# Pipelines vs. dbt
Positioning analysis and architectural notes for the data-pipeline abstraction
currently landing on `feat/asset-graph-view`. Covers what we're building, how
it differs from dbt, which dbt features are real gaps vs. TODO, and a focused
deep-dive on incremental materialization — including a recommendation to
collapse it into partitioning rather than ship it as a separate concept.
## What we're building
Asset-centric, polyglot, annotation-driven, event-aware:
- Assets (`datatable`, `ducklake`, `s3object`, `volume`) are graph nodes;
scripts are edges that produce/consume them. See
`backend/parsers/windmill-parser/src/asset_parser.rs:25`.
- Lineage comes from two sources: parsed annotations (`// pipeline`,
`// on datatable://...`, `// partitioned daily`, `// freshness 1h`,
`// trigger any`, `// debounce`, `// tag`, `// retry`) and body-inferred
reads/writes via the asset parser.
- Triggers are first-class: schedule, webhook, email, kafka, mqtt, nats,
postgres, sqs, gcp — all wired into the same DAG view
(`frontend/src/lib/components/assets/AssetGraph/types.ts:56`).
- Per-language scaffolds (DuckDB ATTACH, Postgres, Python, TS, Bash) generate
starter code per `PipelineOutputKind` (`datatable | ducklake | s3_parquet |
s3_object | none`). See
`frontend/src/lib/components/assets/AssetGraph/pipelineTemplates.ts:11`.
## Differentiators vs. dbt
1. **Event-driven + batch in one DAG.** dbt is batch-on-warehouse. Kafka →
Python normalize → DuckDB aggregate → Postgres view → Slack notify is
native here; in dbt land it's "use Airflow/Prefect for the non-SQL parts."
2. **Polyglot, not SQL+Jinja.** Python/TS/Bash/Duck/PG transformations live
in the same graph. No Jinja templating language; annotations are real
comments parsed strictly.
3. **Multi-substrate by design.** `datatable` (Postgres), `ducklake`
(lakehouse), `s3_parquet`, `s3_object` are peers. dbt's universe is
"tables in your warehouse."
4. **One platform.** Same runtime as workflows, internal apps, background
jobs, RBAC, secrets, schedules. dbt is single-purpose.
5. **Inferred lineage from code.** Body parser picks up `CREATE TABLE` / S3
writes — annotations are not strictly required to get edges. dbt requires
explicit `{{ ref() }}` everywhere.
## Where dbt wins today
| Gap | Architectural blocker? | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Data tests | No | **Shipped** (`// data_test`) |
| Incremental materializations | No, but pick a philosophy | TODO with design decision |
| Column lineage | No | **Shipped** (`// column`); docs site still TODO |
| Snapshots / SCD2 | Yes (`key=… history`) | Managed strategy |
| Selective execution grammar | No | UI/CLI surface |
| Schema contracts | No, but design metadata model | **Shipped** (capture #2a + save-time check #2b) |
| Packages / community / macros | No | **Shipped** (`// macros` workspace macro libraries) |
| Semantic layer / metrics | No | Large additive scope |
The three items where the current abstraction needs deliberate decisions
before more weight lands on it: **incremental philosophy, schema metadata,
and annotation extensibility**. The rest is execution.
### 1. Data tests
dbt: `unique`, `not_null`, `accepted_values`, custom generic tests, plus
singular tests. Run as `SELECT` statements that pass when they return 0 rows.
**Shipped** via the `// data_test` annotation (built on materialization):
`// data_test unique
`, `not_null`, `accepted_values = a,b,c`,
`relationships -> .`, and `// data_test ` for
the custom escape hatch (dbt's singular test). Each compiles to a SQL
*verifier probe* that runs against the freshly-materialized asset and raises on
violation, riding the existing failure-propagation path. This is also the first
*extensible* annotation — see `ducklake-materialization.md` §"Data tests" for
the annotation→verifier pattern that column-lineage will reuse. The keyword is
`data_test`, not `test`, to stay clear of the unrelated `// test:` CI-test
annotation.
Enterprise goes one step *beyond* dbt here: write-audit-publish. dbt commits
the model then tests it, so a failing test leaves the bad table live for BI
readers; the enterprise build runs the same probes inside the write
transaction and rolls back on violation, so a failing slice is never
published (see `ducklake-materialization.md` §"Scoping decisions").
### 2. Incremental materializations
See [Incremental deep-dive](#incremental-deep-dive) below.
