Hello! Thanks for wrapping this up!

I do understand both Cheng and Keith.
For sure Lance support should be on par with other lake formats. If
something is not supported, there should be a concrete reason why (apart
from a lack of resources :) ).

Still, input from the Lance community would be essential for
understanding evolution areas of the support itself.

For this item, I would take an approach similar to what Mehul did for
Iceberg support.
I think there is a lack of a roadmap for Lance support in 2026.

Having a roadmap doesn't actually mean we will accomplish everything, but,
it signals that we understand the problem space and have an idea of the
sequence of actions to take.

@cheng, I think you are the de-facto owner of the Lance module.
Would it make sense to dedicate some of our resources to discuss this via
Slack and start drafting a roadmap?

On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 2:11 PM Keith Lee <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hello Cheng,
>
> Good call. I agree that gathering input from Lance community will be
> beneficial to inform integration of features such as vector search, vector
> indexing and hybrid search.
>
> However, the issues I’ve outlined only meant to cover the scope of bringing
> current fluss lance integration up to parity to other lakehouses like
> paimon or iceberg e.g. batch or union read without lance feature such as
> vector search. As such, I believe these can be decoupled and we can have a
> separate effort, gathering input from lance community and FIP proposal for
> integrating vector search into feature such as union read.
>
> Let me know what your thoughts are on this. Thank you!
>
> Best regards
> Keith Lee
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 at 10:20, Cheng Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Keith,
> >
> >
> > Regarding our plan to implement union read for Lance using Flink, might
> it
> > be beneficial to first gather input from the Lance community?
> Understanding
> > the primary scenarios where union read would help in the machine learning
> > scenario, along with the most popular execution engine in Lance
> ecosystem,
> > could ensure we're building the right integration to maximize its
> adoption.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Cheng Wang
> >
> >
> >
> > &nbsp;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------&nbsp;Original&nbsp;------------------
> > From:
> >                                                   "dev"
> >                                                                 <
> > [email protected]&gt;;
> > Date:&nbsp;Sat, Feb 28, 2026 11:20 PM
> > To:&nbsp;"dev"<[email protected]&gt;;
> > Cc:&nbsp;"Cheng Wang"<[email protected]&gt;;"forwardxu"<
> > [email protected]&gt;;
> > Subject:&nbsp;Re: Analysis of Lance storage format support
> >
> >
> >
> > This is extremely helpful, thanks for putting this together.
> >
> > Maybe we can create an umbrella ticket on GitHub to keep track on these
> and
> > open individual tasks, for tracking.
> >
> > Best,
> > Giannis
> >
> > On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 at 3:52 PM, Keith Lee <[email protected]
> &gt;
> > wrote:
> >
> > &gt; Hello,
> > &gt;
> > &gt; As discussed on community sync yesterday on analysing where we are
> at
> > the
> > &gt; moment in terms of Lance format support.
> > &gt; Here are my findings as part of working on Lance QuickStart
> > documentation
> > &gt; [1]. Lance lake tiering works in general, however there are some
> gaps
> > that
> > &gt; to be addressed to bring Lance format support in parity with Paimon
> /
> > &gt; Iceberg.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; - (Merged) Support for Arrow FixedSizeList to enable pylance native
> > vector
> > &gt; search [2]
> > &gt; - (In progress) Support Flink SQL Union Read query against Lance
> > table [3]
> > &gt; - (Open) Support Flink SQL batch query against Lance table [4]
> > &gt; - (Blocked) Primary Key table support - I believe this is still
> > blocking on
> > &gt; Lance format support for delete API [5]
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Finally there is also a gap in the ability of performing vector
> > search on
> > &gt; hot data / via union read. After discussion with Mehul, native
> vector
> > &gt; indexing on hot data in Fluss would be a separate, bigger effort
> that
> > we
> > &gt; can evolve towards if there's demand for it.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Appreciate feedback here from Cheng, Forward and anyone else with
> > &gt; familiarity around this area as I have only started dipping my toes
> > into
> > &gt; Lance.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; *Additionally, if anyone wants to help contributing in this area,
> > please
> > &gt; reach out. *
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Best regards
> > &gt; Keith Lee
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Reference
> > &gt; [1] https://github.com/apache/fluss/pull/2716
> > &gt; [2] https://github.com/apache/fluss/issues/2706
> > &gt; [3] https://github.com/apache/fluss/issues/2715
> > &gt; [4] https://github.com/apache/fluss/issues/2751
> > &gt; [5] https://github.com/lance-format/lance/issues/3961
> > &gt;
>


-- 
Lorenzo Affetti
Senior Software Engineer @ Flink Team
Ververica <http://www.ververica.com>

Reply via email to