Hi,
Here are my thoughts:
- The value of ETag is (as far as I know) defined as an opaque string by the
specification, meaning the client shouldn’t interpret or assign any
significance to it, regardless of what the server specifies. It’s best to avoid
the client giving any particular meaning to the ETag value.
- One major advantage of the header approach compared to other methods is that
if an update has occurred, the updated content can be immediately included in
the response without requiring an additional request. This saves one
request-response round-trip (although
It’s also possible to define a separate endpoint with the same functionality).
- Since the Iceberg REST catalog server is effectively a type of HTTP server,
at least in theory, it may be expected to handle HTTP cache and
validation-related processes. The header approach can be seen as leveraging
this mechanism appropriately.
- The header approach doesn’t have to be limited to the
/v1/{prefix}/namespaces/{namespace}/tables/{table} endpoint. It could also be
applied to all GET-based endpoints, though this might broaden the scope
significantly.
Thank you.
-----Original Message-----From: "Shani Elharrar"
<sh...@upsolver.com.invalid>To: <dev@iceberg.apache.org>;Cc:
<dev@iceberg.apache.org>;Sent: 2024-11-18 (월) 16:21:16
(UTC+09:00)Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] REST: Way to query if metadata pointer is the
latestUsing the metadata file name as ETag is nice way to go. In that case,
adding HEAD method support to the loadTable endpoint will return the latest
metadata pointer, which can be used to support "isLatest" without returning the
body. It can be also leveraged in order to return the latest metadata location
of the table.
Shani.
On 18 Nov 2024, at 8:52, Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Taeyun,
Thank you for the clear explanation.
I agree that the ETag solution is more suitable. If we were going that way, I'd
propose a customized version number as an ETag—for instance, leveraging the
metadata.json file name as the identifier.
To summarize, HTTP caching relies on headers (e.g., ETag or Last-Modified) to
validate whether a version is up-to-date, whereas the alternative approach
proposed above uses an additional parameter for verification. From my
perspective, there isn’t a fundamental difference between the two, so I’m OK
with either.
A couple of points to note:
Both approaches would require changes to the "loadTable" endpoint.A minor
advantage of HTTP caching is that it integrates seamlessly with browsers, but
since most clients of the Iceberg REST catalog aren’t browsers, this may not be
a significant factor.I’d also recommend considering the requirement to retrieve
multiple tables(e.g., all tables under a namespace, or a list of table names)
from the catalog. This requires a new endpoint and may not work with HTTP
caching.Let me know your thoughts or if there’s anything else to consider.
Yufei
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 6:43 PM Taeyun Kim <taeyun....@innowireless.com
mailto:taeyun....@innowireless.com> wrote:
Hi,To Gabor:It doesn’t seem necessary to interpret HTTP caching literally in
this context.Simply using the HTTP headers defined by HTTP caching to check the
freshness of metadata should be sufficient.There’s no requirement for the
client to duplicate or store cached HTTP responses.To Yufei:As I understand it,
the client doesn’t send its own timestamp but instead uses the timestamp
originally provided by the server in the Last-Modified header.Therefore, clock
synchronization issues should not be a concern.Here’s the general flow of HTTP
cache validation based on If-Modified-Since:- Client: initial request:GET (url)
HTTP/1.1- Server response:HTTP/1.1 200 OK Last-Modified:
(date1) Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, max-age=0, must-revalidate,
proxy-revalidate (with response body)- Client: validation request:GET
(url) HTTP/1.1 If-Modified-Since: (date1)- Server response (if
unchanged):HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified Last-Modified:
(date1) Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, max-age=0, must-revalidate,
proxy-revalidate (without response body)- Server response (if
updated):HTTP/1.1 200 OK Last-Modified: (date2) Cache-Control:
