Hi Jack,
> In my mind, the first key point we all need to agree upon to move this > design forward is*: Do we really want to go with the MV = view + storage > table design approach for Iceberg MV?* I think we want this to the extent that we do not want to redefine the same concept with different representations/naming to the greatest degree possible. This is why borrowing the concepts from the view (e.g. multiple ways of expressing the same view logic in different dialects) and aspects of the materialized data (e.g. partitioning, ordering) feels most natural. IIUC your proposal, I think you are saying maybe two modifications to the existing proposals in the document: 1. No separate storage table link, instead embed most of the metadata of the materialized table into the MV document (the exception seems to be snapshot history) 2. For snapshot history, have one unified history specific to the MV. This seems fairly reasonable to me and I think I can solve some challenges with the existing proposal in an elegant way. If this is correct (or maybe if it isn't quite correct) perhaps you can make suggestions to the document so all of the trade-offs can be discussed in one place? I think the one thing the current draft of the materialized view ignores is how to store algebraic summaries (e.g. separate sum and count for averages, or other sketches), so that new data can be incrementally incorporated. But representing these structures feels like it potentially has value beyond just MVs (e.g. it can be a natural way to express summary statistics in table metadata), so I think it deserves at least a try in incorporating the concepts in the table specification, so the definitions can be shared. I was imagining this could come as part of the next revision of MV specification. The MV internal structure could evolve in a way that works more efficiently > with the reduced scope of functionalities, without relying on table to > offer the same capabilities. I can at least say that is true based on my > internal knowledge of how Redshift MVs work. I'm not sure I fully understand this point, but it seems the main question here is what would break if it started to evolve in this direction. Is it purely additive or do we suspect some elements would need to be removed? My gut feeling here is the main concerns here are getting the cardinatities correct (i.e. 1 MV should probably have 0, 1 or more materialized storage tables associated with it, to support more advanced algebraic structures listed above, and perhaps a second without them, and additional metadata to distinguish between these two different modes). If after the evaluation, we are confident that the MV = view + storage > table approach is the right way to go, then we can debate the other issues, > and I think the next issue to reach consensus should be "Should the storage > table be registered in the catalog?". I actually think there are actually more fundamental questions posed: 1. Should be considering how items should be modelled in the REST API concurrently with the Iceberg spec, as that potentially impacts design decision (I think the answer is yes, and we should update the doc with sketches on new endpoints and operations on the endpoints to ensure things align). 2. Going forward should new aspects of Iceberg artifacts rely on the fact that a catalog is present and we can rely on a naming convention for looking up other artifacts in a catalog as pointers (I lean yes on this, but I'm a little bit more ambivalent). Thanks, Micah On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 12:52 PM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suggest we need a step-by-step process to make incremental consensus, > otherwise we are constantly talking about many different debates at the > same time. > > In my mind, the first key point we all need to agree upon to move this > design forward is*: Do we really want to go with the MV = view + storage > table design approach for Iceberg MV?* > > I think we (at least me) started with this assumption, mostly because this > is how Trino implements MV, and how Hive tables store MV information today. > But does it mean we should design it that way in Iceberg? > > Now I look back at how we did the view spec design, we could also say that > we just add a representation field in the table spec to store view, and an > Iceberg view is just a table with no data but with representations defined. > But we did not do that. So it feels now quite inconsistent to say we want > to just add a few fields in the table and view spec to call it an Iceberg > MV. > > If we look into most of the other database systems (e.g. Redshift, > BigQuery, Snowflake), they never expose such implementation details like > storage table. Apart from being close-sourced systems, I think it is also > for good technical reasons. There are many more things that a table needs > to support, but does not really apply to MV. The MV internal structure > could evolve in a way that works more efficiently with the reduced scope of > functionalities, without relying on table to offer the same capabilities. I > can at least say that is true based on my internal knowledge of how > Redshift MVs work. > > I think we should fully evaluate both directions, and commit to one first > before debating more things. > > If we have a new and independent Iceberg MV spec, then an Iceberg MV is > under-the-hood a single object containing all MV information. It has its > own name, snapshots, view representation, etc. I don't believe we will be > blocked by Trino due to its MV SPIs currently requiring the existence of a > storage table, as it will just be a different implementation from the > existing one in Trino-Iceberg. In this direction, I don't think we need to > have any further debate about pointers, metadata locations, storage table, > etc. because everything will be new. > > If after the evaluation, we are confident that the MV = view + storage > table approach is the right way to go, then we can debate the other issues, > and I think the next issue to reach consensus should be "Should the storage > table be registered in the catalog?". > > What do we think? > > -Jack > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:32 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Jack, >> >> I think we should consider either allowing the storage table to be fully >> exposed/addressable via the catalog or allow access via namespacing like >> with metadata tables. E.g. <catalog>.<database>.<table>.