As an update, there is more common understanding now of the options in the doc. Please feel free to take another look. The most relevant comment at this point is this comment <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zg0wQ5bVKTckf7-K_cdwF4mlRi6sixLcyEh6jErpGYY/edit?pli=1&disco=AAABK7e3QB4>. Based on this, I will start a separate proposal thread to see if we have consensus.
Thanks, Walaa. On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 1:07 AM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kindly remind to review and discuss the proposal in doc. > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 9:22 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Just to clarify: I think we have a consensus on the two possible >> options. So the vote could be helpful to have a consensus about which >> option. >> >> Anyway, we still have discussions going on on this topic :) >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:02 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: >> > >> > If there is consensus, great. We don't usually have a vote when there >> is already consensus. That said, I haven't really seen a confirmation that >> we have consensus, like a thread where people that originally had different >> perspectives all said they favored the same option. >> > >> > It can help to build clarity by starting a new thread (this one is 70+ >> messages) with a clear summary (_not_ a doc) of the direction and ask >> people to speak up if they do or don't agree. >> > >> > Ryan >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 1:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Ryan Blue >> > Tabular >> >
