> First, we need to establish a workflow that allows us to gradually integrate new features into pyiceberg-core. Additionally, pyiceberg should be able to import and optionally use classes from pyiceberg-core in an additive manner. While developing this workflow, our community will learn how to collaborate, manage releases, and more.
+1 I would like to learn more about how to integrate pyiceberg-core into PyIceberg. The initial setup should give us a framework for future integrations. I also think there's some prerequisite work on the Pyiceberg side to clean up FileIO. A lot of features are built specifically with PyArrow dependency, such as writing to the table. Thanks, Kevin On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 12:19 AM Xuanwo <xua...@apache.org> wrote: > For the FileIO part, just curious—since Rust's FileIO currently also uses > OpenDAL, will there be any functional differences in terms of supported > storage services or configurations (like profile_name, signer, etc.) > compared to using opendalfs directly in Python in the future? Will Rust's > FileIO introduce any customizations/optimizations/extensions beyond what > OpenDAL supports? > > > Hi, Honah > > I believe there should be no functional differences. We can implement the > exact same thing for both pyiceberg_core FileIO and opendalfs fsspec FileIO. > > The main difference I've noticed is in where the configuration parsing > occurs. > > The pyiceberg_core FileIO directly exposes the FileIO class, which can > inherently understand iceberg properties. We can pass these properties > directly to initialize file IO without any additional effort on the > pyiceberg side. > > However, for opendalfs fsspec FileIO, we need to parse the properties and > convert them into appropriate opendalfs options for it to function properly. > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024, at 15:04, Honah J. wrote: > > Thanks Xuanwo for driving this and everyone for discussing, > > I like the idea of pushing down low-level logic to Iceberg-rust > (pyiceberg_core). It’s great to have another option besides PyArrow for > reading and writing data in PyIceberg. Thanks, Xuanwo, for moving this > forward with the initial PR to add pyiceberg_core. > > For the FileIO part, just curious—since Rust's FileIO currently also uses > OpenDAL, will there be any functional differences in terms of supported > storage services or configurations (like profile_name, signer, etc.) > compared to using opendalfs directly in Python in the future? Will Rust's > FileIO introduce any customizations/optimizations/extensions beyond what > OpenDAL supports? > > Best regards, > Honah > > > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 4:12 PM timog...@proton.me.INVALID > <timog...@proton.me.invalid> wrote: > > Fantastic work! I think this is a great direction, and this provides a > good base to start iterating. > > It makes the most sense to me for the Python bindings (and others) to live > in the same repo as iceberg-rust, especially at this early stage. > > - Tim O'Guin > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 8/3/24 12:33 AM, Xuanwo wrote: > > > Let's rock! Welcome to take a review: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/518 > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2024, at 12:13, Xuanwo wrote: > > I also support integrating iceberg-rust with pyiceberg rather than > building something new on OpenDAL. > > OpenDAL backed FileIO will be usable in Python once opendalfs[1], the > native fsspec support for OpenDAL, is ready. Users can use opendalfs as a > FileIO class directly in pure python. It's not an action item for our > community to take. > > The consensus we've reached is that iceberg-rust will be the core of > PyIceberg. The main question now is "How?" How can we implement it without > disrupting our valued users? This is my top priority. > > *Naming is so hard! Let's refer to the new iceberg-rust based pyiceberg > core as `pyiceberg-core` until we decide on a project name.* > > First, we need to establish a workflow that allows us to gradually > integrate new features into pyiceberg-core. Additionally, pyiceberg should > be able to import and optionally use classes from pyiceberg-core in an > additive manner. While developing this workflow, our community will learn > how to collaborate, manage releases, and more. > > We will then incorporate additional Rust-backed features into > pyiceberg-core. Eventually, we may make pyiceberg-core our default > implementation. > > My current plan is to implement this pyiceberg-core under iceberg-rust > repo under `bindings/python`. > > - Iceberg-rust is currently under active development. I plan to release > pyiceberg-core independently of iceberg-rust's release, as they feature > distinct public APIs (and languages!). > - Most of the work involves maintaining a few Python stubs and classes, > with the majority related to Rust. > - The python integration is just a start: we can expect `bindings/nodejs` > to happen here too. > > The setup work has already been started. I will update my PR here once > it's ready to review. > > [1]: https://github.com/fsspec/opendalfs > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2024, at 09:57, Renjie Liu wrote: > > Hi: > > I lean towards implementing pyiceberg's FileIO backed by iceberg-rust's > FileIO, rather than directly using OpenDAL. The motivation is that we can > use this as a starting point of providing iceberg-rust backed components > for pyiceberg, and due to its simplicity, it's a good case. I believe there > will be more cases, like Sung mentioned transform in another thread, and > table scan mentioned by Fokko. > > If we want to use OpenDAL directly, we don't need iceberg-rust, since > OpenDAL already has python binding: > https://opendal.apache.org/docs/python/opendal.html > > Do you have any experience with this? I see many projects having Rust and > Python code in a single repository. There are some exceptions like > Pydantic (pydantic <https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic>, pydantic-core > <https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic-core>). > > > Well, first I want to say providing a python binding for a library > written in rust is a quite common practice. Just to name a few: opendal > <https://github.com/apache/opendal>, polars > <https://github.com/pola-rs/polars>, datafusion > <https://github.com/apache/datafusion>, delta-rs > <https://github.com/delta-io/delta-rs>. As far as I know, most of them > choose to put python binding with rust in the same repo, only > datafusion-python <https://github.com/apache/datafusion-python> lives in > another, I'm not sure about the reason, maybe it's too large? > > I haven't tried to implement one before, but pyo3 > <https://github.com/PyO3> has great documentation, and there are many > existing examples in open source we can learn with. > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 2:23 AM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> wrote: > > One more thing, > > About this idea, would you have a more detailed design? For example, > where should the pyo3 codes live, in iceberg-rust or in pyiceberg? What > kind of interface should we provide to pyiceberg, FileIO or OpenDAL? > > > Do you have any experience with this? I see many projects having Rust and > Python code in a single repository. There are some exceptions like > Pydantic (pydantic <https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic>, pydantic-core > <https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic-core>). > > Kind regards, > Fokko > > > > Op vr 2 aug 2024 om 20:11 schreef Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org>: > > Thanks for driving this Xuanwo, > > I already suggested this in my talk back at the Spark Summit to see if we > can spark some interest, and it is exciting to see this materialize. > > For the IO abstraction, I think the FileIO is the best option. We already > have the interface > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/blob/6c0d307032608967ccd00cfe72d8815e6e7e01cc/pyiceberg/io/__init__.py#L239> > in PyIceberg, and also a PyArrowFileIO > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/blob/6c0d307032608967ccd00cfe72d8815e6e7e01cc/pyiceberg/io/pyarrow.py#L327>. > I must admit that the abstraction is less clear in PyIceberg since we rely > so much on Arrow for reading/writing data that it is tightly coupled. I > would love to see if we can use OpenDAL for reading/writing data, and > Iceberg-rust for pushing down the low-level logic. A while ago I did some > profiling on the code, and one of the major issues is that Arrow doesn't > support proper field-ID projection. Therefore we have to the Parquet file, > and do the schema-evolution and type promotion afterwards in Python > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/blob/6c0d307032608967ccd00cfe72d8815e6e7e01cc/pyiceberg/io/pyarrow.py#L1444-L1458>, > which causes a lot of congestion on the GIL. > > Kind regards, > Fokko > > Op vr 2 aug 2024 om 17:46 schreef Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com>: > > +1 for an OpenDALFileIO > > -Jack > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 8:32 AM Xuanwo <xua...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi, renjie > > Thank you for your support. I'll delve into the details and first build a > PoC PR to make it clear. > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024, at 22:51, Renjie Liu wrote: > > Hi: > > Thanks Xuanwo for raising this. > > As mentioned in another thread, I think using iceberg-rust in pyiceberg is > a good idea. > > About this idea, would you have a more detailed design? For example, > where should the pyo3 codes live, in iceberg-rust or in pyiceberg? What > kind of interface should we provide to pyiceberg, FileIO or OpenDAL? > > I think this is a good first step moving forward to make pyiceberg backed > iceberg-rust. In the future we can replace components gradually. > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 5:58 PM Xuanwo <xua...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Xuanwo, would PyIceberg and iceberg-rust share the underlying OpenDAL > implementations via pyo3 / fsspec bindings > <https://github.com/apache/opendal/issues/4511>? > > Hi, Raschkowski, good question! > > It's possible. There is an ongoing project developing fsspec bindings for > opendal at https://github.com/fsspec/opendalfs. Once complete, we can > directly use opendal through fsspec. > > This work is unrelated to Pyicberg or Iceberg-rust. Ideally, users should > be able to use opendalfs as an alternative implementation of the fsspec > AbstractFileSystem class. > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024, at 17:44, Will Raschkowski wrote: > > Xuanwo, would PyIceberg and iceberg-rust share the underlying OpenDAL > implementations via pyo3 / fsspec bindings > <https://github.com/apache/opendal/issues/4511>? > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Joe Stein <crypt...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 1, 2024 3:37 AM > *To:* dev@iceberg.apache.org <dev@iceberg.apache.org> > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Use iceberg-rust as pyiceberg file io > > *CAUTION:* This email originates from an external party (outside of > Palantir). If you believe this message is suspicious in nature, please use > the "Report Message" button built into Outlook. > > Kafka did this with librdkafka and was wildly successful. The underlying > bindings being in rust are great with a layer for access in Python +1 > > > ~ Joe Stein > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:29 PM Xuanwo <xua...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hello everyone > > I start this thread to discuss the idea about using iceberg-rust as > pyiceberg file io. > > The idea is living at https://hackmd.io/@xuanwo/iceberg_rust_as_file_io > [hackmd.io] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://hackmd.io/@xuanwo/iceberg_rust_as_file_io__;!!NkS9JGVQ2sDq!7Js41FIzh2smsAOySXrKd527DXCmXdrwV8Uov8TIdQqLRcsCkfPnHzfbxbX_xctpoNpYw2XGfrduTPd6ppTI$> > > In summary, we can leverage the work from iceberg-rust to help pyiceberg > in developing a fast and compact file IO system that benefits users with > specific constraints. > > Welcome to join in the discussion. > > Xuanwo > > https://xuanwo.io/ [xuanwo.io] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://xuanwo.io/__;!!NkS9JGVQ2sDq!7Js41FIzh2smsAOySXrKd527DXCmXdrwV8Uov8TIdQqLRcsCkfPnHzfbxbX_xctpoNpYw2XGfrduTNspr1jI$> > > Xuanwo > > https://xuanwo.io/ > > Xuanwo > > https://xuanwo.io/ > > Xuanwo > > https://xuanwo.io/ > > Xuanwo > > https://xuanwo.io/ > > > Xuanwo > > https://xuanwo.io/ > >
