openinx commented on a change in pull request #4291:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/4291#discussion_r823508563



##########
File path: core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/TableProperties.java
##########
@@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ private TableProperties() {
   public static final String DELETE_ORC_BLOCK_SIZE_BYTES = 
"write.delete.orc.block-size-bytes";
   public static final long ORC_BLOCK_SIZE_BYTES_DEFAULT = 256L * 1024 * 1024; 
// 256 MB
 
+  public static final String ORC_VECTOR_ROW_BATCH_SIZE = 
"write.orc.vectorized-row-batch-size";

Review comment:
       It's true that the original name `iceberg.orc.vectorbatch.size` is not 
an iceberg name style. This config key was introduced in this PR: 
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/139/files.  In theory, people could add 
this config key-value in their enviroment  hadoop configuration file.  But 
after we merged this PR, the key won't take any effect even if we use the old 
key in hadoop environment. 
   
   I will suggest to make it deprecated and then introduce the correct table 
property. But I think we still need to be able to read the value from the old 
key.

##########
File path: core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/TableProperties.java
##########
@@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ private TableProperties() {
   public static final String DELETE_ORC_BLOCK_SIZE_BYTES = 
"write.delete.orc.block-size-bytes";
   public static final long ORC_BLOCK_SIZE_BYTES_DEFAULT = 256L * 1024 * 1024; 
// 256 MB
 
+  public static final String ORC_VECTOR_ROW_BATCH_SIZE = 
"write.orc.vectorized-row-batch-size";

Review comment:
       It's true that the original name `iceberg.orc.vectorbatch.size` is not 
an iceberg name style. This config key was introduced in this PR: 
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/139/files.  In theory, people could add 
this config key-value in their enviroment  hadoop configuration file.  But 
after we merged this PR, the key won't take any effect even if we use the old 
key in hadoop environment. 
   
   I will suggest to make it deprecated and then introduce the correct table 
property. But I think we still need to be able to read the value from the old 
key.




-- 
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]

Reply via email to