I thought we have a consensus in the doc at least on the possible option. I understood the vote was to adopt one of the options (that is possible for a vote).
If we still need more discussion on the possible options or having a consensus on a specific option, it makes sense to continue the discussion on the doc as soon as we are not "blocked" :) Regards JB On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:12 PM Daniel Weeks <daniel.c.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think we're in a position to open a vote (or maybe there's a > misunderstanding of what the vote is set out to achieve). > > We need to continue the discussion until there is a general consensus on the > direction we want to go (not on what options are available). > > The vote is a confirmation of the direction, not a way to settle > disagreements about approaches. > > I think we need to have a more focused discussion (this can either be at a > sync or we can schedule a time). > > -Dan > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 10:45 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: >> >> Hi Walaa >> >> Yes, I think it makes sense to go with a vote, now that pros/cons are >> clearly state in the doc. >> >> Thanks ! >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:59 AM Walaa Eldin Moustafa >> <wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, there has not been new activity on the doc 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. >> >> >> >> >>>>>
