I would prefer to advocate for the REST catalog in those examples/docs
(similar to how the Spark quickstart example
<https://iceberg.apache.org/spark-quickstart/> uses the REST catalog). The
docs could then refer to the quickstart example to indicate what's required
in terms of services to be started before a user can spawn a spark shell.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:15 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> As we are talking about "documentation" (quick start/readme), I would
> rather propose to use the REST catalog here instead of JDBC.
>
> As it's the catalog we "promote", I think it would be valuable for
> users to start with the "right thing".
>
> JDBC Catalog is interesting for quick test/started guide, but we know
> how it goes: it will be heavily use (see what happened with the
> HadoopCatalog used in production whereas it should not :) ).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 12:18 PM Kevin Liu <kevin.jq....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I wanted to bring up a suggestion regarding our current documentation.
> The existing examples for Iceberg often use the Hadoop catalog, as seen in:
> >
> > Adding a Catalog - Spark Quickstart [1]
> > Adding Catalogs - Spark Getting Started [2]
> >
> > Since we generally advise against using Hadoop catalogs in production
> environments, I believe it would be beneficial to replace these examples
> with ones that use the JDBC catalog. The JDBC catalog, configured with a
> local SQLite database file, offers similar convenience but aligns better
> with production best practices.
> >
> > I've created an issue [3] and a PR [4] to address this. Please take a
> look, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether this is a direction we
> want to pursue.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kevin Liu
> >
> > [1] https://iceberg.apache.org/spark-quickstart/#adding-a-catalog
> > [2]
> https://iceberg.apache.org/docs/nightly/spark-getting-started/#adding-catalogs
> > [3] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/11284
> > [4] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11285
> >
>

Reply via email to