Hi All, I approved RR [4115] in GH. It looks pretty reasonable to me and generally matches the shape of other recent feature PRs. I tend to think it should be fine to merge and do follow-up work on main.
>From my POV, the only technical issue requiring immediate resolution is the merge order with [4397]. WDYT? [4115] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4115 [4397] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4397 Thanks, Dmitri. On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 5:08 PM EJ Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > We had a community sync earlier, thanks JB for scheduling it. Notes from > the first metrics architecture sync (May 6, 10-11am PT). Discussion doc > with per-section status: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/100h7c4damrUzVuquYbBHM0EvA4LSWuW2IT2dN_7nYVA/edit?tab=t.0 > > *The meeting covered both topics from the doc. Direction-level alignment > was reached on the headline pieces; details remain for PR review or > follow-up sessions.* > > *Topic 1 — Persistence schema redesign* > Idea-level alignment on consolidating per-type tables (scan_metrics_report, > commit_metrics_report) into a single metrics_report table. The motivating > cost is the surface area added by every new metric type today: new table, > SPI method, record class, model, converter, schema migration. > > Most schema details are deferred to the schema PR. A few specific points > came up: > • metric_schema_version: Yufei prefers dropping it, since there is no > spec-level concept of metrics versioning today and it is hard to define > unilaterally. Robert prefers keeping it, given IRC v2 is coming and the > schema should be considered against its likely shape; Robert also raised > how to differentiate various payload formats if any. EJ's read is that this > is a two-way-door decision. We can start without the field, and if IRC v2 > changes the shape we would likely roll a corresponding new schema anyway, > which is not particularly costly. > • Payload format: Robert pointed out that future formats beyond JSON may > be worth supporting. The exact shape is deferred to the schema discussion. > • Partition strategy: Anand suggested monthly partitioning based on his > experience as potentially helpful at scale. > > *Topic 2 — Where metrics ingestion and storage belong* > Idea-level alignment that metrics should be a separated SPI from the entity > persistence stack. Two reasons surfaced: (a) workloads and capability > requirements diverge enough that coupling them creates artificial > constraints, and (b) admin experience improves when metrics has its own > bootstrap, retention, and lifecycle. Dmitri noted Polaris being a platform > should have the flexibility to support different persistence backends per > concern, and pointed to a concrete next step of separating the JDBC > bootstrap for metrics from the metastore bootstrap. Robert proposed an > additional UX extension: detect an unbootstrapped metrics store on first > use and auto-bootstrap rather than requiring an explicit manual bootstrap > step. > The meeting also confirmed that Polaris metrics can start small and stay > Iceberg-focused. Naming and persistence schema can lean Iceberg-specific. > If a future expansion to generic-table metrics or operational metrics > arrives, an abstraction layer can be built on top of the Iceberg metrics > reporter at that point. Robert remains on the fence and would prefer > something more generic but did not block the direction; Dmitri's read was > that the proposed framework already has enough flexibility to absorb future > expansion. > > The Trade-offs and Proposed structure sections in the doc were not reviewed > in detail. They remain open for either the next sync or PR review. > > *Cross-cutting alignment — battery-included plus pluggable* > A common philosophy emerged from the discussion. EJ summarized it as: > Polaris should provide a battery-included UX for beginners and the > flexibility for advanced users to swap the included battery for something > more powerful or tailored to their use case. The SPI design needs to enable > both. > > The inputs that shaped this framing: > • Anand described how his team uses the current metrics persistence > (three metrics consumers in v1.4). > • Yufei raised Grafana and dashboard integrations as a destination use > case beyond