You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spark.apache.org by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID> on 2019/02/21 20:55:50 UTC
DataSourceV2 sync notes - 20 Feb 2019
Here are my notes from the DSv2 sync last night. As always, if you have
corrections, please reply with them. And if you’d like to be included on
the invite to participate in the next sync (6 March), send me an email.
Here’s a quick summary of the topics where we had consensus last night:
- The behavior of v1 sources needs to be documented to come up with a
migration plan
- Spark 3.0 should include DSv2, even if it would delay the release
(pending community discussion and vote)
- Design for the v2 Catalog plugin system
- V2 catalog approach of separate TableCatalog, FunctionCatalog, and
ViewCatalog interfaces
- Common v2 Table metadata should be schema, partitioning, and
string-map of properties; leaving out sorting for now. (Ready to vote on
metadata SPIP.)
*Topics*:
- Issues raised by ORC v2 commit
- Migration to v2 sources
- Roadmap and current blockers
- Catalog plugin system
- Catalog API separate interfaces approach
- Catalog API metadata (schema, partitioning, and properties)
- Public catalog API proposal
*Notes*:
- Issues raised by ORC v2 commit
- Ryan: Disabled change to use v2 by default in PR for overwrite
plans: tests rely on CTAS, which is not implemented in v2.
- Wenchen: suggested using a StagedTable to work around not having a
CTAS finished. TableProvider could create a staged table.
- Ryan: Using StagedTable doesn’t make sense to me. It was intended
to solve a different problem (atomicity). Adding an interface to create a
staged table either requires the same metadata as CTAS or
requires a blank
staged table, which isn’t the same concept: these staged tables would
behave entirely differently than the ones for atomic operations.
Better to
spend time getting CTAS done and work through the long-term plan than to
hack around it.
- Second issue raised by the ORC work: how to support tables that use
different validations.
- Ryan: What Gengliang’s PRs are missing is a clear definition of
what tables require different validation and what that validation should
be. In some cases, CTAS is validated against existing data [Ed: this is
PreprocessTableCreation] and in some cases, Append has no validation
because the table doesn’t exist. What isn’t clear is when these
validations
are applied.
- Ryan: Without knowing exactly how v1 works, we can’t mirror that
behavior in v2. Building a way to turn off validation is going to be
needed, but is insufficient without knowing when to apply it.
- Ryan: We also don’t know if it will make sense to maintain all of
these rules to mimic v1 behavior. In v1, CTAS and Append can
both write to
existing tables, but use different rules to validate. What are the
differences between them? It is unlikely that Spark will support both as
options, if that is even possible. [Ed: see later discussion on migration
that continues this.]
- Gengliang: Using SaveMode is an option.
- Ryan: Using SaveMode only appears to fix this, but doesn’t actually
test v2. Using SaveMode appears to work because it disables all
validation
and uses code from v1 that will “create” tables by writing. But
this isn’t
helpful for the v2 goal of having defined and reliable behavior.
- Gengliang: SaveMode is not correctly translated. Append could mean
AppendData or CTAS.
- Ryan: This is why we need to focus on finishing the v2 plans: so we
can correctly translate the SaveMode into the right plan. That depends on
having a catalog for CTAS and to check the existence of a table.
- Wenchen: Catalog doesn’t support path tables, so how does this help?
- Ryan: The multi-catalog identifiers proposal includes a way to pass
paths as CatalogIdentifiers. [Ed: see PathIdentifier]. This allows a
catalog implementation to handle path-based tables. The identifier will
also have a method to test whether the identifier is a path
identifier and
catalogs are not required to support path identifiers.
- Migration to v2 sources
- Hyukjin: Once the ORC upgrade is done how will we move from v1 to
v2?
- Ryan: We will need to develop v1 and v2 in parallel. There are many
code paths in v1 and we don’t know exactly what they do. We first need to
know what they do and make a migration plan after that.
- Hyukjin: What if there are many behavior differences? Will this
require an API to opt in for each one?
- Ryan: Without knowing how v1 behaves, we can only speculate. But I
don’t think that we will want to support many of these special
cases. That
is a lot of work and maintenance.
- Gengliang: When can we change the default to v2? Until we change
the default, v2 is not tested. The v2 work is blocked by this.
