Skip to content
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion pyiceberg/table/snapshots.py
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ def _partition_summary(self, update_metrics: UpdateMetrics) -> str:


def update_snapshot_summaries(summary: Summary, previous_summary: Mapping[str, str] | None = None) -> Summary:
if summary.operation not in {Operation.APPEND, Operation.OVERWRITE, Operation.DELETE}:
if summary.operation not in {Operation.APPEND, Operation.OVERWRITE, Operation.DELETE, Operation.REPLACE}:
raise ValueError(f"Operation not implemented: {summary.operation}")

if not previous_summary:
Expand Down
207 changes: 164 additions & 43 deletions pyiceberg/table/update/snapshot.py
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -216,6 +216,46 @@ def _calculate_added_rows(self, manifests: list[ManifestFile]) -> int:
added_rows += manifest.added_rows_count
return added_rows

def _get_existing_manifests(self, should_use_manifest_pruning: bool = False) -> list[ManifestFile]:
"""Filter existing manifests and rewrite those containing deleted data files."""
existing_files: list[ManifestFile] = []
manifest_evaluators: dict[int, Callable[[ManifestFile], bool]] = KeyDefaultDict(self._build_manifest_evaluator)

if snapshot := self._transaction.table_metadata.snapshot_by_name(name=self._target_branch):
for manifest_file in snapshot.manifests(io=self._io):
if should_use_manifest_pruning and not manifest_evaluators[manifest_file.partition_spec_id](manifest_file):
existing_files.append(manifest_file)
continue

entries_to_write: list[ManifestEntry] = []
found_deleted_entries = False

for entry in manifest_file.fetch_manifest_entry(io=self._io, discard_deleted=True):
if entry.data_file in self._deleted_data_files:
found_deleted_entries = True
else:
entries_to_write.append(entry)

if not found_deleted_entries:
existing_files.append(manifest_file)
continue

if len(entries_to_write) > 0:
with self.new_manifest_writer(self.spec(manifest_file.partition_spec_id)) as writer:
for entry in entries_to_write:
writer.add_entry(
ManifestEntry.from_args(
status=ManifestEntryStatus.EXISTING,
snapshot_id=entry.snapshot_id,
sequence_number=entry.sequence_number,
file_sequence_number=entry.file_sequence_number,
data_file=entry.data_file,
)
)
existing_files.append(writer.to_manifest_file())

return existing_files

@abstractmethod
def _deleted_entries(self) -> list[ManifestEntry]: ...

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -770,49 +810,7 @@ class _OverwriteFiles(_SnapshotProducer["_OverwriteFiles"]):

def _existing_manifests(self) -> list[ManifestFile]:
"""Determine if there are any existing manifest files."""
existing_files = []

manifest_evaluators: dict[int, Callable[[ManifestFile], bool]] = KeyDefaultDict(self._build_manifest_evaluator)
if snapshot := self._transaction.table_metadata.snapshot_by_name(name=self._target_branch):
for manifest_file in snapshot.manifests(io=self._io):
# Manifest does not contain rows that match the files to delete partitions
if not manifest_evaluators[manifest_file.partition_spec_id](manifest_file):
existing_files.append(manifest_file)
continue

entries_to_write: set[ManifestEntry] = set()
found_deleted_entries: set[ManifestEntry] = set()

for entry in manifest_file.fetch_manifest_entry(io=self._io, discard_deleted=True):
if entry.data_file in self._deleted_data_files:
found_deleted_entries.add(entry)
else:
entries_to_write.add(entry)