the default. > • Robert called out that the current design is more JDBC-focused. > > Two concrete instances: > • Async metrics intake: Yufei's initial position was that async should > largely live on the producer side and there is not much Polaris can do. > Robert suggested a Polaris-side default is doable via Vert.x. Dmitri agreed > the direction is worth exploring. The meeting converged on a > battery-included default (likely Vert.x-backed) with an SPI shape that lets > power users route to a more scalable backend (k8s-hosted queue, AWS SQS, > etc.). > • Pluggable destinations: combining Yufei's dashboard use case with > Robert's JDBC-focused call-out, the meeting agreed the SPI should be > structured for multiple sinks so integrations become impl choices rather > than architectural changes. > > The battery-included default is most likely to use the existing JDBC-backed > approach. > > *Direction (idea-level alignment)* > • Single metrics_report table consolidating per-type metrics, replacing > scan_metrics_report and commit_metrics_report > • Iceberg-focused naming and schema for now, revisit if generic-table or > operational metrics arrive > • Metrics persistence as a separated SPI, not on BasePersistence > • Bootstrap path separated for metrics, independent of metastore > bootstrap > • "Battery-included plus pluggable" as the SPI design philosophy > > *Open items* > • Schema details: metric_schema_version, payload format, IRC v2 > forward-compat shape > • SPI design details — full review either in the next sync or in the > corresponding PR > • Schema refactor PR ownership > > *Action items* > • EJ to take a first stab at the SPI design and potentially partner with > Anand to incorporate the lessons learned from the existing reporter and > persistence work. > • Schema refactor PR ownership is not yet decided. If anyone is > interested in driving it, reply on this thread. > • JB to schedule the next sync, tentatively in two weeks. > > -ej > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 3:07 PM EJ Wang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks Yufei for the +1. > > > > JB, could you help add a biweekly metrics architecture sync to the > Polaris > > community calendar? I'm thinking Thursdays at 9-10am PT, on the off-weeks > > from the community meeting (starting May 7), 60 minutes. > > > > Here's a rough agenda to work through over the first few sessions, > grouped > > by priority: > > > > *First: foundational direction* > > > > 1. MetricsPersistence: public SPI or internal implementation detail? > > • Marked @Beta, javadoc calls it a "Service Provider Interface", but > > only one consumer (JdbcBasePersistenceImpl), lives on BasePersistence. If > > demoted to a private helper inside a persisting reporter impl, most > > downstream design decisions become implementation details rather than > > contract questions. > > > > 2. Persistence schema redesign > > • Current two-table layout (scan_metrics_report, > > commit_metrics_report) with ~25 flattened columns each. Every new metric > > type requires a new table, SPI method, record class, model, converter, > and > > schema migration. Direction to explore: single table with metric_type > enum, > > schema_version, and JSON payload column. > > > > *Second: design details once direction is set* > > > > 3. Partition key strategy > > • Single-table design means scan metrics at scale will have high > > write concurrency per table. Schema needs to expose enough structure for > > backends to shard by entity or time range. > > > > 4. Read/write path consistency > > • Writes go through PolarisMetricsManager on MetaStoreManager. Reads > > bypass MetaStoreManager and go straight to BasePersistence, excluding > > non-JDBC backends from the read API. > > > > *Third: cleanup and alignment* > > > > 5. PolarisMetricsReporter naming > > • Only handles IRC (ScanReport/CommitReport), doesn't cover generic > > tables or operational metrics. Name is broader than scope. > > > > 6. PolarisMetricsManager facade passthrough > > • Entire default method is callCtx.getMetaStore().writeScanReport(). > > Zero logic, passes Level 1 straight through to Level 3. Same anti-pattern > > as PolarisEventManager. > > > > 7. Iceberg community alignment > > • Payload-type extension needs discussion on dev@iceberg. > obelix74's > > Feb thread got zero replies. Needs a committer