- Ryan: v2 work should not be blocked by finishing CTAS and other
plans. This can proceed in parallel.
- Matt: We don’t need to use the existing tests, we can add tests for
v2 below the DF writer level.
- Gengliang: But those tests would not be end-to-end.
- Ryan: For end-to-end tests, we should add a new DataFrame write
API. That is going to be needed to move entirely to v2 and drop
v1 behavior
hacks anyway. Adding it now fixes both problems.
- Matt: Supports the idea of adding the DF v2 write API now.
- *Consensus for documenting the behavior of v1* (Gengliang will work
on this because it affects his work.)
- Roadmap:
- Matt (I think): Community should commit to finishing planned work
on DSv2 for Spark 3.0.
- Ryan: Agree, we can’t wait forever and lots of this work has been
pending for a year now. If this doesn’t make it into 3.0, we will need to
consider other options.
- Felix: Goal should be 3.0 even if it requires delaying the release.
- *Consensus: Spark 3.0 should include DSv2, even if it requires
delaying the release.* Ryan will start a discussion thread about
committing to DSv2 in Spark 3.0.
- Matt: What work is outstanding DSv2?
- Ryan: Addition of TableCatalog API, catalog plugin system, CTAS
implementation.
- Matt: What blocks those things?
- Ryan: Next blocker is agreement on catalog plugin system, catalog
API approach (separate TableCatalog, FunctionCatalog, etc.), and
TableCatalog metadata.
- *Consensus formed for catalog plugin system* (as previously
discussed)
- *Consensus formed for catalog API approach*
- *Consensus formed for TableCatalog metadata in SPIP* - Ryan will
start a vote thread for this SPIP
- Ryan: The metadata SPIP also includes a public API that isn’t
required. Will move to implementation sketch so it is informational.
- Wenchen: InternalRow is written in Scala and needs a stable API
- Ryan: Can we do the InternalRow fix later?
- Wenchen: Yes, not a blocker.
- Ryan: Table metadata also contains sort information.
- Wenchen: Bucketing contains sort information, but it isn’t used
because it applies only to single files.
- *Consensus formed not including sorts in v2 table metadata.*
*Attendees*:
Ryan Blue
John Zhuge
Donjoon Hyun
Felix Cheung
Gengliang Wang
Hyukji Kwon
Jacky Lee
Jamison Bennett
Matt Cheah
Yifei Huang
Russel Spitzer
Wenchen Fan
Yuanjian Li
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: DataSourceV2 sync notes - 20 Feb 2019
Posted by Stavros Kontopoulos <st...@lightbend.com>.
Thanks Ryan!
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 7:19 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote:
> Everyone is welcome to join this discussion. Just send me an e-mail to get
> added to the invite.
>
> Stavros, I'll add you.
>
> rb
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:43 AM Stavros Kontopoulos <
> stavros.kontopoulos@lightbend.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the update, is this meeting open for other people to join?
>>
>> Stavros
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:56 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here are my notes from the DSv2 sync last night. As always, if you have
>>> corrections, please reply with them. And if you’d like to be included on
>>> the invite to participate in the next sync (6 March), send me an email.
>>>
>>> Here’s a quick summary of the topics where we had consensus last night:
>>>
>>> - The behavior of v1 sources needs to be documented to come up with
>>> a migration plan
>>> - Spark 3.0 should include DSv2, even if it would delay the release
>>> (pending community discussion and vote)
>>> - Design for the v2 Catalog plugin system
>>> - V2 catalog approach of separate TableCatalog, FunctionCatalog, and
>>> ViewCatalog interfaces
>>> - Common v2 Table metadata should be schema, partitioning, and
>>> string-map of properties; leaving out sorting for now. (Ready to vote on
>>> metadata SPIP.)
>>>
>>> *Topics*:
>>>
>>> - Issues raised by ORC v2 commit
>>> - Migration to v2 sources
>>> - Roadmap and current blockers
>>> - Catalog plugin system
>>> - Catalog API separate interfaces approach
>>> - Catalog API metadata (schema, partitioning, and properties)
>>> - Public catalog API proposal
>>>
>>> *Notes*:
>>>
>>> - Issues raised by ORC v2 commit
>>> - Ryan: Disabled change to use v2 by default in PR for overwrite
>>> plans: tests rely on CTAS, which is not implemented in v2.