no-store, no-cache, max-age=0, must-revalidate, proxy-revalidate (with
response body)However, using time-based freshness checks can present
challenges, such as parsing time formats or synchronizing file update times
across servers.To address these issues, HTTP cache validation based on ETag is
also defined in the specification.Here’s the flow for ETag-based validation:-
Client: initial request:GET (url) HTTP/1.1- Server response:HTTP/1.1 200
OK ETag: "(arbitrary string 1 generated by the
server)" Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, max-age=0, must-revalidate,
proxy-revalidate (with response body)- Client: validation request:GET
(url) HTTP/1.1 If-None-Match: "(arbitrary string 1 generated by the
server)"- Server response (if unchanged):HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified ETag:
"(arbitrary string 1 generated by the server)" Cache-Control: no-store,
no-cache, max-age=0, must-revalidate, proxy-revalidate (without response
body)- Server response (if updated):HTTP/1.1 200 OK ETag: "(arbitrary
string 2 generated by the server)" Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache,
max-age=0, must-revalidate, proxy-revalidate (with response body)The
server can choose to use either If-Modified-Since or ETag for freshness
validation.Alternatively, to simplify the implementation related to the Iceberg
REST catalog, it might make sense to define only the more accurate ETag-based
validation in the spec.For reference, RFC 9110 recommends specifying both ETag
and Last-Modified. When both are provided, ETag takes precedence.Note on
Cache-Control Headers:The Cache-Control values in the examples above are
intended to ensure that the client validates freshness with the server on every
request. Writing the header in this extended format is primarily to accommodate
outdated HTTP/1.1 implementations. However, under the HTTP/1.1 specification,
the following is sufficient:Cache-Control: no-cacheThat’s all for now.Thank
you.-----Original Message-----From: "Yufei Gu" <flyrain...@gmail.com
mailto:flyrain...@gmail.com>To: <dev@iceberg.apache.org
mailto:dev@iceberg.apache.org>;Cc:Sent: 2024-11-16 (토) 02:51:05
(UTC+09:00)Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] REST: Way to query if metadata pointer is the
latestHow does HTTP caching handle desynchronized clocks between clients and
the server?At t0, the client gets the latest table version.At t1, the server
makes a new commit.At t2, the client sends a request with a timestamp t2, but
due to desynchronization, it refers to t0.The server may reply with 304 Not
Modified, causing the client to think its cache is up-to-date and miss the
commit at t1.YufeiOn Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 6:37 AM Gabor Kaszab
<gaborkas...@apache.org mailto:gaborkas...@apache.org> wrote:Hi All,First
of all it's great to see that there are others who could benefit from giving a
solution to this problem. I appreciate all the comments and feedback so
far.There were a number of different opinions, so let me start with summarizing
the different topics that came up:New endpoint vs using an existing
endpoint:Based on the answers (Fokko, Yufei) I had the impression that we
should be careful when adding new REST endpoints, and we should examine the
re-use of existing endpoints first. Let's do that then, and in case we don't
find it feasible then we can still fall back to any of my initial proposals
(isLatest() or metadataLocation()).Granularity of freshness checks:It was
brought up (Dmitri) that we might not want to do the metadata freshness checks
solely based on metadata location, but we should consider doing more granular
freshness checks. I personally don't see much benefit of designing this
solution like that, TBH, but seeing some use-cases could help us understand the
motivation here.Let me share my opinion on some of the arguments:"A change in
metadata location does not necessarily mean a change in metadata content"AFAIK
whenever Iceberg creates a new metadata file there is some change in the
metadata itself. There might not be a new snapshot, though in the cases of e.g.
a schema/partition evolution. But even in these cases triggering a table reload
could make sense to me (e.g. answering SHOW CREATE TABLE and similar queries).
