-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
Spark Integration to read from Snapshot ref #5150
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from 10 commits
413e75a
8132d20
c6cdf5c
1f87b1f
235ff35
7483cf9
2be3e6e
26003f3
2fe1e0d
8b29f00
b9a7803
bb61a90
55a3595
8c86fc8
ac763d9
f80684f
fdfb0c6
b5836f6
4bad10f
00f07a0
f685af4
d3fa84e
a693c72
ab0832b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -35,6 +35,12 @@ private SparkReadOptions() {} | |
| // A timestamp in milliseconds; the snapshot used will be the snapshot current at this time. | ||
| public static final String AS_OF_TIMESTAMP = "as-of-timestamp"; | ||
|
|
||
| // branch ref of the table snapshot to read from | ||
| public static final String BRANCH = "branch"; | ||
|
|
||
| // tag ref of the table snapshot to read from | ||
|
||
| public static final String TAG = "tag"; | ||
|
|
||
| // Overrides the table's read.split.target-size and read.split.metadata-target-size | ||
| public static final String SPLIT_SIZE = "split-size"; | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ class SparkBatchQueryScan extends SparkScan implements SupportsRuntimeFiltering | |
| private final Long startSnapshotId; | ||
| private final Long endSnapshotId; | ||
| private final Long asOfTimestamp; | ||
| private final String branch; | ||
| private final String tag; | ||
| private final List<Expression> runtimeFilterExpressions; | ||
|
|
||
| private Set<Integer> specIds = null; // lazy cache of scanned spec IDs | ||
|
|
@@ -88,6 +90,8 @@ class SparkBatchQueryScan extends SparkScan implements SupportsRuntimeFiltering | |
| this.startSnapshotId = readConf.startSnapshotId(); | ||
| this.endSnapshotId = readConf.endSnapshotId(); | ||
| this.asOfTimestamp = readConf.asOfTimestamp(); | ||
| this.branch = readConf.branch(); | ||
| this.tag = readConf.tag(); | ||
| this.runtimeFilterExpressions = Lists.newArrayList(); | ||
|
|
||
| if (scan == null) { | ||
|
|
@@ -244,6 +248,13 @@ public Statistics estimateStatistics() { | |
| Snapshot snapshot = table().snapshot(snapshotIdAsOfTime); | ||
| return estimateStatistics(snapshot); | ||
|
|
||
| } else if (branch != null) { | ||
| Snapshot snapshot = table().snapshot(branch); | ||
| return estimateStatistics(snapshot); | ||
|
|
||
| } else if (tag != null) { | ||
| Snapshot snapshot = table().snapshot(tag); | ||
| return estimateStatistics(snapshot); | ||
namrathamyske marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| } else { | ||
| Snapshot snapshot = table().currentSnapshot(); | ||
| return estimateStatistics(snapshot); | ||
|
|
@@ -269,7 +280,9 @@ && readSchema().equals(that.readSchema()) | |
| && Objects.equals(snapshotId, that.snapshotId) | ||
| && Objects.equals(startSnapshotId, that.startSnapshotId) | ||
| && Objects.equals(endSnapshotId, that.endSnapshotId) | ||
| && Objects.equals(asOfTimestamp, that.asOfTimestamp); | ||
| && Objects.equals(asOfTimestamp, that.asOfTimestamp) | ||
| && Objects.equals(branch, that.branch) | ||
| && Objects.equals(branch, that.tag); | ||
| } | ||
|
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. have to uncomment this , but getting a checkstyle cyclomatic complexity error.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Considering it's required for a correct equals implementation of SparkBatchQueryScan, I think it makes the most sense just to suppress the warnings on the method |
||
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
|
|
@@ -282,7 +295,9 @@ public int hashCode() { | |
| snapshotId, | ||
| startSnapshotId, | ||
| endSnapshotId, | ||
| asOfTimestamp); | ||
| asOfTimestamp, | ||
| branch, | ||
| tag); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -226,4 +226,88 @@ public void testSnapshotSelectionBySnapshotIdAndTimestamp() throws IOException { | |
| .hasMessageContaining("Cannot specify both snapshot-id") | ||
| .hasMessageContaining("and as-of-timestamp"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testSnapshotSelectionByTag() throws IOException { | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think we also need tests to show that branch and tag options can't be used at the same time, and tests to validate what happens when snapshot or timestamp are set along with branch or tag. It should be easy to make a few tests for those error cases. |
||
| String tableLocation = temp.newFolder("iceberg-table").toString(); | ||
|
|
||
| HadoopTables tables = new HadoopTables(CONF); | ||
| PartitionSpec spec = PartitionSpec.unpartitioned(); | ||
| Table table = tables.create(SCHEMA, spec, tableLocation); | ||
|
|
||
| // produce the first snapshot | ||
| List<SimpleRecord> firstBatchRecords = Lists.newArrayList( | ||
| new SimpleRecord(1, "a"), | ||
| new SimpleRecord(2, "b"), | ||
| new SimpleRecord(3, "c") | ||
| ); | ||
| Dataset<Row> firstDf = spark.createDataFrame(firstBatchRecords, SimpleRecord.class); | ||
| firstDf.select("id", "data").write().format("iceberg").mode("append").save(tableLocation); | ||
|
|
||
| table.manageSnapshots().createTag("tag", table.currentSnapshot().snapshotId()).commit(); | ||
|
|
||
| // produce the second snapshot | ||
| List<SimpleRecord> secondBatchRecords = Lists.newArrayList( | ||
| new SimpleRecord(4, "d"), | ||
| new SimpleRecord(5, "e"), | ||
| new SimpleRecord(6, "f") | ||
| ); | ||
| Dataset<Row> secondDf = spark.createDataFrame(secondBatchRecords, SimpleRecord.class); | ||
