Thanks everyone for participating in the vote/recommendation so far. Let us plan to close the vote by the end of Sunday April 28.
Thanks, Walaa. On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:46 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 as well for separate objects. I think Netflix has proven this model > works well. Exposure of the storage table can be handled either through > naming convention or be hidden by the catalog, but that's more of an > implementation detail. > > -Dan > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:00 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: > >> +1 for separate table and view objects and not needing to introduce >> unnecessary combined APIs. >> >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:51 PM Szehon Ho <szehon.apa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for the approach given it reduces the work. On this, as it exposes >>> storage tables to user catalog, I was mainly thinking we should have a >>> common suffix/naming pattern for storage table across catalog. The netflix >>> approach sounds good to me. >>> >>> Hope we can continue the proposal, as there's still decisions on how to >>> standardize other metadata like how MV lineages. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Szehon >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:17 PM John Zhuge <jzh...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 on separate view and table metadata >>>> >>>> I'd like to share our experience of such a design at Netflix for years. >>>> The changes to the view spec are minimal and there are no changes to the >>>> Iceberg table metadata other than tracking an additional table property for >>>> capturing freshness. The storage tables have a specific suffix and a naming >>>> pattern. It is convenient to use existing toolings on these tables. We have >>>> not encountered any fundamental issues with this modeling. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:49 AM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 for this proposal. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 3:40 PM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 for the proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Ajantha >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 7:29 AM Benny Chow <btc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for separate view and table objects. Walaa's Spark >>>>>>> implementation demonstrates how little change it takes on the Iceberg >>>>>>> APIs >>>>>>> to start sharing MVs between engines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Benny >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 9:52 AM Walaa Eldin Moustafa < >>>>>>> wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to make a proposal for issue [1] to support >>>>>>>> materialized views in Iceberg. The support leverages two separate >>>>>>>> objects, >>>>>>>> an Iceberg view and an Iceberg table to implement materialized views. >>>>>>>> Each >>>>>>>> object retains relevant metadata to support the MV operations. An >>>>>>>> initial >>>>>>>> design, which we can refine, is detailed in the description section of >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> PR [2]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This proposal is the outcome of extensive community discussions in >>>>>>>> various forums [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please respond with your recommendation: >>>>>>>> +1 if you support moving forward with the two separate >>>>>>>> objects model. >>>>>>>> 0 if you are neutral. >>>>>>>> -1 if you disagree with the two separate objects model. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Walaa. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10043 >>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9830 >>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zg0wQ5bVKTckf7-K_cdwF4mlRi6sixLcyEh6jErpGYY >>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/6420 >>>>>>>> [5] >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnhldHhe3Grz8JBngwXPA6ZZord1xMedY5ukEhZYF >>>>>>>> [6] >>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/tb3wcs7czjvjbq9y1qtr87g9s95ky5zh >>>>>>>> [7] >>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l6cvrp4r1001k08cy2ypybzy2kgxpt1y >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> John Zhuge >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Ryan Blue >> Tabular >> >