>>> - Wenchen: suggested using a StagedTable to work around not
>>> having a CTAS finished. TableProvider could create a staged table.
>>> - Ryan: Using StagedTable doesn’t make sense to me. It was
>>> intended to solve a different problem (atomicity). Adding an interface to
>>> create a staged table either requires the same metadata as CTAS or requires
>>> a blank staged table, which isn’t the same concept: these staged tables
>>> would behave entirely differently than the ones for atomic operations.
>>> Better to spend time getting CTAS done and work through the long-term plan
>>> than to hack around it.
>>> - Second issue raised by the ORC work: how to support tables that
>>> use different validations.
>>> - Ryan: What Gengliang’s PRs are missing is a clear definition of
>>> what tables require different validation and what that validation should
>>> be. In some cases, CTAS is validated against existing data [Ed: this is
>>> PreprocessTableCreation] and in some cases, Append has no validation
>>> because the table doesn’t exist. What isn’t clear is when these validations
>>> are applied.
>>> - Ryan: Without knowing exactly how v1 works, we can’t mirror
>>> that behavior in v2. Building a way to turn off validation is going to be
>>> needed, but is insufficient without knowing when to apply it.
>>> - Ryan: We also don’t know if it will make sense to maintain all
>>> of these rules to mimic v1 behavior. In v1, CTAS and Append can both write
>>> to existing tables, but use different rules to validate. What are the
>>> differences between them? It is unlikely that Spark will support both as
>>> options, if that is even possible. [Ed: see later discussion on migration
>>> that continues this.]
>>> - Gengliang: Using SaveMode is an option.
>>> - Ryan: Using SaveMode only appears to fix this, but doesn’t
>>> actually test v2. Using SaveMode appears to work because it disables all
>>> validation and uses code from v1 that will “create” tables by writing. But
>>> this isn’t helpful for the v2 goal of having defined and reliable behavior.
>>> - Gengliang: SaveMode is not correctly translated. Append could
>>> mean AppendData or CTAS.
>>> - Ryan: This is why we need to focus on finishing the v2 plans:
>>> so we can correctly translate the SaveMode into the right plan. That
>>> depends on having a catalog for CTAS and to check the existence of a table.
>>> - Wenchen: Catalog doesn’t support path tables, so how does this
>>> help?
>>> - Ryan: The multi-catalog identifiers proposal includes a way to
>>> pass paths as CatalogIdentifiers. [Ed: see PathIdentifier]. This allows a
>>> catalog implementation to handle path-based tables. The identifier will
>>> also have a method to test whether the identifier is a path identifier and
>>> catalogs are not required to support path identifiers.
>>> - Migration to v2 sources
>>> - Hyukjin: Once the ORC upgrade is done how will we move from v1
>>> to v2?
>>> - Ryan: We will need to develop v1 and v2 in parallel. There are
>>> many code paths in v1 and we don’t know exactly what they do. We first need
>>> to know what they do and make a migration plan after that.
>>> - Hyukjin: What if there are many behavior differences? Will this
>>> require an API to opt in for each one?
>>> - Ryan: Without knowing how v1 behaves, we can only speculate.
>>> But I don’t think that we will want to support many of these special cases.
>>> That is a lot of work and maintenance.
>>> - Gengliang: When can we change the default to v2? Until we
>>> change the default, v2 is not tested. The v2 work is blocked by this.
>>> - Ryan: v2 work should not be blocked by finishing CTAS and other
>>> plans. This can proceed in parallel.
>>> - Matt: We don’t need to use the existing tests, we can add tests
>>> for v2 below the DF writer level.
>>> - Gengliang: But those tests would not be end-to-end.
>>> - Ryan: For end-to-end tests, we should add a new DataFrame write
>>> API. That is going to be needed to move entirely to v2 and drop v1 behavior
>>> hacks anyway. Adding it now fixes both problems.
>>> - Matt: Supports the idea of adding the DF v2 write API now.
>>> - *Consensus for documenting the behavior of v1* (Gengliang will
>>> work on this because it affects his work.)
>>> - Roadmap:
>>> - Matt (I think): Community should commit to finishing planned
>>> work on DSv2 for Spark 3.0.
