Hi everyone,
The proposed API part is reviewed and ready to go. See:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12774
Thanks to everyone who reviewed it already!
Many of you wanted to review, but I know that the time constraints are
there for everyone. I still very much would like to hear your voices,
Hi Renjie,
The first one for the proposed new API is here:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12774
Thanks, Peter
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 05:40 Renjie Liu wrote:
> Hi, Peter:
>
> Thanks for the effort. I totally agree with splitting them into smaller
> prs to move forward.
>
> I'm quite intere
Hi, Peter:
Thanks for the effort. I totally agree with splitting them into smaller prs
to move forward.
I'm quite interested in this topic, and please ping me in those splitted
prs and I'll help to review.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:22 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> Awesome ! Th
Hi Peter
Awesome ! Thank you so much !
I will do a new pass.
Regards
JB
On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 3:48 PM Péter Váry wrote:
>
> Hi JB,
>
> Separated out the proposed interfaces to a new PR:
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12774.
> Reviewers can check that out if they are only interested
Hi JB,
Separated out the proposed interfaces to a new PR:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12774.
Reviewers can check that out if they are only interested in how the new API
would look like.
Thanks,
Peter
Jean-Baptiste Onofré ezt írta (időpont: 2025. ápr. 10.,
Cs, 18:25):
> Hi Peter
>
>
Hi Peter
Thanks for the ping about the PR.
Maybe, to facilitate the review and move forward faster, we should
split the PR in smaller PRs:
- one with the interfaces (ReadBuilder, AppenderBuilder, ObjectModel,
AppenderBuilder, DataWriterBuilder, ...)
- one for each file providers (Parquet, Avro, O
Since the 1.9.0 release candidate has been created, I would like to
resurrect this PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298 to ensure
that we have as long a testing period as possible for it.
To recap, here is what the PR does after the review rounds:
- *Created 3 interface classes whi
Hi Renije,
*> 1. **File format filters*
*>*
> Do the filters include both filter expressions from both user query and
delete filter?
The current discussion is about the filters from the user query.
About the delete filter:
Based on the suggestions on the PR, I have moved the delete filter out fr
Hi everyone,
I have updated the File Format API PR (
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298) based on the answers and
review comments.
I would like to merge this only after the 1.9.0 release so we have more
time finding any issues and solving them before this goes to a release for
the users
Hi, Peter:
Thanks for the effort on this.
*1. **File format filters*
Do the filters include both filter expressions from both user query and
delete filter?
For filters from user query, I agree with you that we should keep the
current behavior.
For delete filters associated with data files, at
Hi Team,
Thanks everyone for the reviews on
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298!
I have addressed most of comments, but a few questions still remain which
might merit a bit wider audience:
1. We should decide on the expected filtering behavior when the filters
are pushed down to the
Hi Peter
Thanks for the update. I will do a new pass on the PR.
Regards
JB
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 1:16 PM Péter Váry wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
> I have rebased the File Format API proposal
> (https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298) to include the new changes
> needed for the Variant types. I
Hi, Peter:
Sorry for the late reply. I took a review of the code again and left some
minor comments. Generally I'm fine with the current approach, looking
forward to seeing it moving forward.
If we see success in the java library, I'm looking forward to introducing
similar things in the iceberg-r
Hi Team,
I have rebased the File Format API proposal (
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298) to include the new changes
needed for the Variant types. I would love to hear your feedback,
especially Dan and Ryan, as you were the most active during our
discussions. If I can help in any way to
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all of the actionable, relevant feedback on the PR (
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298).
Updated the code to address most of them. Please check if you agree with
the general approach.
If there is a consensus about the general approach, I could. separate out
the PR
Hi Peter
sorry for the late reply on this.
I did a pass on the proposal, it's very interesting and well written.
I like the DataFile API and definitely worth to discuss all together.
Maybe we can schedule a specific meeting to discuss about DataFile API ?
Thoughts ?
Regards
JB
On Tue, Feb 11,
Accidentally force-pushed :(
The new links are here:
-
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298/commits/583cccb6e036323ee74a74bf3b06a40bf16f8982
- The API Interface classes
-
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298/commits/217e68caa61667032da3d710401078bb50b0a99f
- Mov
Hi Renjie,
Based on your feedback, I have created a PR which separates out the
different logical parts to different commits:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298
The following parts are separated:
-
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12298/commits/1ad230f67df014b424c3547603831f
Hi Renjie,
Here is the WIP PR for the readers:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12069
Here is the WIP PR for the writers:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12164
If you want to concentrate on the proposed new API, maybe this is the best
place to start:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/
Hi, Peter:
Thanks for raising this, and this proposal sounds quite interesting to me.
I've reviewed the doc but it still seems too abstract to understand, do you
mind to submit a pr so that it would be more clear what's changed?
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:46 AM Péter Váry
wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