# Is the intercept the empty set?
if len(found_deleted_entries) == 0:
existing_files.append(manifest_file)
continue

# Delete all files from manifest
if len(entries_to_write) == 0:
continue

# We have to rewrite the manifest file without the deleted data files
with self.new_manifest_writer(self.spec(manifest_file.partition_spec_id)) as writer:
for entry in entries_to_write:
writer.add_entry(
ManifestEntry.from_args(
status=ManifestEntryStatus.EXISTING,
snapshot_id=entry.snapshot_id,
sequence_number=entry.sequence_number,
file_sequence_number=entry.file_sequence_number,
data_file=entry.data_file,
)
)
existing_files.append(writer.to_manifest_file())

return existing_files
return self._get_existing_manifests(should_use_manifest_pruning=True)

def _deleted_entries(self) -> list[ManifestEntry]:
"""To determine if we need to record any deleted entries.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -852,6 +850,120 @@ def _get_entries(manifest: ManifestFile) -> list[ManifestEntry]:
return []


class _RewriteFiles(_SnapshotProducer["_RewriteFiles"]):
"""A snapshot producer that rewrites data files.

Produces a REPLACE snapshot that swaps existing data files for new ones without
changing the logical contents of the table. This is the metadata-only operation
used by compaction (bin-packing, sort, format migration).

Current scope:
- Data file rewriting only (delete + add DataFiles)
- Validates: files-to-delete exist, added_records <= deleted_records,
no new delete files conflict with replaced data files

Future work (additive — no structural changes needed):
- Delete-file rewriting (add _deleted_delete_files set + separate manifest handling)
- dataSequenceNumber override (pin new files' seq to match replaced, for eq-delete safety)
- validateFromSnapshot (expose _starting_snapshot_id setter for long-running planners)
- ignoreEqualityDeletes in validation (coupled with dataSequenceNumber)
"""

def _commit(self) -> UpdatesAndRequirements:
# Only produce a commit when there is something to rewrite
if self._deleted_data_files or self._added_data_files:

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can replicate the _DeleteFiles logic here by using the @cache_property on _the compute deletes function. Especially since _commit() calls self._deleted_entries() for validation and then calls the super commit to write and get delete entries.

def _compute_deletes(self) -> tuple[list[ManifestFile], list[ManifestEntry], bool]:

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @geruh, great suggestion, I've applied the changes in c8162a8.

# Grab the entries that we actually found in the table's manifests
deleted_entries = self._deleted_entries()
found_deleted_files = {entry.data_file for entry in deleted_entries}

# If the user asked to delete files that aren't in the table, abort.
if len(found_deleted_files) != len(self._deleted_data_files):
raise ValidationException("Cannot commit, missing data files to be rewritten that are not in the table")

added_records = sum(f.record_count for f in self._added_data_files)
deleted_records = sum(entry.data_file.record_count for entry in deleted_entries)

if added_records > deleted_records:

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where are you seeing this invariant? I mean this seems correct since the spec says rewrite must be "logically equivalent". This check could reasonable as a safety guard, but what happens when delete file rewriting is added? Then these numbers could be incorrect.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @geruh, thanks for flagging this, you're right that this is a safety guard, but it doesn't yet factor in future changes when adding delete file rewriting. Should we add something like this?

# Note: This physical record count invariant is a sanity guard for data file 
# compaction to ensure no data is accidentally duplicated or invented. 
# TODO: This will need to be evolved into a logical record count validation 
# once PyIceberg supports rewriting delete files (Merge-on-Read).
added_records = sum(f.record_count for f in self._added_data_files)
deleted_records = sum(entry.data_file.record_count for entry in deleted_entries)

if added_records > deleted_records:
    raise ValueError(f"Invalid replace: records added ({added_records}) exceeds records removed ({deleted_records})")

This logical record count validation would involve something like having the _commit method to do the following, which the codebase currently cannot do:

  • Identify associated Delete Files: For every DataFile you are deleting, you would need to find every Position Delete or Equality Delete file that points to it.
  • Calculate the "Subtraction": You would need to subtract those delete row counts from the physical record_count of the old files to find the Old Logical Count.
  • Compare: You would then verify that Old Logical Count == New Logical Count.
    The current _RewriteFiles implementation is "blind" to deletes. It only tracks _added_data_files and _deleted_data_files.
    I believe this can be part of a full MoR implementation, something that I would love to work on after finishing these maintenance tasks.

