ARROW-10649: [Rust] Parse manually in infer_field_schema, remove lazy static dependency

[Dandandan]

Changes infer_field_schema to parse manually.

lazy_static is no longer needed as (direct) dependency.

Probably could be a bit faster as well.

[github-actions]

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-10649

[alamb]

Looks pretty good to me -- what do you think @andygrove or @jorgecarleitao ?

[alamb]

Thank you @Dandandan

[alamb]

CI failure seems unrelated: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/8710/checks?check_run_id=1421269108

Post job cleanup.
/bin/tar -cz -f /home/runner/work/_temp/0ba3abcf-1c45-4bd4-b0d9-f3334c9cc174/cache.tgz -C /home/runner/work/arrow/arrow/.docker .
Warning: Cache service responded with 400 during chunk upload.
events.js:187
      throw er; // Unhandled 'error' event
      ^

restarting

[nevi-me]

I'm also happy with this approach. I don't have time to benchmark it (I normally run a binary through a profiler), but maybe I'll do it in a few days even if this is merged by then.

[nevi-me]

Before we remove lazy_static, how would we also remove it in #8611? CC @Jibbow

[Dandandan]

Related:#8714

[Dandandan]

Before we remove lazy_static, how would we also remove it in #8611? CC @Jibbow

I think it can reuse the structure here and also use the all digit function.

[andizimmerer]

regex + lazy_static is somewhat a nice combination, but I agree that we could also recognize dates without those two libraries. But instead of using all_digit() and manually dissecting the string, we could also apply chrono's parse() function which returns a ParseResult and check whether parsing was successful or not. Opinions on that?
Also, I like #8714

[Dandandan]

regex + lazy_static is somewhat a nice combination, but I agree that we could also recognize dates without those two libraries. But instead of using all_digit() and manually dissecting the string, we could also apply chrono's parse() function which returns a ParseResult and check whether parsing was successful or not. Opinions on that?

I think for the parsing (not recognizing) the dates itself that makes sense. I think parsing usually is slower than only matching it so that might be something to consider here?

[nevi-me]

@alamb @jorgecarleitao should we complete #8611 first, so that we don't remove lazy_static and regex if we can't find an alternative for dates?
We could also in future take a similar approach to C++ and Pandas, where the user is expected to provide a list of columns that should be parsed as temporal types, and the formats that should be used. I think this is more flexible, and it would allow us to support Time by parsing HH:mm:{ss}.

Your thoughts @Jibbow @Dandandan ?

[andizimmerer]

Sounds good!

[Dandandan]

Sure!

[jorgecarleitao]

• Converting CSV -> StringArray -> [Type]Array is not recommended, as it forces us to load everything in memory, even if there are shorter representations. Therefore, we really need a way to build arrays out of CSV columns.

• CSV is parsed as rows, but arrow is column-based. Therefore, there will need to be a pivot of the data at some point.

My feeling is that there are wildly different specs out there into how we should convert a CSV column into an Array. IMO we should not try to solve all those use-cases ourselves and instead offer users the freedom to choose, as well as common utilities.

As such, one idea is to offer a way to plugin that allow users to parse CSV column into [Type]Array, and offer a default offering.

Since these are stateless, one simple idea is have the CSV reader accept a trait with two functions:

infer: Fn(rows: &[StringRecord]) -> Vec<Option<DataType>>;
convert: Fn(data_type: &DataType, rows: &[StringRecord], col_idx: usize) -> Result<ArrayRef>;
# or something like this

This signature indicates that:

1. The function transverses rows
2. the function is falible
3. the resulting array is dynamic

This allows the user to e.g. make unparsable rows as nulls, adopt specific notations for CSV files that are (for them) interoperable with Arrow, etc.

[Dandandan]

Let's park this one for now.