voice. > > > > Lets confirm prioritization in the first session. > > > > -ej > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 3:18 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Thanks everyone for continuing to drive this forward. I agree that the > >> problem is getting complex enough that a more structured discussion > would > >> help. > >> > >> +1 on setting up a biweekly sync for the metrics architecture. I’m happy > >> to > >> join. > >> > >> Yufei > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:34 PM EJ Wang <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Also, I've been looking more closely at the *persistence schema in the > >> > current metrics work*, and I think there's a structural rigidity > problem > >> > worth raising before the shape gets locked in. > >> > > >> > Right now we have two separate tables (scan_metrics_report and > >> > commit_metrics_report), each with ~25 flattened columns that directly > >> > mirror the Iceberg report fields. The SPI follows the same split: > >> > writeScanReport and writeCommitReport as separate methods, with > per-type > >> > record classes, converters, and model objects. *The practical cost: > >> > adding a new metric type (operational metrics, for example) requires a > >> new > >> > table, a new SPI method, a new record class, a new model class, a new > >> > converter branch, and a schema migration*. That's a lot of surface > area > >> > for what should be "one more kind of metric." > >> > > >> > *My bias* would be toward a single metrics table with *a typed JSON > >> > payload*. Something like: metric_type (enum), entity_id, > >> > table_identifier, snapshot_id (nullable), received_ts, schema_version, > >> and > >> > a payload column for the metric-specific data. The metric_type + > >> > schema_version pair gives us a forward-compatible contract for the > >> payload > >> > shape. Adding a new metric type becomes an enum value and a payload > >> schema, > >> > not a schema migration. One thing I think we need to be deliberate > >> about is > >> > the partition key design. If all metric types land in one table, scan > >> > metrics at scale (high concurrency, high frequency across many tables) > >> > could easily create hot partitions. We'd want the persistence layer to > >> be > >> > able to shard by entity or time range, and that means the logical > schema > >> > needs to expose enough structure for backends to partition on. I don't > >> > think the current flattened layout gives us that. > >> > > >> > This is getting complex enough that I don't think ad-hoc PR/ML threads > >> > will converge well. *Would people be open to a biweekly sync for > metrics > >> > architecture?* I think 30 minutes every two weeks with interested > >> parties > >> > would be enough to work through the schema, SPI shape, and read API > >> design > >> > together. Happy to help set that up. > >> > > >> > -ej > >> > > >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 2:19 PM EJ Wang < > [email protected] > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Reviewed #4115, left a comment on the code organization side. > >> >> > >> >> One thing stood out: the metrics write path enters through > >> >> PolarisMetricsManager on MetaStoreManager, but the new read path > >> bypasses > >> >> MetaStoreManager entirely and goes straight to BasePersistence via > >> >> callContext.getMetaStore(). That means the read API only works for > >> backends > >> >> that implement BasePersistence. NoSQL and remote backends can't > >> participate. > >> >> > >> >> Stepping back, I think the metrics subsystem is growing into > something > >> >> real (write + read + REST API + AuthZ + pagination) *but the > >> persistence > >> >> side is split across two layers in a way that's hard to extend*. I > put > >> >> together two diagrams to show what I mean (my best effort). > >> >> > >> >> *Current state* (Diagram 1): three interfaces at three different > >> levels. > >> >> The engine-facing SPI (PolarisMetricsReporter) is clean. But > >> >> PolarisMetricsManager on MetaStoreManager is a passthrough to > >> >> MetricsPersistence on BasePersistence. The @Beta annotation and SPI > >> javadoc > >> >> are on the BasePersistence layer, while the actual extension points > >> >> (PolarisMetricsReporter, PolarisMetricsManager) carry no stability > >> >> annotation. The write path goes through