Additionally, I'd assume the number of metadata location changes that don't
create a new snapshot is too negligible to optimize for.Dmitri, let me know if
I misunderstood something."it may still be beneficial to permit the client to
ask for changes to specific areas of metadata"This seems like a use-case that
the partial metadata loading proposal could solve. To identify the need to load
a specific part of the metadata with partial metadata loading seems an overkill
to design with my proposal, if this is what you have in mind. Also I found that
the partial metadata loading proposal faces serious headwinds, so I
wouldn't rely on it at the moment.Re-using tableExistsI think there is a
consensus here that tableExists returning a metadata location could work but
seems more like a workaround and could be misleading for the users.Partial
metadata loading could solve this:(Yufei) I agree, it would be perfect for my
use-case and I'm following the discussion on the proposal. However, for me it
seems, as I wrote above, that the proposal faces serious headwinds now and I
honestly wouldn't expect a solution in the short term. But solving the
freshness problems is a more urgent thing to solve, not just for myself and
Impala but apparently to many other stakeholders in the community according to
the interest on this thread.Hence, I propose to come up with a separate
solution for freshness checks, and we can still move to using partial metadata
loading once that's out.Use HTTPCache and If-Modified-Since with loadTableThis
solution seems to do the trick for us. Let me do some research myself to see if
there are any difficulties implementing this. Currently, I have more questions
than answers wrt this approach :)- The initial problem is to answer freshness
questions for the cached tables on the client side. If we introduce HttpCaching
wouldn't we introduce the same problem but on a different level of
representation. We'd then need to decide the freshness/staleness of the cached
data in the HTTP layer.- If we cache the HTTP responses for a loadTable then we
essentially cache the content of the metadata.jsons including the snapshot and
metadata log and everything, plus the snapshot list (and I think the manifests
for the latest snapshot). I believe that the size of this can easily reach
the low megabytes range in memory, so in total keeping them in the HTTP Cache
for all the tables we have queried can easily mean that we keep a couple of GBs
in memory just for this purpose.For engines that already cache table metadata
wouldn't this mean that we will cache some parts of the metadata redundantly?-
How would we decide what is the max-age of a cached table metadata in the HTTP
Cache? Would it be configurable so that each engine could use whatever it
prefers?Sorry if any of the questions doesn't make sense, I just want to make
sure I understand all the aspects of this approach.An additional topic I have
in mind:REST catalog vs other catalogs:Now we are focusing our discussion on
the REST spec, but I think it would be beneficial to extend our focus and cover
other catalog implementations too. I don't think that this problem of data
freshness is specific to REST catalog, it could affect any table in any other
catalog too.I'll continue my investigation wrt the proposals, I just wanted to
flush out and sum up what we have now before the weekend.Regards,GaborOn Fri,
Nov 15, 2024 at 10:16 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net
mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:Hi,I like the idea and it makes sense. As
soon as it's clearly stated inthe spec (using If-Modified-Since header and 304
status code), itlooks good to me.Thanks !RegardsJBOn Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 1:58
AM Taeyun Kim <taeyun....@innowireless.com
mailto:taeyun....@innowireless.com> wrote:>> Hi,>> (Apologies if
this email is a duplicate. This is my third attempt.)>> I also need a way
to ensure that my table data is up-to-date. For now, I’m handling this by
setting an expiration period after which I fetch the data again, regardless of
its freshness.>> Here are my thoughts on the current suggestions. Please
correct me if I've misunderstood any of the points.>> - isLatest(): This
function could be inefficient since it would require an additional round-trip
to fetch the metadata if it’s not up-to-date. This would result in two
round-trips overall, which seems suboptimal.> - metadataLocation(): This has
a similar issue as isLatest(). BTW, according to the REST catalog API
documentation for LoadTableResult schema, it states, "Clients can check whether
metadata has changed by comparing metadata locations after the table has been
created."
(https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/3659ded18d50206576985339bd55cd82f5e200cc/open-api/rest-catalog-open-api.yaml#L3175
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/3659ded18d50206576985339bd55cd82f5e200cc/open-api/rest-catalog-open-api.yaml#L3175)
This suggests that if the metadata location has changed, the metadata can be
considered updated.> - tableExists(): Based on the name, this function seems
to serve a different purpose.>> Here is my suggestion:>> Since HTTP
has built-in caching features
(https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Caching
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Caching), and REST catalogs
operate over HTTP, it seems natural to leverage HTTP caching mechanisms. For
example, HTTP includes the If-Modified-Since header and the 304 Not Modified
status code. Using this approach, we could achieve data freshness with a single
round-trip, fetching updated data only if there are modifications.>> What
do you think about defining the spec in this direction?>> Thank
you.>>>>> -----Original Message-----> From: "Yufei Gu"
<flyrain...@gmail.com mailto:flyrain...@gmail.com>> To:
<dev@iceberg.apache.org mailto:dev@iceberg.apache.org>;> Cc:> Sent:
2024-11-13 (수) 03:43:24 (UTC+09:00)> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] REST: Way to
query if metadata pointer is the latest>>>> Hi Gamber,>>
Thanks for the proposal! Impala isn’t unique in needing this—I've seen similar
requirements from other engines.>> As others pointed out, using the
“tableExists” endpoint seems like a workaround. I don't consider it a permanent
way forward. We could address this by either modifying the current load table
endpoint or introducing a new one, but ideally, we should avoid adding
endpoints for every specific need. With that, partial metadata loading seems
like a strong approach here, we will need certain agreement though. I'd suggest
the community consider the use cases seriously. We need a way forward.>>
I’m also not too concerned about using metadata file paths to verify the latest
table version; clients can simply extract metadata filenames, which include the
UUID.>> Yufei>>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 7:46 AM
Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:>> Hi Fokko>> I like the idea, but I think it's more a
workaround and could be> confusing for users :)>> Regards>
JB>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 2:53 PM Fokko Driesprong
<fo...@apache.org mailto:fo...@apache.org> wrote:> >> > Hey
Gabor,> >> > Thanks for raising this. While reading this, my first
thought is to leverage the `tableExists` operation:> >
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/e3f39972863f891481ad9f5a559ffef093976bd7/open-api/rest-catalog-open-api.yaml#L1129-L1160
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/e3f39972863f891481ad9f5a559ffef093976bd7/open-api/rest-catalog-open-api.yaml#L1129-L1160>
>> > This doesn't return anything today, but we could return a
payload to the latest metadata.json.> >> > Looking forward to what
others think.> >> > Kind regards,> > Fokko> >>
>> >> >> > Op di 12 nov 2024 om 14:33 schreef Shani
Elharrar <sh...@upsolver.com.invalid>:> >>> >> I
recommend option (b), provided there is no partial metadata loading. We
implemented option (b) internally to facilitate partial metadata loading, as we
have tables with hundreds of thousands of snapshots. This results in metadata
that occupies approximately 500 MB in memory (excluding the JsonNodes), which
is a significant load for some of our services.> >>> >>
Shani.> >>> >> On 12 Nov 2024, at 14:12, Gabor Kaszab
<gaborkas...@apache.org mailto:gaborkas...@apache.org> wrote:>
>>> >> Hey Iceberg Community,> >>> >>
Background:> >> Impala is designed in a way to cache the Iceberg table
metadata (BaseTable objects in practice) for faster access. Currently, Impala
is tightly coupled with HMS and in turn with the HiveCatalog, and in order to
keep the cached table objects up-to-date there is a notification mechanism
driven by HMS to notify Impala about any changes in the table metadata.>
>> The Impala community is actively looking for ways to decouple HMS from
Impala and provide a way to use Impala without the need for HMS, and get the
Iceberg table metadata from other catalog Implementations mainly focusing now
on REST catalogs.> >>> >> Problem to solve:> >> We
identified a particular missing functionality in the current REST spec: For
engines that cache table metadata currently there is no way to check if that
table metadata is up-to-date or not, and whether the engine should reload the
metadata for that table or not without getting a whole table object from the
catalog. For this I think the REST catalog (but in fact I think this could
apply to any other catalogs) should be able to answer a question like:>
>> "Hi Catalog, I have this version of this table, is it up-to-date?">
>>> >> Proposal:> >> I've been following the discussion
about partial metadata loading that could be also used to answer the above
question, but I have the impression now that the conversation stopped making
any progress.> >> So instead of waiting for partial metadata loading I
propose to have an addition to the REST spec now to answer the question I
raised above:> >>> >> a) boolean isLatest(TableIdentifier
ident, String metadataLocation);> >> b) String
metadataLocation(TableIdentifier ident);> >>> >> Any of the
above 2 approaches could help engines to decide if they have to
invalidate/reload particular table metadata in the cache. I personally would go
for option a) but would be open to hear other opinions.> >>>
>> I'd like to know if the community could support me extending the REST
spec with any of the 2 options.> >>> >> Regards,> >>
Gabor> >>> >>
