Re: Polaris benchmarks proposal

gt; > > > > I cannot think of any issue with storing that code in the > > polaris-tools > > > > repository. > > > > > > > > While contributing the `catalog migrator tool` to `polaris-tools`, I > > > > encountered a challenge

Re: NoSQL database agnostic persistence

? Could we run some of those as well? It would be great to have > something with closer to a 1 Namspace to 100 tables sort of layout. > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 3:06 PM Pierre Laporte > wrote: > > > Just a heads up, I updated the report with the latest results from the > &

Re: Polaris benchmarks proposal

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 4:53 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Pierre > > Thanks ! > > I have a general comment: do we want the benchmark tool as part of > Polaris "core" repo or on polaris-tools ? > As we can consider this as a benchmark "tool", maybe it makes sense to > host it in https://git

Re: NoSQL database agnostic persistence

://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1189 -- Pierre Laporte @pingtimeout <https://twitter.com/pingtimeout> pie...@pingtimeout.fr http://www.pingtimeout.fr/ On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 3:46 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Thanks for the update and the draft PR ! > > I w

Re: NoSQL database agnostic persistence

Just a heads up, I updated the report with the latest results from the persistence work, as well as the tarball with raw results. -- Pierre Laporte @pingtimeout <https://twitter.com/pingtimeout> pie...@pingtimeout.fr On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 3:20 PM Pierre Laporte wrote: > Hi, > &

EntityCache race conditions and JCStress in Polaris

Hello all In https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/761, there is a discussion on whether the EntityCache is thread-safe, prone to race conditions, inconsistencies, etc... To determine whether these issues are real, I worked on JCStress [1] tests. JCStress is a testing framework developed by O

Re: Polaris benchmarks proposal

f a -.1. The > reason I > > > am > > > > > still negative is that inclusion of the benchmarks into the project > > > isn't > > > > > just about utility to the project, but about whether the community > > > should > > > &

Re: Discussion: Re-evaluating Realm Modeling in Polaris

Hi Prashant I guess the answer will depend on how easy it should be for Polaris to support multi-tenancy. A separate database per realm would allow administrators to limit the amount of resources that a realm can consume (e.g. the maximum number of database connections). Indeed, it would be one

Re: Pull requests against polaris-tools

not, but wanted to double check. > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 6:31 PM Pierre Laporte > wrote: > > > > Hi folks > > > > I am going to open a few PR against the polaris-tools repository to > improve > > benchmarks, especially rega

Re: Next steps for Polaris benchmarks

On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 6:34 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > Thanks Pierre for driving this. The plan sounds good to me! A side > question, are we planning to make a benchmark pipeline against the main > branch? I think it would be good to setup a pipeline against `main`, yes. Although I am not sure whic

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Polaris 0.10.0-beta-incubating

Also -1 (non-binding) The postgresql driver is correctly bundled in the server distribution. But it is missing from the the admin tool distribution. See below ``` $ unzip -l ~/Downloads/polaris-quarkus-admin-0.10.0-beta-incubating.zip | grep postgres $ $ unzip -l ~/Downloads/polaris-quarkus-ser

Pull requests against polaris-tools

Hi folks I am going to open a few PR against the polaris-tools repository to improve benchmarks, especially regarding update-related workloads. I opened a new PR but noticed that, unlike with the PR against `apache/polaris`, nobody is automatically added as reviewer when a pull request is created

Re: [DISCUSS] Closing or rescoping reported EntityCache issue currently marked as 1.0 blocker https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/761

On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 7:01 AM Dennis Huo wrote: > Hello all, > > Following up from today's community sync where we were discussing 1.0 > blockers, I just wanted to finalize discussion on > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/761 to check if everyone's > aligned > on the current state of thi

Next steps for Polaris benchmarks

Hello folks During the community sync, there as an item for benchmarks next step but we could not get to it. I don't think we need to wait for the next community sync to start the discussion, so here we go. I have a couple of tasks on my todo list for Polaris benchmarks. And I would like to sha

Polaris benchmarks proposal

benchmark, an HTML page is generated with interactive charts showing query performance over time, response time percentiles, etc... I would love to head your feedback on it. Pierre [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1208 -- Pierre Laporte @pingtimeout <https://twitter.com/pingtime

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Polaris 0.10.0-beta-incubating (rc3)

I believe the _helpers.tpl file is mentioned in LICENSE ( https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/apache-polaris-0.10.0-beta-incubating-rc3/LICENSE#L317). Am I missing something? -- Pierre On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 6:14 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Thanks Ryan > > If the helm chart tarball n

[DISCUSS] Gradle and Maven runner plugins

Hi all The PR polaris-tools#18 (https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/pull/18/) aims at adding the ability to run temporary Polaris servers using Maven and Gradle. It is a successor to https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/785 that was initially proposed for the apache/polaris repository. The

Re: [DISCUSS] Gradle and Maven runner plugins

pper, or even a simple > Gradle exec hook would cover the use cases? > > Yufei > > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:17 AM Pierre Laporte > wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > The PR polaris-tools#18 ( > https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/pull/18/) > > aims

Re: [DISCUSS] Gradle and Maven runner plugins

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 7:40 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > I'm supportive if it adds value to both Polaris devs and users. Ok thanks, I am glad we have agreement on the initiative, even if we still have to discuss the implementation details. But, I don't think the Polaris project is in a position to pr

Re: [DISCUSS] Gradle and Maven runner plugins

/pull/18 > [2]. https://github.com/psxpaul/gradle-execfork-plugin > [3]. https://github.com/gretty-gradle-plugin/gretty > > > Yufei > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 12:44 AM Pierre Laporte > wrote: > > > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 7:40 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Gradle and Maven runner plugins

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:42 AM Yufei Gu wrote: > Thanks for the summary. > > * Given that a solution based on Gradle ExecFork or Gretty would only serve > > Polaris devs, and would not be usable by users, it does not seems to be a > > good fit for the overarching goal. > > Could you clarify the

Re: [DISCUSS] PR #1724 – Directory & package refactor for persistence modules

Could you add a README file at the root of the `persistence/` directory so that it is clear that eclipselink is an exception to the new structure? Otherwise, there will be two persistence implementations in Polaris with different package naming schemes, which can add confusion from an external pers

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Polaris 1.0.0-incubating

Congratulations everyone, this is a huge milestone ! -- Pierre On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 5:59 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote: > Great news! Thanks for driving the release, Yufei! > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 8:42 PM Yufei Gu wrote: > > > The Apache Polaris team is pleased to

Re: [PROPOSAL] Release Apache Polaris 1.0.1-incubating

JB would it be possible to join you for the release as an observer? I got a few code review comments that suggest the release guide is not 100% up to date and I would like to compare it with what is done for 1.0.1 so that I can update it. -- Pierre On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 5:39 AM Jean-Baptiste

Release automation scripts

Hello folks I just published a new PR (#2156) so that Polaris has semi-automated releases [1]. This work is a 1:1 mapping of the release guide into bash scripts, with a couple of additional checks. This is intended to facilitate reviews and so that i

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Polaris 1.0.1-incubating (RC0)

Hi folks Checks passed: * Verified links for binaries and helm chart * Verified signatures and checksums * Verified that Polaris starts using binaries and Docker image * Ran simple test with catalog, namespace, table and view creation There is one point I am not sure about. The Helm chart curren