orchest VS ploomber

You can check out our OSS https://github.com/orchest/orchest

The code example is part of our ELT/data pipeline tool called Orchest: https://github.com/orchest/orchest/

First want to say congrats to the Patterns team for creating a gorgeous looking tool. Very minimal and approachable. Massive kudos!

Disclaimer: we're building something very similar and I'm curious about a couple of things.

One of the questions our users have asked us often is how to minimize the dependence on "product specific" components/nodes/steps. For example, if you write CI for GitHub Actions you may use a bunch of GitHub Action references.

Looking at the `graph.yml` in some of the examples you shared you use a similar approach (e.g. patterns/openai-completion@v4). That means that whenever you depend on such components your automation/data pipeline becomes more tied to the specific tool (GitHub Actions/Patterns), effectively locking in users.

How are you helping users feel comfortable with that problem (I don't want to invest in something that's not portable)? It's something we've struggled with ourselves as we're expanding the "out of the box" capabilities you get.

Furthermore, would have loved to see this as an open source project. But I guess the second best thing to open source is some open source contributions and `dcp` and `common-model` look quite interesting!

For those who are curious, I'm one of the authors of https://github.com/orchest/orchest

Haven't tried it. In its favor, Argo is vendor neutral and is really easy to set up in a local k8s environment like docker for desktop or minikube. If you already use k8s for configuration, service discovery, secret management, etc, it's dead simple to set up and use (avoiding configuration having to learn a whole new workflow configuration language in addition to k8s). The big downside is that it doesn't have a visual DAG editor (although that might be a positive for engineers having to fix workflows written by non-programmers), but the relatively bare-metal nature of Argo means that it's fairly easy to use it as an underlying engine for a more opinionated or lower-code framework (orchest is a notable one out now).

If you’d like to try something for you data workflows that’s vendor agnostic (k8s based) and open source you can check out our project: https://github.com/orchest/orchest

You can find it here: https://github.com/orchest/orchest Convenience install script: https://github.com/orchest/orchest#installation

We automatically provide container level parallelism in Orchest: https://github.com/orchest/orchest

For people in this thread interested in what this tool is an alternative to: Airflow, Luigi, Kubeflow, Kedro, Flyte, Metaflow, Sagemaker Pipelines, GCP Vertex Workbench, Azure Data Factory, Azure ML, Dagster, DVC, ClearML, Prefect, Pachyderm, and Orchest.

Disclaimer: author of Orchest https://github.com/orchest/orchest

- One-click sharing powered by Ploomber Cloud: https://ploomber.io

Documentation: https://jupysql.ploomber.io

Note that JupySQL is a fork of ipython-sql; which is no longer actively developed. Catherine, ipython-sql's creator, was kind enough to pass the project to us (check out ipython-sql's README).

We'd love to learn what you think and what features we can ship for JupySQL to be the best SQL client! Please let us know in the comments!

For those who don't know, Jupyter has a bash kernel: https://github.com/takluyver/bash_kernel

And you can run Jupyter notebooks from the CLI with Ploomber: https://github.com/ploomber/ploomber

Develop notebook-based pipelines

Fair point. MLflow has a lot of features to cover the end-to-end dev cycle. This SQLite tracker only covers the experiment tracking part.

We have another project to cover the orchestration/pipelines aspect: https://github.com/ploomber/ploomber and we have plans to work on the rest of features. For now, we're focusing on those two.

I recommend taking a look at the ploomber open source. It helps you structure your code and parameterize it in a way that's easier to maintain and test. Our blog has lots of resources about it from testing your code to building a data science platform on AWS.

Developing end-to-end data science infrastructure can get complex. For example, many of us might have struggled to try to integrate AWS services and deal with configuration, permissions, etc. At Ploomber, we’ve worked with many companies in a wide range of industries, such as energy, entertainment, computational chemistry, and genomics, so we are constantly looking for simple solutions to get them started with Data Science in the cloud.

If you like working locally with notebooks, you can run via the free tier of ploomber, that'll allow you to get the Ram/Compute you need for the bigger models as part of the free tier. Also, it has the historical executions so you don't need to remember what you executed an hour later!

It really depends on your use cases, I've seen a lot of those tools that lock you into a certain syntax, framework or weird language (for instance Groovy). If you'd like to use core python or Jupyter notebooks I'd recommend Ploomber, the community support is really strong, there's an emphasis on observability and you can deploy it on any executor like Slurm, AWS Batch or Airflow. In addition, there's a free managed compute (cloud edition) where you can run certain bioinformatics flows like Alphafold or Cripresso2

That's what we do for lineage with https://ploomber.io/