### 3. Column lineage + docs
dbt: SQL-AST parsing for column-level deps; `dbt docs serve` produces a
static lineage site with descriptions.
**Shipped**, inferred-first. For DuckDB scripts the column lineage is **derived
automatically from the SQL AST** — `windmill-parser-sql-asset` walks each
output-producing query's projection and maps every output column to the source
columns its expression reads (passthroughs *and* computed columns like
`amount + tax AS total`), resolving each input to its asset via the same
`ATTACH`/alias machinery the asset parser already uses. This is the dbt-style
AST lineage, and it needs no annotation.
The `// column <- .[, …]` annotation is the
**override / escape hatch**, for the cases inference can't reach: polyglot
transforms (Python/TS/Bash — no SQL AST), dynamic SQL (`${sql.raw(...)}`, flagged
by `SqlQueryDetails.has_raw_interpolation`), or correcting a mis-inferred edge.
Inferred and annotated lineage are merged per output column with the annotation
winning (`merge_column_lineage`). The annotation is the second *extensible*
annotation family after `// data_test` — same head-then-tail parse shape (see
`ColumnLineage`/`ColumnRef` in `asset_parser.rs`) — and is pure metadata: it
drives the graph surface, never a runtime probe.
Surfaced two ways in the asset graph: a count badge on the
producer→materialized-asset write-edge, and a **transitive column-lineage
trace** (`ColumnLineageTrace.svelte`, over the cross-script graph built by
`columnLineageGraph.ts`) in the asset details pane — select an asset to see its
columns and their full upstream/downstream lineage, click any column to
highlight its complete impact set across the pipeline (forward + backward).
SQL-AST inference runs both **server-side** (the graph endpoint + deploy via
`parse_assets`, for *deployed* members) and **in the live editor** — the same
parser compiled to WASM (`windmill-parser-wasm-asset`) runs on the open draft's
buffer, and `resolveGraph` merges its `column_lineage` with the buffer's
`// column` annotations under the same annotation-wins precedence, so the draft
preview matches what deploys. The `dbt docs serve`-style static lineage *site*
is still TODO.
### 4. Snapshots / SCD2 — **shipped**
dbt: `{% snapshot %}` blocks with `strategy='timestamp'` or `'check'`.
Shipped as a modifier on the keyed merge: `// materialize ducklake:///
key= history [track=]` (the leading keyword `scd2` is an
alias). The SELECT returns the current snapshot (one row per key); the runtime
adds `valid_from`/`valid_to`/`is_current` and, on each run, diffs against the live
current rows to close changed versions and open new ones (dbt's `strategy='check'`
shape — `track=` is the check-columns list; empty ⇒ all non-key columns). Because
it's a managed strategy (not a new output kind), it inherits `// data_test` and
schema capture, and each run (re)creates a `_current` view; consumers get
effective-dated joins via native `ASOF JOIN … >= valid_from`. Deletes follow dbt:
soft by default (absent keys stay current), or `deletes=close` for
`hard_deletes=close`. v1 is non-partitioned; partitioned history is a follow-up.
Both misconfigurations — `history` without `key=`, and `history` + `//
partitioned` — are rejected **at deploy** (fail-fast at save, not on the first
run). See `ducklake-materialization.md`.
### 5. Selective execution grammar
dbt: `--select tag:nightly+ state:modified+ +my_model+`.
Today: `requestRunCascadeSignal` in the canvas, `// tag` annotation parsed.
Graph + tags + last-run state has all the inputs. UI/CLI surface, not
abstraction work.
### 6. Schema contracts — **shipped**
dbt: `contract: enforced` + `columns: [{name, data_type}]`. Compile-time
check that model output matches the declaration.
**Shipped**, capture-then-validate (no declaration to maintain): the schema a
managed `// materialize` run captures post-DESCRIBE into the versioned
`materialized_asset_schema` sidecar (#2a) *is* the contract, and every
consumer save/deploy is validated against the latest capture. Three surfaces,
same diff (`windmill_common::schema_contracts`, mirrored 1:1 in
`schemaContracts.ts`):
- **Save-time (authoritative)**: `POST /w/{ws}/scripts/check_schema_contracts`
runs on the deployed content right after a save and returns **warnings —
never errors**. A deliberate upstream reshape must not fail every consumer
save; that's why dbt's `on_schema_change=fail` is deliberately not offered
in v1 (a CI/CLI gate can layer it on later without touching the grammar).
