Pucheng, Rather than using the changelog, I'd just look at the metadata tables. You should be able to query the all_entries metadata table to see file additions or deletions for a given snapshot. Then from there you can join to the snapshots table for timestamps and aggregate to the partition level.
Ryan On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:49 PM Pucheng Yang <py...@pinterest.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Ajantha and the community, > > I am interested and I am wondering where we can see the latest progress of > this feature? > > Regarding the partition stats in Iceberg, I am specifically curious if we > can consider a new field called "last modified time" to be included for the > partitions stats (or have a plugable way to allow users to > configure partition stats they need). My use case is to find out if a > partition is changed or not given two snapshots (old and new) with a > quick and light way process. I previously was suggested by the community to > use the change log (CDC) but I think that is too heavy (I guess, since it > requires to run SparkSQL procedure) and it is over do the work (I don't > need what rows are changed, I just need true or false for whether a > partition is changed). > > Thanks > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 11:36 AM Mayur Srivastava < > mayur.srivast...@twosigma.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Ajantha. >> >> >> >> > It should be very easy to add a few more fields to it like the latest >> sequence number or last modified time per partition. >> >> >> >> Among sequence number and modified time, which one do you think is more >> likely to be available in Iceberg partition stats? Note that we would like >> to avoid compaction change the sequence number or modified time stats. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mayur >> >> >> >> *From:* Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 7, 2023 10:02 AM >> *To:* dev@iceberg.apache.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Proposal] Partition stats in Iceberg >> >> >> >> Hi Hrishi and Mayur, thanks for the inputs. >> >> To get things moving I have frozen the scope of phase 1 implementation. >> (Recently added the delete file stats to phase 1 too). You can find the >> scope in the "Design for approval" section of the design doc. >> >> That said, once we have phase 1 implemented, It should be very easy to >> add a few more fields to it like the latest sequence number or last >> modified time per partition. >> I will be opening up the discussion about phase 2 schema again once phase >> 1 implementation is done. >> >> Thanks, >> Ajantha >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 8:15 PM Mayur Srivastava < >> mayur.srivast...@twosigma.com> wrote: >> >> +1 for the initiative. >> >> >> >> We’ve been exploring options for storing last-modified-time per >> partition. It an important building block for data pipelines – especially >> if there is a dependency between jobs with strong consistency requirements. >> >> >> >> Is partition stats a good place for storing last-modified-time per >> partition? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mayur >> >> >> >> *From:* Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2023 11:56 AM >> *To:* dev@iceberg.apache.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Proposal] Partition stats in Iceberg >> >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> In the same design document ( >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vaufuD47kMijz97LxM67X8OX-W2Wq7nmlz3jRo8J5Qk/edit?usp=sharing >> ), >> I have added a section called >> *"Design for approval". *It also contains a potential PR breakdown for >> the phase 1 implementation and future development scope. >> Please take a look and please vote if you think the design is ok. >> >> Thanks, >> Ajantha >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 8:37 PM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> A big thanks to everyone who was involved in the review and the >> discussions so far. >> >> Please find the meeting minutes from the last iceberg sync about the >> partition stats. >> a. Writers should not write the partition stats or any stats as of >> now. >> Because it requires bumping the spec to V3. (We can have it as >> part of the v3 spec later on. But not anytime soon). >> b. So, there can be an async way of generating the stats like ANALYZE >> table or call procedure. >> Which will compute the stats till the current snapshot and store >> it as a partition stats file. >> c. In phase 1, partition stats will just store the row_count and >> file_count per partition value as mentioned in the design document. >> Later it can be enhanced to store puffin file location and other >> metrics per partition value. >> d. These tuples are stored in a single sorted Avro/parquet file (we >> need to finalize this). >> e. Each time "analyze table" will rewrite the whole stats file as >> keeping multiple delta files will just make the read path messy. >> Also, even with million rows, it can be of a few MB size. >> Once the writers start writing the stats (V3 spec), we can >> revisit storing as the delta files if there are any performance issues. >> >> The next immediate plan is to >> a. Get these PRs merged (open points in existing StatictisFile >> interface added during Puffin) >> #6267 <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6267>, #6090 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6090>, #6091 >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6091> >> b. Figure out how to give accurate stats with row-level deletes and >> how to mask dropped partition values from stats. >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/6042 >> c. Standardize the `StatictisFile` interface to hold the parquet/Avro >> stats file (instead of always assuming it as a Puffin file) >> and introduce a `StatisticsType` enum. >> d. Conclude the storage format and get approval for the design. >> >> I will wait another week or two for some more people to take a look at >> the document >> >> before jumping into the implementation. >> >> Thanks, >> Ajantha. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 8:25 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Ryan, >> >> are you saying that you think the partition-level stats should not be >> required? I think that would be best. >> >> I think there is some confusion here. Partition-level stats are >> required (hence the proposal). >> But does the writer always write it? (with the append/delete/replace >> operation) >> or writer skips writing it and then the user generates it using DML like >> "Analyze table" was the point of discussion. >> I think we can have both options with the writer stats writing controlled >> by a table property "write.stats.enabled" >> >> >> >> I’m all for improving the interface for retrieving stats. It’s a separate >> issue >> >> Agree. Let us discuss it in a separate thread. >> >> Thanks, >> Ajantha >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 12:12 AM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: >> >> Ajantha, are you saying that you think the partition-level stats should >> not be required? I think that would be best. >> >> I’m all for improving the interface for retrieving stats. It’s a separate >> issue, but I think that Iceberg should provide both access to the Puffin >> files and metadata as well as a higher-level interface for retrieving >> information like a column’s NDV. Something like this: >> >> int ndv = >> table.findStat(Statistics.NDV).limitSnapshotDistance(3).forColumn("x"); >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 2:31 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Ryan, >> Thanks a lot for the review and suggestions. >> >> but I think there is also a decision that we need to make before that: >> Should Iceberg require writers to maintain the partition stats? >> >> I think I would prefer to take a lazy approach and not assume that >> writers will keep the partition stats up to date, >> >> in which case we need a way to know which parts of a table are newer than >> the most recent stats. >> >> >> >> This is a common problem for existing table-level puffin stats too. Not >> just for partition stats. >> As mentioned in the "integration with the current code" section point 8), >> I was planning to introduce a table property "write.stats.enabled" with a >> default value set to false. >> >> And as per point 7), I was planning to introduce an "ANALYZE table" or >> "CALL procedure" SQL (maybe table-level API too) to asynchronously >> compute the stats on demand from the previous checkpoints. >> >> But currently, `TableMetadata` doesn't have a clean Interface to provide >> the statistics file for the current snapshot. >> If stats are not present, we need another interface to provide a last >> successful snapshot id for which stats was computed. >> Also, there is some confusion around reusing the statistics file (because >> the spec only has a computed snapshot id, not the referenced snapshot id). >> I am planning to open up a PR to handle these interface updates >> this week. (same things as you suggested in the last Iceberg sync). >> This should serve as a good foundation to get insights for lazy & >> incremental stats computing. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Ajantha >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 12:50 AM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: >> >> Thanks for writing this up, Ajantha! I think that we have all the >> upstream pieces in place to work on this so it's great to have a proposal. >> >> >> >> The proposal does a good job of summarizing the choices for how to store >> the data, but I think there is also a decision that we need to make before >> that: Should Iceberg require writers to maintain the partition stats? >> >> >> >> If we do want writers to participate, then we may want to make choices >> that are easier for writers. But I think that is going to be a challenge. >> Adding requirements for writers would mean that we need to bump the spec >> version. Otherwise, we aren't guaranteed that writers will update the files >> correctly. I think I would prefer to take a lazy approach and not assume >> that writers will keep the partition stats up to date, in which case we >> need a way to know which parts of a table are newer than the most recent >> stats. >> >> >> >> Ryan >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 4:36 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks Piotr for taking a look at it. >> I have replied to all the comments in the document. >> I might need your support in standardising the existing `StatisticsFile` >> interface to adopt partition stats as mentioned in the design. >> >> >> >> *We do need more eyes on the design. Once I get approval for the design, >> I can start the implementation. * >> Thanks, >> Ajantha >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 3:28 PM Piotr Findeisen <pi...@starburstdata.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Ajantha, >> >> >> >> this is very interesting document, thank you for your work on this! >> >> I've added a few comments there. >> >> >> >> I have one high-level design comment so I thought it would be nicer to >> everyone if I re-post it here >> >> >> >> is "partition" the right level of keeping the stats? >> We do this in Hive, but was it an accidental choice? or just the only >> thing that was possible to be implemented many years ago? >> >> >> >> Iceberg allows to have higher number of partitions compared to Hive, >> because it scales better. But that means partition-level may or may not be >> the right granularity. >> >> >> A self-optimizing system would gather stats on "per query unit" basis -- >> for example if i partition by [ day x country ], but usually query by day, >> the days are the "query unit" and from stats perspective country can be >> ignored. >> Having more fine-grained partitions may lead to expensive planning time, >> so it's not theoretical problem. >> >> >> I am not saying we should implement all this logic right now, but I think >> we should decouple partitioning scheme from stats partitions, to allow >> query engine to become smarter. >> >> >> >> >> >> cc @Alexander Jo <alex...@starburstdata.com> >> >> >> >> Best >> >> PF >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:47 PM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Community, >> I did a proposal write-up for the partition stats in Iceberg. >> Please have a look and let me know what you think. I would like to work >> on it. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vaufuD47kMijz97LxM67X8OX-W2Wq7nmlz3jRo8J5Qk/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Requirement background snippet from the above document. >> >> For some query engines that use cost-based-optimizer instead or along >> with rule-based-optimizer (like Dremio, Trino, etc), at the planning time, >> it is good to know the partition level stats like total rows per >> partition and total files per partition to take decisions for CBO ( >> like deciding on the join reordering and join type, identifying the >> parallelism). >> Currently, the only way to do this is to read the partition info from >> data_file >> in manifest_entry of the manifest file and compute partition-level >> statistics (the same thing that ‘partitions’ metadata table is doing *[see >> **Appendix A* >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vaufuD47kMijz97LxM67X8OX-W2Wq7nmlz3jRo8J5Qk/edit#heading=h.s8iywtu7x8m6> >> *]*). >> Doing this on each query is expensive. *Hence, this is a proposal for >> computing and storing partition-level stats for Iceberg tables and using >> them during queries.* >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Ajantha >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ryan Blue >> >> Tabular >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ryan Blue >> >> Tabular >> >> -- Ryan Blue Tabular
