+1 for separate table and view objects and not needing to introduce unnecessary combined APIs.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:51 PM Szehon Ho <szehon.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for the approach given it reduces the work. On this, as it exposes > storage tables to user catalog, I was mainly thinking we should have a > common suffix/naming pattern for storage table across catalog. The netflix > approach sounds good to me. > > Hope we can continue the proposal, as there's still decisions on how to > standardize other metadata like how MV lineages. > > Thanks, > Szehon > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:17 PM John Zhuge <jzh...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 on separate view and table metadata >> >> I'd like to share our experience of such a design at Netflix for years. >> The changes to the view spec are minimal and there are no changes to the >> Iceberg table metadata other than tracking an additional table property for >> capturing freshness. The storage tables have a specific suffix and a naming >> pattern. It is convenient to use existing toolings on these tables. We have >> not encountered any fundamental issues with this modeling. >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:49 AM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for this proposal. >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 3:40 PM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for the proposal. >>>> >>>> - Ajantha >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 7:29 AM Benny Chow <btc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 for separate view and table objects. Walaa's Spark >>>>> implementation demonstrates how little change it takes on the Iceberg APIs >>>>> to start sharing MVs between engines. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Benny >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 9:52 AM Walaa Eldin Moustafa < >>>>> wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to make a proposal for issue [1] to support materialized >>>>>> views in Iceberg. The support leverages two separate objects, an Iceberg >>>>>> view and an Iceberg table to implement materialized views. Each object >>>>>> retains relevant metadata to support the MV operations. An initial >>>>>> design, >>>>>> which we can refine, is detailed in the description section of this PR >>>>>> [2]. >>>>>> >>>>>> This proposal is the outcome of extensive community discussions in >>>>>> various forums [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please respond with your recommendation: >>>>>> +1 if you support moving forward with the two separate objects model. >>>>>> 0 if you are neutral. >>>>>> -1 if you disagree with the two separate objects model. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Walaa. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10043 >>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9830 >>>>>> [3] >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zg0wQ5bVKTckf7-K_cdwF4mlRi6sixLcyEh6jErpGYY >>>>>> [4] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/6420 >>>>>> [5] >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnhldHhe3Grz8JBngwXPA6ZZord1xMedY5ukEhZYF >>>>>> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/tb3wcs7czjvjbq9y1qtr87g9s95ky5zh >>>>>> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/l6cvrp4r1001k08cy2ypybzy2kgxpt1y >>>>>> >>>>> >> >> -- >> John Zhuge >> > -- Ryan Blue Tabular