>>> - Ryan: Agree, we can’t wait forever and lots of this work has
>>> been pending for a year now. If this doesn’t make it into 3.0, we will need
>>> to consider other options.
>>> - Felix: Goal should be 3.0 even if it requires delaying the
>>> release.
>>> - *Consensus: Spark 3.0 should include DSv2, even if it requires
>>> delaying the release.* Ryan will start a discussion thread about
>>> committing to DSv2 in Spark 3.0.
>>> - Matt: What work is outstanding DSv2?
>>> - Ryan: Addition of TableCatalog API, catalog plugin system, CTAS
>>> implementation.
>>> - Matt: What blocks those things?
>>> - Ryan: Next blocker is agreement on catalog plugin system,
>>> catalog API approach (separate TableCatalog, FunctionCatalog, etc.), and
>>> TableCatalog metadata.
>>> - *Consensus formed for catalog plugin system* (as previously
>>> discussed)
>>> - *Consensus formed for catalog API approach*
>>> - *Consensus formed for TableCatalog metadata in SPIP* - Ryan
>>> will start a vote thread for this SPIP
>>> - Ryan: The metadata SPIP also includes a public API that isn’t
>>> required. Will move to implementation sketch so it is informational.
>>> - Wenchen: InternalRow is written in Scala and needs a stable API
>>> - Ryan: Can we do the InternalRow fix later?
>>> - Wenchen: Yes, not a blocker.
>>> - Ryan: Table metadata also contains sort information.
>>> - Wenchen: Bucketing contains sort information, but it isn’t used
>>> because it applies only to single files.
>>> - *Consensus formed not including sorts in v2 table metadata.*
>>>
>>> *Attendees*:
>>> Ryan Blue
>>> John Zhuge
>>> Donjoon Hyun
>>> Felix Cheung
>>> Gengliang Wang
>>> Hyukji Kwon
>>> Jacky Lee
>>> Jamison Bennett
>>> Matt Cheah
>>> Yifei Huang
>>> Russel Spitzer
>>> Wenchen Fan
>>> Yuanjian Li
>>> --
>>> Ryan Blue
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Netflix
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
Re: DataSourceV2 sync notes - 20 Feb 2019
Posted by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>.
Everyone is welcome to join this discussion. Just send me an e-mail to get
added to the invite.
Stavros, I'll add you.
rb
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:43 AM Stavros Kontopoulos <
stavros.kontopoulos@lightbend.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the update, is this meeting open for other people to join?
>
> Stavros
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:56 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Here are my notes from the DSv2 sync last night. As always, if you have
>> corrections, please reply with them. And if you’d like to be included on
>> the invite to participate in the next sync (6 March), send me an email.
>>
>> Here’s a quick summary of the topics where we had consensus last night:
>>
>> - The behavior of v1 sources needs to be documented to come up with a
>> migration plan
>> - Spark 3.0 should include DSv2, even if it would delay the release
>> (pending community discussion and vote)
>> - Design for the v2 Catalog plugin system
>> - V2 catalog approach of separate TableCatalog, FunctionCatalog, and
>> ViewCatalog interfaces
>> - Common v2 Table metadata should be schema, partitioning, and
>> string-map of properties; leaving out sorting for now. (Ready to vote on
>> metadata SPIP.)
>>
>> *Topics*:
>>
>> - Issues raised by ORC v2 commit
>> - Migration to v2 sources
>> - Roadmap and current blockers
>> - Catalog plugin system
>> - Catalog API separate interfaces approach
>> - Catalog API metadata (schema, partitioning, and properties)
>> - Public catalog API proposal
>>
>> *Notes*:
>>
>> - Issues raised by ORC v2 commit
>> - Ryan: Disabled change to use v2 by default in PR for overwrite
>> plans: tests rely on CTAS, which is not implemented in v2.
>> - Wenchen: suggested using a StagedTable to work around not having
>> a CTAS finished. TableProvider could create a staged table.
>> - Ryan: Using StagedTable doesn’t make sense to me. It was
>> intended to solve a different problem (atomicity). Adding an interface to
>> create a staged table either requires the same metadata as CTAS or requires
>> a blank staged table, which isn’t the same concept: these staged tables
>> would behave entirely differently than the ones for atomic operations.