the MetaStoreManager layer, > the > >> >> read path doesn't. > >> >> > >> >> *What I envision* (Diagram 2): two SPIs at two levels. > >> >> PolarisMetricsReporter stays as the engine-facing SPI. > >> >> PolarisMetricsManager becomes the backend-facing SPI with both write > >> and > >> >> read methods at the MetaStoreManager level, where any backend (JDBC, > >> NoSQL, > >> >> remote) can implement them. MetricsPersistence on BasePersistence > goes > >> >> away. Where metrics actually land is an implementation detail, not a > >> core > >> >> interface. > >> >> > >> >> *Minor naming thing*: PolarisMetricsReporter is broader than what it > >> >> actually handles. It only accepts Iceberg REST Catalog metrics > >> (ScanReport, > >> >> CommitReport via MetricsReport). Generic table metrics or operational > >> >> metrics aren't in scope. Not blocking, but worth noting if the > metrics > >> >> surface expands. > >> >> > >> >> *Rough sketch of how to get there*: > >> >> 1. Add read methods to PolarisMetricsManager (listScanReports, > >> >> listCommitReports) with default no-op, same as the existing write > >> methods. > >> >> (Probably make PolarisMetricsManager more explicit on being Iceberg > >> >> specific like package name or class name etc.) > >> >> 2. Wire MetricsReportsService through MetaStoreManager instead of > >> >> callContext.getMetaStore(). > >> >> 3. Extract metrics persistence from JdbcBasePersistenceImpl into > its > >> >> own class. That file carries ~7 responsibilities, metrics being one > of > >> them. > >> >> 4. Remove MetricsPersistence from BasePersistence. > >> >> > >> >> *None of this needs to happen in #4115. But if the direction makes > >> sense, > >> >> it would be good to align before the metrics surface grows further. > >> Curious > >> >> what others think.* > >> >> > >> >> *My mental model note*: Level 1 MetaStoreManager; level 2 > transactional > >> >> persistence; level 3 base persistence > >> >> > >> >> Diagram 1 > >> >> < > >> > https://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/uml/bLHDR-Cs4BthLmpIYupw0zbkKQ1r3M-S7Bp8xhhM7WCOb3IM65EaGD9EX2RzxHrHb4CxRelwa4YSDu_lpOVcnZ9jzvM8BBS2uGjQpJC3dtHMSekPtMk44IpsMgEqa5XcCOhCZikQQLP1pR8TAp2n3ILhmZDP20m0fcIvUkAoW2qJXd9z1bpToO9BX3WXu0ucy5rpgGPNm0nW5_epUWtm2Ue3pn3kMOFQmKntGZW0BYtgBSi8k5A2QMwybJNMIbFiGSR9QZc4nUqIvikStF0jHprua5C-amge42aNt3R0f5JaaoivdV2Pkqbx4hee4ymOkBh5BTiB-_uIeGeo8zL8rPsPl4DktdEiK1jkB1NdZCRbrSTecDe_mlHbF0wvBmCkaOH5_S8a_TTTKI6-nmCAkEw4LpxsZ-LbYLKQFKMNOgf_wuM7_bV9gOer5SYMMksBSWXFcbi49KNZXNLicwfe3TETC7gPdPqI7uBcHMb1RSzYq34c6PDUM9mn8HRsUTZEiDBve3NjVZumBj0U7SS37mGO7vcwtiK-_pU7U7L_f-digo9YbhSwIfMRwIITKGXbxdIUTCGF1SeCJxloKsU-3k9ddRbX1eDq1q_fx1JbBGT0glVyXimDuP4TQ5qpCAmnGEj2s_6n5mtn1z-97-63itFQZLPO1Ev2tu_WF7Ju-VPc0Skg5bYXxBhkY1xpD7EM_7fyflSpIsqMgVth5xhVr4eQxWQ8enaSAJQSG16yFSDuJ798rrcXr_3n-lfdk7icQjEBmFujL7AodiP_Y4Z7-YxvtZNs4zMgpNTl6tF8sglyPsmqchrjvQ-m-aP94r-TwCA2Ka8upPJZwtvSpoYCXkYMZU2NXvRMBfq9P3i3Le4VAZUAlUZ_oPKsxPgY0Q_BSKLkyr9bhQhQrJjo_x3TPlIB0DPjnMfcIoYP0QaYw1a0fTKDr8fB6ntNuvmoL1ZGkXa69Njh43zf9GiGxHQrA_jDYWRSzF5--WmTVrN97_Sm8LbLUy_lGBmLanJjFkDlGkRqjA_4tm00 > >> > > >> >> : > >> >> > >> >> [image: image.png] > >> >> > >> >> Diagram 2 > >> >> < > >> > https://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/uml/VLLDR-8m4BtdLupO2sWBLVU8AaGB7AXAbssGzb896SS9RXqxjKqBwkv_tt7iV43fdaZYDpFlpRmnOsE9jhjSH9PRmM31hERKm8scMsuPjJlDe0yheZDc8RR4iYWoBrmMH9CS2a9VICPYUy1OZN0YCy5Q0BCbYNhdCeEK28En8G8wCvbnoQ0R8_05Bc6bkLIz3X03p1zzH7zR-9ZfDquPt9C3qoNCX2yV4G2NbkcKu5jdgGJHt0GbZwnG6i-UP3TUpk5gM6Ldqke350eZUqzoCft3U9xWHvxoa5-7K4nF1J46EbEMafsmdrCBbQ44gVggy18IZrn_ph5asd1ZiIKdQSgueZvjXrQFSFrdC3YN-nXmBacxbGiYyLVxLaBtdhqn0LSzdBDhqQtQoOJeGyad3z0lUqnYgpGB6Ns8oVyta00Dy_WnX0tIOZ8v6SYxHll1TrH6aejAik-mh-AphVFCwSUQqFypElag5QRGFDjQKEd96K1P8QP41c9TzA_IIQyvdAWyv_RSiS3skb0_EzDDkK2v5xWF6MiGFlvhpFLcD2Dq2pml14gaF67eQkmd8gulDoC4kSOu6KVpkvlUJg1RTbWISU40RdBUUS_9XfRZ2dwxm_SW8LYFISgm_MnlDQ6M9P1gbKEc4X-2pH_FvJCkCqm9pbVjD6LrwdLeOrDWfOaqc8Wh9BE85oNKxkNQ6o4yGRy_Eae0G_G8tZv81d3bHDB23WOdisohVr3nh_j6lbSjbNaLRTc8UgtPbAU1J_tygOfZX9DWEJeHDvYx-qmSi5FgNLPZwHrHcUsncGQ5-skhUclpE5fo4ounpFauYrUbkU6ccfnxMvitwag4IyerhTxj8In_Oj1bDO4pQru674loYrGlULHLEGCjwJJ8gDoVZR8MxO4BT3IzRvIcAQKezC6xpziGnTyImrfEGyJI_OcKfgtxIvnTqFEMS17L9Z-jsARN5FmTheP7HtSdtOMT0B4GY2FYHXxgQmMtj2bRqiLFGapiVe1_QVKDrkqXcm83aFEXnMYCZ-xlyHy > >> > > >> >> : > >> >> [image: image.png] > >> >> > >> >> -ej > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 8:22 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hi All, > >> >>> > >> >>> Heads up: The current state of PR [4115] looks pretty solid to me. I > >> >>> believe this PR is approaching a mergeable condition. > >> >>> > >> >>> Please post your reviews if you have any comments. > >> >>> > >> >>> [4115] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4115 > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, > >> >>> Dmitri. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 3:29 PM Anand Kumar Sankaran via dev < > >> >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > Hi Yufei and Dmitri, > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Here is a proposal for the REST endpoints for metrics and events. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3924/changes > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I did not see any precursors for raising a PR for proposals, so > >> trying > >> >>> > this. Please let me know what you think. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > - > >> >>> > Anand > >> >>> > > >> >>> > From: Anand Kumar Sankaran <[email protected]> > >> >>> > Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 at 10:25 AM > >> >>> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> >>> > Subject: Re: Polaris Telemetry and Audit Trail > >> >>> > > >> >>> > About the REST API, based on my use cases: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > 1. > >> >>> > I want to be able to query commit metrics to track files added / > >> >>> removed > >> >>> > per commit, along with record counts. The ingestion pipeline that > >> >>> writes > >> >>> > this data is owned by us and we are guaranteed to write this > >> >>> information > >> >>> > for each write. > >> >>> > 2. > >> >>> > I want to be able to query scan metrics for read. I understand > >> clients > >> >>> do > >> >>> > not fulfill this requirement. > >> >>> > 3. > >> >>> > I want to be able to query the events table (events are > persisted) - > >> >>> this > >> >>> > may supersede #2, I am not sure yet. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > All this information is in the JDBC based persistence model and is > >> >>> > persisted in the metastore. I currently don’t have a need to query > >> >>> > prometheus or open telemetry. I do publish some events to > Prometheus > >> >>> and > >> >>> > they are forwarded to our dashboards elsewhere. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > About the CLI utilities, I meant the admin user utilities. In one > of > >> >>> the > >> >>> > earliest drafts of my proposal, Prashant mentioned that the > metrics > >> >>> tables > >> >>> > can grow indefinitely and that a similar problem exists with the > >> events > >> >>> > table as well. We discussed that cleaning up of old records from > >> both > >> >>> > metrics tables and events tables can be done via a CLI utility. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I see that Yufei has covered the discussion about datasources. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > - > >> >>> > Anand > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > From: Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > >> >>> > Date: Friday, February 27, 2026 at 9:54 PM > >> >>> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> >>> > Subject: Re: Polaris Telemetry and Audit Trail > >> >>> > > >> >>> > This Message Is From an External Sender > >> >>> > This message came from outside your organization. > >> >>> > Report Suspicious< > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> > https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/Iz9xO38YGHZK!YhNDZABkHi1B699ote2uMwpOZw8i0QMCGO2Szc-HshuABGhGvwPJcymE6G2oUUxtS8xDkSrtGTPm_I3QnVDHoLMk50m9v8z_nZKTkd-bnVUbreF1u0WnfV_X5eYevZl_$ > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > As I mentioned in > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3890__;!!Iz9xO38YGHZK!5EuyFFkk3vhRWVIRvQAWBSQfpJkTMA9HxugzDwXmN0LPPqhEFxYkFRGVhtb8AqUwXtDh2OplcMnbMDHKOxrvDU0$ > >> >>> , > >> >>> > supporting > >> >>> > multiple data sources is not a trivial change. I would strongly > >> >>> recommend > >> >>> > starting with a design document to carefully evaluate the > >> architectural > >> >>> > implications and long term impact. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > A REST endpoint to query metrics seems reasonable given the > current > >> >>> JDBC > >> >>> > based persistence model. That said, we may also consider > alternative > >> >>> > storage models. For example, if we later adopt a time series > system > >> >>> such as > >> >>> > Prometheus to store metrics, the query model and access patterns > >> would > >> >>> be > >> >>> > fundamentally different. Designing the REST API without > considering > >> >>> these > >> >>> > potential evolutions may limit flexibility. I'd suggest to start > >> with > >> >>> the > >> >>> > use case. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Yufei > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 3:42 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > >> [email protected]> > >> >>> > wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > Hi Anand, > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > Sharing my view... subject to discussion: > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > 1. Adding non-IRC REST API to Polaris is perfectly fine. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > Figuring out specific endpoint URIs and payloads might require a > >> few > >> >>> > > roundtrips, so opening a separate thread for that might be best. > >> >>> > > Contributors commonly create Google Docs for new API proposals > too > >> >>> (they > >> >>> > > fairly easy to update as the email discussion progresses). > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > There was a suggestion to try Markdown (with PRs) for proposals > >> [1] > >> >>> ... > >> >>> > > feel free to give it a try if you are comfortable with that. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > 2. Could you clarify whether you mean end user utilities or > admin > >> >>> user > >> >>> > > utilities? In the latter case those might be more suitable for > the > >> >>> Admin > >> >>> > > CLI (java) not the Python CLI, IMHO. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > Why would these utilities be common with events? IMHO, event use > >> >>> cases > >> >>> > are > >> >>> > > distinct from scan/commit metrics. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > 3. I'd prefer separating metrics persistence from MetaStore > >> >>> persistence > >> >>> > at > >> >>> > > the code level, so that they could be mixed and matched > >> >>> independently. > >> >>> > The > >> >>> > > separate datasource question will become a non-issue with that > >> >>> approach, > >> >>> > I > >> >>> > > guess. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > The rationale for separating scan metrics and metastore > >> persistence > >> >>> is > >> >>> > that > >> >>> > > "cascading deletes" between them are hardly ever required. > >> >>> Furthermore, > >> >>> > the > >> >>> > > data and query patterns are very different so different > >> technologies > >> >>> > might > >> >>> > > be beneficial in each case. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > [1] > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread/yto2wp982t43h1mqjwnslswhws5z47cy__;!!Iz9xO38YGHZK!5EuyFFkk3vhRWVIRvQAWBSQfpJkTMA9HxugzDwXmN0LPPqhEFxYkFRGVhtb8AqUwXtDh2OplcMnbMDHKxYDakNU$ > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > Cheers, > >> >>> > > Dmitri. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 6:19 PM Anand Kumar Sankaran via dev < > >> >>> > > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > Thanks all. This PR is merged now. > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > Here are the follow-up features / work needed. These were all > >> >>> part of > >> >>> > > the > >> >>> > > > merged PR at some point in time and were removed to reduce > >> scope. > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > Please let me know what you think. > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > 1. A REST API to paginate through table metrics. This will > be > >> >>> > non-IRC > >> >>> > > > standard addition. > >> >>> > > > 2. Utilities for managing old records, should be common > with > >> >>> events. > >> >>> > > > There was some discussion that it belongs to the CLI. > >> >>> > > > 3. Separate datasource (metrics, events, even other > tables?). > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > Anything else? > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > - > >> >>> > > > Anand > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >
