Thanks everyone for participating in the proposal and discussions. The vote
is now closed and the proposal for separate view and table objects model
has passed with the following counts:
* 11 (+1)
* 1 (0)
* 0 (-1)
I will start a separate thread for the next steps.
Thanks,
Walaa.
On Fri, Apr 26,
0
On 25.04.24 21:54, Alagappan Maruthappan wrote:
+1 for separate table and view objects.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:33 PM Russell Spitzer
wrote:
+1 to separate.
> On Apr 25, 2024, at 2:08 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
>
> +1 to separate, it makes sense to me.
>
+1 for separate table and view objects.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:33 PM Russell Spitzer
wrote:
> +1 to separate.
>
> > On Apr 25, 2024, at 2:08 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to separate, it makes sense to me.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:50 AM Walaa
+1 to separate.
> On Apr 25, 2024, at 2:08 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> +1 to separate, it makes sense to me.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:50 AM Walaa Eldin Moustafa
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I would like to make a proposal for issue [1] to support material
+1 to separate, it makes sense to me.
Regards
JB
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:50 AM Walaa Eldin Moustafa
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 Iceb
Thanks everyone for participating in the vote/recommendation so far. Let us
plan to close the vote by the end of Sunday April 28.
Thanks,
Walaa.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:46 PM Daniel Weeks wrote:
> +1 as well for separate objects. I think Netflix has proven this model
> works well. Exposu
+1 as well for separate objects. I think Netflix has proven this model
works well. Exposure of the storage table can be handled either through
naming convention or be hidden by the catalog, but that's more of an
implementation detail.
-Dan
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:00 PM Ryan Blue wrote:
> +1
+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 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
> comm
+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
+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 table
+1 for this proposal.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 3:40 PM Ajantha Bhat wrote:
> +1 for the proposal.
>
> - Ajantha
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 7:29 AM Benny Chow wrote:
>
>> +1 for separate view and table objects. Walaa's Spark
>> implementation demonstrates how little change it takes on the Icebe
+1 for the proposal.
- Ajantha
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 7:29 AM Benny Chow 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, 2
+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
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to make a proposal for
UNSUBSCRIBE
Frank Gilroy
484-868-7097
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:52 PM Walaa Eldin Moustafa
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
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 desi
15 matches
Mail list logo
