Hi, Jan:
Thanks for raising this. I think this case is not only branching/tagging of
view, rather branching/tagging of catalog?
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:10 PM Jan Kaul
wrote:
> Thank you for your comments. I should have provided a user story to make
> the use case more clear.
>
> While the WAP
Thank you for your comments. I should have provided a user story to make
the use case more clear.
While the WAP pattern is probably the most common usage for the
branching feature of iceberg tables, it could also be used in different
ways. The following is a user story showcasing the branching
Also, view metadata versions and (underlying) table snapshots/versions are
orthogonal concepts. For example, theoretically, one could time-travel in
views along two dimensions: view metadata version and underlying data
version. Hence, I do not think that data versioning in tables corresponds
exactl
Hi Jan,
In my view, branches are primarily intended for isolating tests and later
merging them back (commonly referred to as the WAP scenario).
Tags, conversely, serve the purpose of marking significant snapshots for
reproducibility or auditing.
Views essentially act as a shorthand for queries. C
Hi all,
I was wondering what you think about a Branching and Tagging feature for
Iceberg Views similar to the one for Iceberg Tables. Just that instead
of having references to table snapshots you would have references to
view versions.
This could be accomplished similar to Iceberg Tables by in