- **Editor flycheck**: the WASM parse that already runs on the open buffer
feeds the same diff, surfacing mismatches as live Monaco warning squiggles
anchored to the offending read / `// column` / `// data_test` line.
- **Autocompletion**: annotation refs (`// column out <-
ducklake://lake/orders.`, `// data_test relationships … ->`) complete
column names from the captured schema — the broken ref never gets typed.
What's checked (ducklake-only — the only substrate with capture in v1;
datatable refs have no captured schema and stay silent): body-read/written
columns missing from the capture, `// column` lineage sources, and
`// data_test relationships` refs — including a captured-type *difference* on
the join columns when both sides are captured (phrased "differs", since the
runtime probe's IN-subquery still coerces). Column names compare
case-insensitively (DuckDB unquoted-identifier semantics); the managed
`_wm_partition` column is whitelisted; a `_current` scd2 view falls back
to its base table's capture (identical columns by construction).
The producer-side escape hatch is `// materialize … on_schema_change=ignore`:
it declares the schema deliberately unstable and collapses downstream
warnings for that asset into a single informational note. Default is `warn`.
### 7. Packages / community / macros — **shipped** (macro libraries)
dbt: `dbt deps`, `dbt-utils`, `dbt-expectations`. Whole ecosystem on Jinja
macros — text templating that exists largely to paper over weak warehouse
SQL and absent code reuse.
**Shipped** as workspace **DuckDB macro libraries** — engine-native
`CREATE MACRO` (scalar + table-valued) instead of templating, resolved and
injected by Windmill ("resolve-and-inject"):
- A DuckDB script annotated `// macros` is a library: its body is
`CREATE OR REPLACE MACRO` statements (plus plain setup). Deploy parses each
macro into the `macro_definition` registry (workspace-unique names) —
available to consumers the moment the deploy transaction commits.
- Any DuckDB script that *calls* a registered macro gets
`CREATE OR REPLACE TEMP MACRO …` blocks injected into its statement list at
job time — dependency-topo-ordered (DuckDB bind-checks macro bodies at
CREATE) and placed after the setup/ATTACH prefix. Each provider library's
own setup statements are injected ahead of the definitions (deduped across
libraries), so a macro body that references its lib's ATTACH binds on the
implicit path too. Late-bound: a lib redeploy applies to subsequent runs —
workers cache the registry per workspace and evict it via a transactional
`notify_macro_registry_change` event (worst-case staleness = the notify
poll interval, ~10s; 60s TTL as backstop) — dbt's semantics with a
deploy-time registry instead of a compile step.
- `// use ` force-injects a whole library (definitions + its setup
statements) — the escape hatch for dynamic SQL (e.g. calls inside
`query('…')` strings) that lexical detection can't see. A library's own
`// use` declarations are honored transitively: consuming a macro from lib B
pulls in whatever B `// use`s, so a dynamic dependency stays encapsulated in
the library instead of leaking to every consumer.
- Deploy-time validation: builtin-shadow rejection (DuckDB silently allows
shadowing `concat`!), within-file forward references, cross-lib name
collisions, non-setup statements, managed-ATTACH setup.
- Graph surface: the library renders as a node ("defines N macros" badge +
signature strip in the details pane) with violet lib→consumer edges from
deploy-recorded call detection (`macro_usage`) and `// use` annotations.
**Trust model (deliberate, dbt-package-like).** Macro libraries are
workspace-trusted code: anyone who can deploy a script can publish macros,
and implicit call detection injects them into other users' DuckDB jobs with
the *consuming* job's credentials — the same trust boundary as a dbt package
in the project (any committer changes every model). Two guardrails bound it:
a script's **own** macro definitions always win (a library deploy can never
replace a local `CREATE MACRO` — the name is excluded from injection
entirely), and names are workspace-unique with built-in shadowing rejected
at deploy. A call to a macro that doesn't exist yet is the residual surface
(whoever first deploys a lib defining that name "captures" the call) — if
workspaces ever need finer trust, per-consumer opt-in/opt-out or
ACL-filtered injection can be layered on the same seam.
Table macros + `query_table(src)` cover most of dbt's *model factory*
pattern (one parameterized transform, N thin per-asset scripts); DuckDB's
richer SQL (`COLUMNS(*)`, native `PIVOT`, lambdas) absorbs much of
dbt-utils outright. Parameterized custom data tests (dbt's generic tests)
remain a follow-up on the `// data_test