GitHub user jerryshao added a comment to the discussion: Design Rationale for Single-Type Catalogs vs. Unified Alternatives
Thanks @vishnu-chalil to bring out this great question. Yes, as you said, the design philosophy between Gravitino and UC is different. UC is a catalog mainly served for Delta table originally, and extended to support volume and models. As you can see, all the metadata are **manged** by UC itself, so it can choose to use one catalog to manage all, and vice versa. While Gravitino aims to build a federated catalog (catalog of catalogs), so all the metadata are **external**, which means we need to build a **connector** to connect to the external source. For now in Gravitino, we bind each catalog with one connector, so as you can see currently one catalog only supports one type. The interesting thing is that if you see the enterprise UC that also supports federated catalogs, their external catalog also only supports one catalog for one type, for example like MySQL, PG, etc. BTW, we also hear some feedback about using one catalog to manage different types of metadata. We are thinking of using a virtual catalog to achieve this, but it is still under a early discussion. Actually, using one catalog to manage all, or using different catalogs to manage different metadata doesn't matter if the user uses query engines that support multiple catalog, like Spark, Trino. And for hybrid use, current multiple catalog solution is also achievable. @vishnu-chalil Would you bring out a scenario so that we can better understand whether Gravitino can support it or not? GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/gravitino/discussions/7135#discussioncomment-13083175 ---- This is an automatically sent email for dev@gravitino.apache.org. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: dev-unsubscr...@gravitino.apache.org
