jackye1995 commented on pull request #3275: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/3275#issuecomment-950003011
Trying to catch up with the conversation... > it looks like this creates a generic table with catalog name, namespace name, and string blobs. Is that the right way to go? Why not use a namespace_properties table that has the schema catalog string, namespace string, key string, value string? A namespace would exist if there is a table with the namespace or if there is at least one property for the namespace. That seems like a better way to model the information than converting to and from JSON or base64 to me. Yes that's actually the very original idea that we thought about in the initial PR. The schema in the current PR was from @miR172 's POC, and I overlooked the fact that it would break existing behavior, sorry for that. So we should switch to use 1 table for namespace properties and 1 table for just table information as you suggested, and we don't need another namespace table because everything can be modeled as key value pairs. `createNamespace` can be modeled as a `createdAt=1234567890` key value pair. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