>> Better to spend time getting CTAS done and work through the long-term plan
>> than to hack around it.
>> - Second issue raised by the ORC work: how to support tables that
>> use different validations.
>> - Ryan: What Gengliang’s PRs are missing is a clear definition of
>> what tables require different validation and what that validation should
>> be. In some cases, CTAS is validated against existing data [Ed: this is
>> PreprocessTableCreation] and in some cases, Append has no validation
>> because the table doesn’t exist. What isn’t clear is when these validations
>> are applied.
>> - Ryan: Without knowing exactly how v1 works, we can’t mirror that
>> behavior in v2. Building a way to turn off validation is going to be
>> needed, but is insufficient without knowing when to apply it.
>> - Ryan: We also don’t know if it will make sense to maintain all
>> of these rules to mimic v1 behavior. In v1, CTAS and Append can both write
>> to existing tables, but use different rules to validate. What are the
>> differences between them? It is unlikely that Spark will support both as
>> options, if that is even possible. [Ed: see later discussion on migration
>> that continues this.]
>> - Gengliang: Using SaveMode is an option.
>> - Ryan: Using SaveMode only appears to fix this, but doesn’t
>> actually test v2. Using SaveMode appears to work because it disables all
>> validation and uses code from v1 that will “create” tables by writing. But
>> this isn’t helpful for the v2 goal of having defined and reliable behavior.
>> - Gengliang: SaveMode is not correctly translated. Append could
>> mean AppendData or CTAS.
>> - Ryan: This is why we need to focus on finishing the v2 plans: so
>> we can correctly translate the SaveMode into the right plan. That depends
>> on having a catalog for CTAS and to check the existence of a table.
>> - Wenchen: Catalog doesn’t support path tables, so how does this
>> help?
>> - Ryan: The multi-catalog identifiers proposal includes a way to
>> pass paths as CatalogIdentifiers. [Ed: see PathIdentifier]. This allows a
>> catalog implementation to handle path-based tables. The identifier will
>> also have a method to test whether the identifier is a path identifier and
>> catalogs are not required to support path identifiers.
>> - Migration to v2 sources
>> - Hyukjin: Once the ORC upgrade is done how will we move from v1
>> to v2?
>> - Ryan: We will need to develop v1 and v2 in parallel. There are
>> many code paths in v1 and we don’t know exactly what they do. We first need
>> to know what they do and make a migration plan after that.
>> - Hyukjin: What if there are many behavior differences? Will this
>> require an API to opt in for each one?
>> - Ryan: Without knowing how v1 behaves, we can only speculate. But
>> I don’t think that we will want to support many of these special cases.
>> That is a lot of work and maintenance.
>> - Gengliang: When can we change the default to v2? Until we change
>> the default, v2 is not tested. The v2 work is blocked by this.
>> - Ryan: v2 work should not be blocked by finishing CTAS and other
>> plans. This can proceed in parallel.
>> - Matt: We don’t need to use the existing tests, we can add tests
>> for v2 below the DF writer level.
>> - Gengliang: But those tests would not be end-to-end.
>> - Ryan: For end-to-end tests, we should add a new DataFrame write
>> API. That is going to be needed to move entirely to v2 and drop v1 behavior
>> hacks anyway. Adding it now fixes both problems.
>> - Matt: Supports the idea of adding the DF v2 write API now.
>> - *Consensus for documenting the behavior of v1* (Gengliang will
>> work on this because it affects his work.)
>> - Roadmap:
>> - Matt (I think): Community should commit to finishing planned
>> work on DSv2 for Spark 3.0.
>> - Ryan: Agree, we can’t wait forever and lots of this work has
>> been pending for a year now. If this doesn’t make it into 3.0, we will need
>> to consider other options.
>> - Felix: Goal should be 3.0 even if it requires delaying the
>> release.
>> - *Consensus: Spark 3.0 should include DSv2, even if it requires
>> delaying the release.* Ryan will start a discussion thread about
>> committing to DSv2 in Spark 3.0.
>> - Matt: What work is outstanding DSv2?
>> - Ryan: Addition of TableCatalog API, catalog plugin system, CTAS
>> implementation.
>> - Matt: What blocks those things?
>> - Ryan: Next blocker is agreement on catalog plugin system,
>> catalog API approach (separate TableCatalog, FunctionCatalog, etc.), and
>> TableCatalog metadata.
>> - *Consensus formed for catalog plugin system* (as previously
>> discussed)
>> - *Consensus formed for catalog API approach*
>> - *Consensus formed for TableCatalog metadata in SPIP* - Ryan will
>> start a vote thread for this SPIP
>> - Ryan: The metadata SPIP also includes a public API that isn’t
>> required. Will move to implementation sketch so it is informational.
>> - Wenchen: InternalRow is written in Scala and needs a stable API
>> - Ryan: Can we do the InternalRow fix later?
>> - Wenchen: Yes, not a blocker.
>> - Ryan: Table metadata also contains sort information.
>> - Wenchen: Bucketing contains sort information, but it isn’t used
>> because it applies only to single files.
>> - *Consensus formed not including sorts in v2 table metadata.*
>>
>> *Attendees*:
>> Ryan Blue
>> John Zhuge
>> Donjoon Hyun
>> Felix Cheung
>> Gengliang Wang
>> Hyukji Kwon
>> Jacky Lee
>> Jamison Bennett
>> Matt Cheah
>> Yifei Huang
>> Russel Spitzer
>> Wenchen Fan
>> Yuanjian Li
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Netflix
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: DataSourceV2 sync notes - 20 Feb 2019
Posted by Stavros Kontopoulos <st...@lightbend.com>.
Thanks for the update, is this meeting open for other people to join?
Stavros
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:56 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Here are my notes from the DSv2 sync last night. As always, if you have
> corrections, please reply with them. And if you’d like to be included on
> the invite to participate in the next sync (6 March), send me an email.
>
> Here’s a quick summary of the topics where we had consensus last night:
>
> - The behavior of v1 sources needs to be documented to come up with a
> migration plan
> - Spark 3.0 should include DSv2, even if it would delay the release
> (pending community discussion and vote)
> - Design for the v2 Catalog plugin system
> - V2 catalog approach of separate TableCatalog, FunctionCatalog, and
> ViewCatalog interfaces
> - Common v2 Table metadata should be schema, partitioning, and
> string-map of properties; leaving out sorting for now. (Ready to vote on
> metadata SPIP.)
>
> *Topics*:
>
> - Issues raised by ORC v2 commit
> - Migration to v2 sources
> - Roadmap and current blockers
> - Catalog plugin system
> - Catalog API separate interfaces approach
> - Catalog API metadata (schema, partitioning, and properties)
> - Public catalog API proposal
>
> *Notes*:
>
> - Issues raised by ORC v2 commit
> - Ryan: Disabled change to use v2 by default in PR for overwrite
> plans: tests rely on CTAS, which is not implemented in v2.
> - Wenchen: suggested using a StagedTable to work around not having
> a CTAS finished. TableProvider could create a staged table.
> - Ryan: Using StagedTable doesn’t make sense to me. It was intended
> to solve a different problem (atomicity). Adding an interface to create a
> staged table either requires the same metadata as CTAS or requires a blank
> staged table, which isn’t the same concept: these staged tables would
> behave entirely differently than the ones for atomic operations. Better to
> spend time getting CTAS done and work through the long-term plan than to
> hack around it.
> - Second issue raised by the ORC work: how to support tables that
> use different validations.
> - Ryan: What Gengliang’s PRs are missing is a clear definition of
> what tables require different validation and what that validation should
> be. In some cases, CTAS is validated against existing data [Ed: this is
> PreprocessTableCreation] and in some cases, Append has no validation
> because the table doesn’t exist. What isn’t clear is when these validations
> are applied.
> - Ryan: Without knowing exactly how v1 works, we can’t mirror that
> behavior in v2. Building a way to turn off validation is going to be
> needed, but is insufficient without knowing when to apply it.
> - Ryan: We also don’t know if it will make sense to maintain all of
> these rules to mimic v1 behavior. In v1, CTAS and Append can both write to
> existing tables, but use different rules to validate. What are the
> differences between them? It is unlikely that Spark will support both as
> options, if that is even possible. [Ed: see later discussion on migration
> that continues this.]
> - Gengliang: Using SaveMode is an option.
> - Ryan: Using SaveMode only appears to fix this, but doesn’t
> actually test v2. Using SaveMode appears to work because it disables all
> validation and uses code from v1 that will “create” tables by writing. But
> this isn’t helpful for the v2 goal of having defined and reliable behavior.
> - Gengliang: SaveMode is not correctly translated. Append could
> mean AppendData or CTAS.
> - Ryan: This is why we need to focus on finishing the v2 plans: so
> we can correctly translate the SaveMode into the right plan. That depends
> on having a catalog for CTAS and to check the existence of a table.
> - Wenchen: Catalog doesn’t support path tables, so how does this
> help?
> - Ryan: The multi-catalog identifiers proposal includes a way to
> pass paths as CatalogIdentifiers. [Ed: see PathIdentifier]. This allows a
> catalog implementation to handle path-based tables. The identifier will
> also have a method to test whether the identifier is a path identifier and
> catalogs are not required to support path identifiers.
> - Migration to v2 sources
> - Hyukjin: Once the ORC upgrade is done how will we move from v1 to
> v2?
> - Ryan: We will need to develop v1 and v2 in parallel. There are
> many code paths in v1 and we don’t know exactly what they do. We first need
> to know what they do and make a migration plan after that.
> - Hyukjin: What if there are many behavior differences? Will this
> require an API to opt in for each one?
> - Ryan: Without knowing how v1 behaves, we can only speculate. But
> I don’t think that we will want to support many of these special cases.
> That is a lot of work and maintenance.
> - Gengliang: When can we change the default to v2? Until we change
> the default, v2 is not tested. The v2 work is blocked by this.
> - Ryan: v2 work should not be blocked by finishing CTAS and other
> plans. This can proceed in parallel.
> - Matt: We don’t need to use the existing tests, we can add tests
> for v2 below the DF writer level.
> - Gengliang: But those tests would not be end-to-end.
> - Ryan: For end-to-end tests, we should add a new DataFrame write
> API. That is going to be needed to move entirely to v2 and drop v1 behavior
> hacks anyway. Adding it now fixes both problems.
> - Matt: Supports the idea of adding the DF v2 write API now.
> - *Consensus for documenting the behavior of v1* (Gengliang will
> work on this because it affects his work.)
> - Roadmap:
> - Matt (I think): Community should commit to finishing planned work
> on DSv2 for Spark 3.0.
> - Ryan: Agree, we can’t wait forever and lots of this work has been
> pending for a year now. If this doesn’t make it into 3.0, we will need to
> consider other options.
> - Felix: Goal should be 3.0 even if it requires delaying the
> release.
> - *Consensus: Spark 3.0 should include DSv2, even if it requires
> delaying the release.* Ryan will start a discussion thread about
> committing to DSv2 in Spark 3.0.
> - Matt: What work is outstanding DSv2?
> - Ryan: Addition of TableCatalog API, catalog plugin system, CTAS
> implementation.
> - Matt: What blocks those things?
> - Ryan: Next blocker is agreement on catalog plugin system, catalog
> API approach (separate TableCatalog, FunctionCatalog, etc.), and
> TableCatalog metadata.
> - *Consensus formed for catalog plugin system* (as previously
> discussed)
> - *Consensus formed for catalog API approach*
> - *Consensus formed for TableCatalog metadata in SPIP* - Ryan will
> start a vote thread for this SPIP
> - Ryan: The metadata SPIP also includes a public API that isn’t
> required. Will move to implementation sketch so it is informational.
> - Wenchen: InternalRow is written in Scala and needs a stable API
> - Ryan: Can we do the InternalRow fix later?
> - Wenchen: Yes, not a blocker.
> - Ryan: Table metadata also contains sort information.
> - Wenchen: Bucketing contains sort information, but it isn’t used
> because it applies only to single files.
> - *Consensus formed not including sorts in v2 table metadata.*
>
> *Attendees*:
> Ryan Blue
> John Zhuge
> Donjoon Hyun
> Felix Cheung
> Gengliang Wang
> Hyukji Kwon
> Jacky Lee
> Jamison Bennett
> Matt Cheah
> Yifei Huang
> Russel Spitzer
> Wenchen Fan
> Yuanjian Li
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>