| secondDf.select("id", "data").write().format("iceberg").mode("append").save(tableLocation); | ||
|
|
||
| // verify records in the current snapshot by tag | ||
| Dataset<Row> currentSnapshotResult = spark.read() | ||
| .format("iceberg") | ||
| .option("tag", "tag") | ||
| .load(tableLocation); | ||
| currentSnapshotResult.show(); | ||
| List<SimpleRecord> currentSnapshotRecords = currentSnapshotResult.orderBy("id") | ||
| .as(Encoders.bean(SimpleRecord.class)) | ||
| .collectAsList(); | ||
| List<SimpleRecord> expectedRecords = Lists.newArrayList(); | ||
| expectedRecords.addAll(firstBatchRecords); | ||
| Assert.assertEquals("Current snapshot rows should match", expectedRecords, currentSnapshotRecords); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testSnapshotSelectionByBranch() throws IOException { | ||
| String tableLocation = temp.newFolder("iceberg-table").toString(); | ||
|
|
||
| HadoopTables tables = new HadoopTables(CONF); | ||
| PartitionSpec spec = PartitionSpec.unpartitioned(); | ||
| Table table = tables.create(SCHEMA, spec, tableLocation); | ||
|
|
||
| // produce the first snapshot | ||
| List<SimpleRecord> firstBatchRecords = Lists.newArrayList( | ||
| new SimpleRecord(1, "a"), | ||
| new SimpleRecord(2, "b"), | ||
| new SimpleRecord(3, "c") | ||
| ); | ||
| Dataset<Row> firstDf = spark.createDataFrame(firstBatchRecords, SimpleRecord.class); | ||
| firstDf.select("id", "data").write().format("iceberg").mode("append").save(tableLocation); | ||
|
|
||
| table.manageSnapshots().createBranch("branch", table.currentSnapshot().snapshotId()).commit(); | ||
|
|
||
| // produce the second snapshot | ||
| List<SimpleRecord> secondBatchRecords = Lists.newArrayList( | ||
| new SimpleRecord(4, "d"), | ||
| new SimpleRecord(5, "e"), | ||
| new SimpleRecord(6, "f") | ||
| ); | ||
| Dataset<Row> secondDf = spark.createDataFrame(secondBatchRecords, SimpleRecord.class); | ||
| secondDf.select("id", "data").write().format("iceberg").mode("append").save(tableLocation); | ||
|
|
||
| // verify records in the current snapshot by tag | ||
namrathamyske marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| Dataset<Row> currentSnapshotResult = spark.read() | ||
| .format("iceberg") | ||
| .option("branch", "branch") | ||
| .load(tableLocation); | ||
| currentSnapshotResult.show(); | ||
| List<SimpleRecord> currentSnapshotRecords = currentSnapshotResult.orderBy("id") | ||
| .as(Encoders.bean(SimpleRecord.class)) | ||
| .collectAsList(); | ||
| List<SimpleRecord> expectedRecords = Lists.newArrayList(); | ||
| expectedRecords.addAll(firstBatchRecords); | ||
| Assert.assertEquals("Current snapshot rows should match", expectedRecords, currentSnapshotRecords); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this this should be
useRef(String branchOrTagName). The termSnapshotRefis internal and I don't think it should be exposed.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need to separate the useBranch and useTag APIs. As you said, refs are internal. From a Spark user perspective we also want to only expose the branch/tag terms; imo I think the same case could be applied to the API level. Also considering branches can be combined with time travel we could do a separate API for that ; although there's an argument to be made to just combine useBranch + as Of Time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I considered that as well. The problem is that the caller doesn't know whether the ref is a tag or a branch before calling the method. That's determined when we look at table metadata and we don't want to force the caller to do that.
There may be a better name than "ref" for
useRef. That seems like the problem to me. Maybe we could simplify it touse? I'm not sure that's obvious enough.@aokolnychyi, do you have any thoughts on the name here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rdblue @amogh-jahagirdar I agree that we can use a common API for tag or branch like
useRef.We have two signatures:
useRef(String refName)useRef(String refName, Long timeStampMillis)-> will throw exception for tag type, since we cant do time travel for tag.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, this sounds reasonable. The only thing is I think if we do useRef (or if we come up with a better name) then we would not want to have the
useRef(String refName, Long timeStampMillis). A user would chain it with the existing useTimestamp and then the validation that it's a branch would happen in the scan context.useRef().asOfTime()I don't think we would want the extra method because time travel would only apply for branches so having the ref in that case doesn't make sense to me since it's really only supported for 1 ref type, the branch.If we have consensus on this, then I can update https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/5364/files with the updated approach. Then this, PR could be focused on the Spark side of the integration. Will wait to hear what @aokolnychyi suggests as well!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In that case I would suggest:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh I see the alternative is just
.useRef(refName).asOfTime(timestampMillis). That also works, in that case +1 foruseRef(String refName)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds like there is consensus for
useRef.