+1, I think we have been clear enough about the pros and cons of each option.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:00 AM Walaa Eldin Moustafa <wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, there has not been new activity on the doc > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zg0wQ5bVKTckf7-K_cdwF4mlRi6sixLcyEh6jErpGYY/edit?pli=1> > for some time. Should we consider voting? > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 6:59 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Yes, correct, thanks Manu for pointing it out. >> >> Thanks ! >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 9:55 AM Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > I think Jan already created it >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10043 >> > >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>于2024年3月28日 周四16:46写道： >> >> >> >> Hi Walaa, >> >> >> >> Yes, I think it would be great to create the GH Issue with the >> >> proposal template, it would allow us to track the proposal and link >> >> the doc (the comments should go in the doc directly). >> >> Please, let me know if I can help on that. >> >> >> >> I'm working on a PR to list the proposals on the website and the >> >> "stale reminder". >> >> >> >> Thanks ! >> >> Regards >> >> JB >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 6:52 AM Walaa Eldin Moustafa >> >> <wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Do we need to create a proposal issue specifically to track this doc? >> >> > >> >> > Also, everyone, since there has been some updates, would be good to >> chime in again to discuss the updates. (doc link here for convenience). >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Walaa. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> It sounds good. I would also propose to use the "proposal process": >> >> >> creating a github issue with the "proposal" tag and link the >> document >> >> >> there in a comment. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> JB >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:05 PM Walaa Eldin Moustafa >> >> >> <wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks Jan! To avoid spreading discussions on multiple places, I >> will continue the comments on the doc. Also it is easier to run into >> communication gaps in email threads since effectively we have one thread, >> but in docs we have many. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks, >> >> >> > Walaa. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:27 AM Jan Kaul >> <jank...@mailbox.org.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've added a description to the "Combined metadata" Option of >> Walaa's document. I'm also adding it here: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This option treats the underlying view and storage table as a >> combined catalog object. The operation of this combined approach can be >> best demonstrated by looking at the different layers of the Iceberg >> implementation. In the top layer is the Iceberg library that interacts with >> a particular Iceberg catalog. The catalog handles the access to the >> metadata storage. >> >> >> >> This option uses a combined storage object to store view and >> table metadata related to the materialized view. To avoid the definition of >> an entirely new metadata format, the storage object is composed of the view >> and table metadata. Additionally the combined storage object has a single >> identifier in the catalogs. The Iceberg library treats the materialized >> view as a separate view and a storage table object, it is only at the >> catalog and storage layer that the materialized view is treated as a single >> entity. >> >> >> >> To reuse most of the existing TableCatalog, ViewCatalog and >> their operations, the table and view catalog can be thought of as “filters” >> (lenses), that allow the interaction only with the corresponding part of >> the MV storage object. Performing a “CommitView” operation on the view >> catalog will only affect the view metadata part of the combined MV storage >> object. And similarly, performing a “CommitTable” operation on the table >> catalog will only affect the table metadata part of the combined MV storage >> object. Both catalogs use the same identifier for operations on the >> materialized view. >> >> >> >> The creation of a materialized view is done with the >> “createView” operation (with additional materialization flag) on the view >> catalog, creating a combined MV storage object with an empty storage table. >> >> >> >> One could entirely reuse the existing API for loading the >> materialized view metadata as follows. When calling the “loadView” method >> of the ViewCatalog, the catalog implementation fetches and caches the >> entire MV metadata object in process and returns the view metadata part. >> When the “loadTable” method of the TableCatalog is then called to obtain >> the storage table, it returns the table part of the cached MV metadata >> object. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/26/24 9:08 AM, Jan Kaul wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it makes sense if I use the "Description" section of >> your document to clarify how I imagine a combined MV solution to look like. >> This would simplify the discussion about pros and cons, because we can >> reference or extend the description. I will try to find the time later >> today. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/25/24 4:39 PM, Walaa Eldin Moustafa wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks Jan! I am not sure if you would like to make suggestions >> to revise the options themselves or the current options pros and cons. In >> either case, as mentioned earlier, we can do that on the doc and once we >> agree on the options and their pros and cons we can move forward. How does >> that sound? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Walaa. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 7:45 AM Jan Kaul >> <jank...@mailbox.org.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I have the feeling that the current pros and cons from the >> summary target a version of the MV spec that wasn't really part of the >> discussion. The current arguments target a completely new specification for >> materialized views which we agreed on, is out of scope. Instead of a >> completely new specification the argument was made for a MV metadata object >> that embeds the View and the Table metadata, which was Option 6 in Jack's >> summary document. With that approach the "commitView" and "commitTable" >> operations don't have to be changed and only the "loadView" operation has >> to be adopted. Additionally, compaction and snapshot expiration can be >> reused for the embedded solution. With that in mind, the cons 2, 4, 5, 6 >> from the summary don't really apply. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Furthermore, I think we should distinguish between pros and >> cons for the implementers and the users. Because most of the pros (no new >> operations) for separate objects (option1) are for the implementers and >> most of the pros (single logical object, doesn't require 2 loads) for >> combined objects (option3) are for the users. In my opinion, in the long >> run the design decisions should be focused more on the user preferences >> than the implementers. >> >> >> >>> On 3/25/24 14:49, Benny Chow wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Hi Manu >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> This is Walaa's Spark implementation for option 1: >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9830/files/a9e1bee3b5bf5914e5330d3b195042aea33868c9 >> >> >> >>> There's no code for option 2 yet. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Best >> >> >> >>> Benny >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:37 AM Manu Zhang < >> owenzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> Thanks Walaa for the summary. It's unclear to me which are the >> reference implementation for option 1 and reference MV spec for option 2 >> from the context. I can find some links in the References section but not >> sure which should be referred to respectively. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:38 AM Walaa Eldin Moustafa < >> wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> Thanks Himadri for the questions. At this point, our >> objective is to have a common understanding of both options and their pros >> and cons. The best way to achieve this is to iterate on the doc to discuss >> the details of each option or their pros and cons. We can always add more >> details or update the pros and cons. The main thing is to keep the options >> to two so that we keep the scope manageable. >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> Once we have a common understanding, it will be easy to make >> a choice and move forward. Therefore, I would suggest reframing your >> questions as either adding suggestions to add more details to the options, >> questions on how either works, or discussions of their pros and cons on the >> doc. >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >> >> >>>>> Walaa. >> >> >> >>>>> >> >
