Thanks for sending the spec.

I will take a look once I am back from vacation on Sunday.

I will be happy to collaborate on this and lead the delete markers stuff

On 8 Dec 2017 00:36, "Ryan Blue" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I sent an intro to the Iceberg table format that we're building yesterday.
> I think the table format is the right place to implement GDPR requirements
> because it isn't really feasible to modify Parquet files without rewriting
> entirely.
>
> Delete markers should be tracked in separate files that support appends
> (like Avro). The table format must also support the compaction jobs that
> rewrite Parquet files to completely delete the data, which can't be done
> atomically in the current Hive table layout (you can't atomically swap one
> file for another). And, getting this into the table format early is also a
> good opportunity to ensure readers always apply the deletes.
>
> I'm interested in building this capability into the table format we're
> working on and would be happy to collaborate on a spec for this if anyone
> would like to lead that effort.
>
> rb
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Eric Owhadi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > One thing to account for is the row count stats spread all over the
> > various level of stats. If a record is logical deleted, then rowcount =
> > rowcount -1.
> > So when using any level of stats to compute row count, how do we account
> > for logical deletes?
> > Eric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Atri Sharma [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:48 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Regarding PARQUET-1155
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > I think a configurable purger which can replace pages (like HBase
> > Compaction, as mentioned above) should suffice and the frequency of
> > compaction can be defined.
> >
> > Do we do the full page replacement technique for replacing records today
> > in any scenario?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:17 PM, lukas nalezenec <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I think that delete marker is good idea.
> > > I was in basic GDPR training and i think that it meets EU law
> > > requirements
> > >
> > > Lukas
> > >
> > > 2017-12-05 11:37 GMT+01:00 Atri Sharma <[email protected]>:
> > >
> > >> Agreed.
> > >>
> > >> I have come up with a patch to add metadata to the page header
> > >> marking the tuples deleted. The visibility checks will need to
> > >> consult page header before returning the read results back.
> > >>
> > >> The pruning still needs to be implemented.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Eric Owhadi <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >> > May be the EU requirement provide a deadline for the delete. So one
> > >> > can
> > >> imagine to implement a "logical delete", and on a monthly basis
> > >> (assuming that is the EU deadline to be compliant), perform a
> > >> physical delete by reloading the data without the logical deletes? It
> > >> is like HBase major compaction concept?
> > >> > Eric
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Wes McKinney [mailto:[email protected]]
> > >> > Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 3:38 PM
> > >> > To: [email protected]
> > >> > Subject: Re: Regarding PARQUET-1155
> > >> >
> > >> > hi Atri -- even if we could, I am not sure this would meet the
> > >> requirements of the EU law, since the "deleted" data could still be
> > >> read by an adversary even if a Parquet implementation like parquet-mr
> > >> did not permit it
> > >> >
> > >> > - Wes
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Atri Sharma <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> I see, thanks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Could we not introduce the concept of a delete marker, where we
> > >> >> mark the deleted records in the page header?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Wes McKinney
> > >> >> <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>> I don't think this is possible due to the encoding and
> > >> >>> compression
> > >> schemes.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> For example, suppose that you had the following data
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 1
> > >> >>> 1
> > >> >>> 1
> > >> >>> 4
> > >> >>> 4
> > >> >>> 4
> > >> >>> 4
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> This would be dictionary-encoded and compressed to semantically
> > >> >>> look like
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> dictionary: 1, 4
> > >> >>> data page: (3, 0) (4, 1)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The encoded data page (using the hybrid bit-packing / RLE
> > >> >>> encoding
> > >> >>> scheme) would furthermore be compressed. Editing records in
> > >> >>> general would change the size of the compressed and encoded data
> > >> >>> stream, so you could not edit the page without rewriting the file.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> - Wes
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Atri Sharma
> > >> >>> <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>> Hi Wes,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Thanks for your response.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> My main use case is that I want to introduce updatability to
> > >> >>>> Parquet records without going the route of replacing the entire
> > page.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Is that something that has already been discussed please?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Regards,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Atri
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Wes McKinney
> > >> >>>> <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>>> hi Atri,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> From a prior discussion on the mailing list, it is not clear
> > >> >>>>> that this is a problem that concerns either Parquet format or
> > >> >>>>> the implementations in the Apache Parquet project. If data must
> > >> >>>>> be edited or deleted, then the point-of-truth Parquet files
> > >> >>>>> must be scanned and overwritten with the offending records
> > deleted.
> > >> >>>>> Modifying files in place is not feasible due to the compression
> > >> >>>>> and encoding schemes (dictionary, run-length encoding) used in
> > >> >>>>> the Parquet format. Let me know if I am misunderstanding the use
> > case.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thanks
> > >> >>>>> Wes
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Atri Sharma
> > >> >>>>> <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>> Hi Folks,
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Any update?
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Atri Sharma
> > >> >>>>>> <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PARQUET-1155
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Anybody working on it? Can I take it up?
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> --
> > >> >>>>>> Regards,
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Atri
> > >> >>>>>> l'apprenant
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Regards,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Atri
> > >> >>>> l'apprenant
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Regards,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Atri
> > >> >> l'apprenant
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Atri
> > >> l'apprenant
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > l'apprenant
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>

Reply via email to