67

Post by egeozcan »

supermatt wrote: post #66
egeozcan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No problem. So apparently I didn't have to second-guess myself :) > Nope, May 1999 That's not what you think it is: https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990324/wai-pagea... The one which the previous version of my site failed to validate is apparently published in 2008: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/WCAG20 and when I wrote those styles back in who knows when [edit: found it, 2014 https://web.archive.o…

> That's not what you think it is: Its exactly what I think it is: "Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast" (with reference to lighthouse.org for specifics about contrast). They didn't specifically define that ratio in the doc until WCAG 2, but thats irrelevant really.

> They didn't specifically define "sufficient" until WCAG 2, but thats irrelevant really.

It is relevant. I didn't have any means to test it, and that's what I saw as sufficient back then. You never admit you were wrong, I assume?

edit: you edited your comment, so here is the lighthouse.org page: https://web.archive.org/web/20080211110529/http://www.lighth... There was no ratio, so it's just my gut feeling which WCAG 2 had apparently decided was not enough and I didn't know it back then - not that there were enough tooling.

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#68

Post by supermatt »

egeozcan wrote: post #67
supermatt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not what you think it is: Its exactly what I think it is: "Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast" (with reference to lighthouse.org for specifics about contrast). They didn't specifically define that ratio in the doc until WCAG 2, but thats irrelevant really.

> They didn't specifically define "sufficient" until WCAG 2, but thats irrelevant really. It is relevant. I didn't have any means to test it, and that's what I saw as sufficient back then. You never admit you were wrong, I assume? edit: you edited your comment, so here is the lighthouse.org page: https://web.archive.org/web/20080211110529/http://www.lighth... There was no ratio, so it's just my gut feeling which WCAG…

They explain how to test it on the WCAG link you gave. I never said they mentioned a ratio on the lighthouse page. Pretty sure i have not been wrong about anything in this discussion so far... Shall we continue?

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#69

Post by [deleted] »

supermatt wrote: post #68
egeozcan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They didn't specifically define "sufficient" until WCAG 2, but thats irrelevant really. It is relevant. I didn't have any means to test it, and that's what I saw as sufficient back then. You never admit you were wrong, I assume? edit: you edited your comment, so here is the lighthouse.org page: https://web.archive.org/web/20080211110529/http://www.lighth... There was no ratio, so it's just my gut feeling which WCAG…

They explain how to test it on the WCAG link you gave. I never said they mentioned a ratio on the lighthouse page. Pretty sure i have not been wrong about anything in this discussion so far... Shall we continue?

[deleted]

Re: Perspective: Open Source WebAssembly-Powered BI

#70

Post by NortySpock »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #60
pnut wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they have fundamentally different architectures to serve their respective use cases.

What is the different architecture and what is the different use case? Databases are already general tools. You put data in and query it. At what point does it become a "data warehouse" ?

People argue over the definition of a data warehouse, but usually a data warehouse

(1) optimized for bulk inserts and bulk read operations, not updates or deletes, nor for single row updates

(2) stores data from multiple sources

(3) often a "columnstore" columnar table format is used. This format usually compresses columns in a format that is trivial to decompress (so if a column only contains a handful of similar flags, the database will run-length-encode them to optimize a full column scan), and additionally if you limit the number of columns accessed you can substantially reduce the cost of the query

(4) the data warehouse can easily shard or partition data

If you want to technical file format examples, I suggest looking up how the Parquet file format compresses data, or how Microsoft SQL Server columnstore tables work under-the-hood.

Post reply on HN