Thanks Walaa for trying to move things along. However I don't think it's
a good idea to start a separate discussion about the metadata for
materialized views because we already had this discussion and reached
consensus in this google doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnhldHhe3Grz8JBngwXPA6ZZord1xMedY5ukEhZYF-A/edit?usp=sharing
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnhldHhe3Grz8JBngwXPA6ZZord1xMedY5ukEhZYF-A/edit?usp=sharing>
Once the draft is finalized we can adopt the PR to reflect the consensus
from the google doc.
Best wishes,
Jan
On 07.05.24 19:11, Walaa Eldin Moustafa wrote:
Thanks Steven. I feel it is needed so the MV spec is not scattered
across the table and view spec pages. We may add a reference in each
respective properties section.
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 10:04 AM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Walaa, thanks for initiating the next step.
With the agreed model of separate view and storage table, I am
wondering if a separate materialized view spec page is needed.
E.g., the new view metadata (view-materialized and
view-storage-table) is probably good to be added to the view page
directly to avoid information scattering. The same can be said
about the storage table metadata.
We may keep the separate materialized view page to document
motivation, freshness semantics, etc..
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 10:58 PM Walaa Eldin Moustafa
<wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Thanks again for participating in the modeling discussion [1].
Since the outcome of this discussion was to model materialized
views as separate objects, an Iceberg view and a table, I
think the next step should be discussing the metadata details
for each object. I have created a PR
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10280 with an initial
spec improvement. Please feel free to review it and leave
feedback there.
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread/rotmqzmwk5jrcsyxhzjhrvcjs5v3yjcc
Thanks,
Walaa.