<storage>, which >> would allow for full access to the underlying table. >> >> For other engines to interact with the storage table (e.g. to execute the >> query to materialize the table), it may be necessary that the table is >> fully addressable. Whether the storage table is returned as part of list >> operations may be something we leave up to the catalog implementation. >> >> I don't think the table should reference a physical location (only a >> logical reference) since things will be changing behind the view definition >> and I'm not confident we want to have to update the view representation >> everytime the storage table is updated. >> >> I think there's still some exploration as to whether we need to model >> this as separate from view endpoints, but there may be enough overlap that >> it's not necessary to have yet another set of endpoints for materialized >> views (maybe filter params if you need to distinguish?). >> >> -Dan >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:57 PM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Jack: >>> >>> Thanks for raising this. >>> >>> In most database systems, MV, view and table are considered independent >>>> objects, at least at API level. It is very rare for a system to support >>>> operations like "materializing a logical view" or "upgrading a logical view >>>> to MV", because view and MV are very different in almost every aspect of >>>> user experience. Extending the existing view or table spec to accommodate >>>> MV might give us a MV implementation similar to the current Trino or Hive >>>> views, save us some effort and a few APIs in REST, but it binds us to a >>>> very specific design of MV, which we might regret in the future. >>> >>> >>> When I reviewed the doc, I thought we were discussing the spec of >>> materialized view, just like the spec of table metadata, but didn't not the >>> user facing api. I would definitely agree that we should consider MV as >>> another kind of database object in user facing api, even though it's >>> internally modelled as a view + storage table pointer. >>> >>> If we want to make the REST experience good for MV, I think we should at >>>> least consider directly describing the full metadata of the storage table >>>> in Iceberg view, instead of pointing to a JSON file. >>> >>> >>> Do you mean we need to add components like >>> `LoadMaterializedViewResponse`, if so, I would +1 for this. >>> >>> *Q2: what REST APIs do we expect to use for interactions with MVs?* >>> >>> >>> As I have mentioned above, I think we should consider MV as another >>> database object, so I think we should add a set of apis specifically >>> designed for MV, such as `loadMV`, `freshMV`. >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 11:14 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> As we are discussing the spec change for materialized view, there has >>>> been a missing aspect that is technically also related, and might affect >>>> the MV spec design: *how do we want to add MV support to the REST >>>> spec?* >>>> >>>> I would like to discuss this in a new thread to collect people's >>>> thoughts. This topic expands to the following 2 sub-questions: >>>> >>>> *Q1: how would the MV spec change affect the REST spec?* >>>> In the current proposal, it looks like we are using a design where a MV >>>> is modeled as an Iceberg view linking to an Iceberg storage table. At the >>>> same time, we do not want to expose this storage table in the catalog, thus >>>> the Iceberg view has a pointer to only a metadata JSON file of the Iceberg >>>> storage table. Each MV refresh updates the pointer to a new metadata JSON >>>> file. >>>> >>>> I feel this does not play very well with the direction that REST is >>>> going. The REST catalog is trying to remove the dependency to the metadata >>>> JSON file. For example, in LoadTableResponse the only required field is the >>>> metadata, and metadata-location is actually optional. >>>> >>>> If we want to make the REST experience good for MV, I think we should >>>> at least consider directly describing the full metadata of the storage >>>> table in Iceberg view, instead of pointing to a JSON file. >>>> >>>> *Q2: what REST APIs do we expect to use for interactions with MVs?* >>>> So far we have been thinking about amending the view spec to >>>> accommodate MV. This entails likely having MVs also being handled through >>>> the view APIs in REST spec. >>>> >>>> We need to agree with that first in the community, because this has >>>> various implications, and I am not really sure at this point if it is the >>>> best way to go. >>>> >>>> If MV interactions are through the view APIs, the view APIs need to be >>>> updated to accommodate MV constructs that are not really related to logical >>>> views. In fact, most actions performed on MVs are more similar to actions >>>> performed on table rather than view, which involve configuring data layout, >>>> read and write constructs. For example, users might run something like: >>>> >>>> CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv >>>> PARTITION BY col1 >>>> CLUSTER BY col2 >>>> AS ( // some sql ) >>>> >>>> then the CreateView API needs to accept partition spec and sort order >>>> that are completely not relevant for logical views. >>>> >>>> When reading a MV, we might even want to have a PlanMaterializedView >>>> API similar to the PlanTable API we are adding. >>>> >>>> *My personal take* >>>> It feels like we need to reconsider the question of what is the best >>>> way to model MV in Iceberg. Should it be (1) a view linked to a storage >>>> table, or (2) a table with a view SQL associated with it, or (3) it's a >>>> completely independent thing. This topic was discussed in the past in >>>> this doc >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QAuy-meSZ6Oy37iPym8sV_n7R2yKZOHunVR-ZWhhZ6Q/edit?pli=1>, >>>> but at that time we did not have much perspective about aspects like REST >>>> spec, and the view integration was also not fully completed yet. With the >>>> new knowledge, currently I am actually leaning a bit more towards (3). >>>> >>>> In most database systems, MV, view and table are considered independent >>>> objects, at least at API level. It is very rare for a system to support >>>> operations like "materializing a logical view" or "upgrading a logical view >>>> to MV", because view and MV are very different in almost every aspect of >>>> user experience. Extending the existing view or table spec to accommodate >>>> MV might give us a MV implementation similar to the current Trino or Hive >>>> views, save us some effort and a few APIs in REST, but it binds us to a >>>> very specific design of MV, which we might regret in the future. >>>> >>>> If we make a new MV spec, it can be made up of fields that already >>>> exist in the table and view specs, but it is a whole new spec. In this way, >>>> the spec can evolve independently to accommodate MV specific features, and >>>> we can also create MV-related REST endpoints that will evolve independently >>>> from table and view REST APIs. >>>> >>>> But on the other side it is definitely associated with more work to >>>> maintain a new spec, and potentially big refactoring in the codebase to >>>> make sure operations today that work on table or view can now support MV as >>>> a different object. And it definitely has other problems that I have >>>> overlooked. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts about this! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Jack Ye >>>> >>>>
