Hi Mike, big +1 on the direction.  Looking forward to the PR.

Yufei


On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 10:26 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> This sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. Looking forward to the PR :)
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:26 PM Michael Collado <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey folks
> >
> > Building on the loadEntities API added in
> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2290 , I'd like to propose two
> new
> > APIs to support batch loading of entities in the PolarisMetaStoreManager.
> > The new loadEntities API is great for avoiding the N+1 queries problem
> > during lists and I'd like to extend that behavior for batch retrieving
> > entities outside of list operations.
> >
> > The two APIs would be
> >
> > ResolvedEntitiesResult loadResolvedEntities(
> >       @Nonnull PolarisCallContext callCtx,
> >       @Nonnull List<EntityNameLookupRecord> entityLookupRecords);
> >
> > and
> >
> > ResolvedEntitiesResult loadResolvedEntities(
> >       @Nonnull PolarisCallContext callCtx,
> >       @Nonnull PolarisEntityType entityType,
> >       @Nonnull List<PolarisEntityId> entityIds);
> >
> > The first API is useful for batch loading entities after a list
> operation,
> > but may only require loading a subset of entities (e.g., because a subset
> > is already in the in-memory cache). The latter supports a batch version
> of
> > the loadEntity - also useful for loading entities for the cache without
> the
> > need to refresh one by one (consider the Resolver, which does this).
> >
> > Notably, both APIs return ResolvedEntitiesResult, rather than
> > EntitiesResult because I'd like to resolve the discrepancy between the
> > EntityCache API and the PolarisMetaStoreManager API. Right now, it's
> > important to directly interact with the cache whereas, if we can
> > consolidate the API, it could be possible to support a cache-backed
> > PolarisMetaStoreManager implementation that manages the in-memory cache
> > invisibly.
> >
> > I already have a draft PR with some of the work done, but if everyone
> > agrees on the additions, I can have a PR ready for review next week some
> > time. Let me know your thoughts.
> >
> > Mike
> >
>

Reply via email to