Otherwise, I can also remove it from _RerwriteFiles and move forward, WDYT?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay let's keep the check I took a deeper look into the snapshot producer on the java side so let's align closer to that:

https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/dde712ec9ed6c9d28183ee4615d50f97b246af5d/core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/SnapshotProducer.java#L322-L334

raise ValidationException(
f"Invalid replace: records added ({added_records}) exceeds records removed ({deleted_records})"
)

return super()._commit()
else:
return (), ()

@cached_property
def _cached_deleted_entries(self) -> list[ManifestEntry]:
"""Build manifest entries marking deleted data files with DELETED status."""
if self._parent_snapshot_id is not None:
previous_snapshot = self._transaction.table_metadata.snapshot_by_id(self._parent_snapshot_id)
if previous_snapshot is None:
raise ValueError(f"Could not find the previous snapshot: {self._parent_snapshot_id}")

executor = ExecutorFactory.get_or_create()

def _get_entries(manifest: ManifestFile) -> list[ManifestEntry]:
return [
ManifestEntry.from_args(
status=ManifestEntryStatus.DELETED,
snapshot_id=self.snapshot_id,
sequence_number=entry.sequence_number,
file_sequence_number=entry.file_sequence_number,
data_file=entry.data_file,
)
for entry in manifest.fetch_manifest_entry(self._io, discard_deleted=True)
if entry.data_file.content == DataFileContent.DATA and entry.data_file in self._deleted_data_files
]

list_of_entries = executor.map(_get_entries, previous_snapshot.manifests(self._io))
return list(itertools.chain(*list_of_entries))
else:
return []

def _deleted_entries(self) -> list[ManifestEntry]:
return self._cached_deleted_entries

def _existing_manifests(self) -> list[ManifestFile]:
return self._get_existing_manifests()
Comment on lines +923 to +927

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Looks like these doc strings were copy pasta'd over from the other classes, and don't fit how they are used here. Either we can remove them or change to fit their usage.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @geruh, thanks for pointing this out, these doc strings in _RewriteFiles have been removed in c60d5ad.


def _validate_concurrency(self) -> None:
"""Validate that concurrent changes do not conflict with this replace.

Unlike overwrite/delete, a replace operation only needs to validate that no new
delete files have been added that would apply to the data files being replaced.
Concurrent data file additions (appends) do NOT conflict with a replace because
the replace only touches files it explicitly planned to rewrite.

This matches Java's BaseRewriteFiles.validate() which only calls
validateNoNewDeletesForDataFiles, not validateAddedDataFiles or
validateDeletedDataFiles.
"""
from pyiceberg.table.update.validate import _validate_no_new_deletes_for_data_files

if self._commit_window is None or self._commit_window.is_empty():
return

catalog_head = self._commit_window.head
starting_snapshot = self._commit_window.base

if catalog_head is None:
return

if self._deleted_data_files:
table = self._transaction._table
conflict_detection_filter = self._predicate if self._predicate != AlwaysFalse() else None
_validate_no_new_deletes_for_data_files(
table, catalog_head, conflict_detection_filter, self._deleted_data_files, starting_snapshot
)

def _refresh_for_retry(self) -> None:
"""Reset state for a retry attempt, clearing the cached deleted entries."""
super()._refresh_for_retry()
# Clear @cached_property so it recomputes against the refreshed parent snapshot.
if "_cached_deleted_entries" in self.__dict__:
del self.__dict__["_cached_deleted_entries"]


class UpdateSnapshot:
_transaction: Transaction
_io: FileIO
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -909,6 +1021,15 @@ def delete(self) -> _DeleteFiles:
snapshot_properties=self._snapshot_properties,
)

def replace(self) -> _RewriteFiles:
return _RewriteFiles(

@geruh geruh Apr 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm sort of confused by the naming since we are introducing a user facing API replace but the underlying snapshot operation is a rewrite? We should rename to rewrite() for consistency? Unless I'm missing something?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @geruh, you bring up a good point, and it's something I noticed seemed off along the way. The reason why we have this discrepancy is because we're mirroring what's found in the Java code itself.

I named the Python API replace() to accurately reflect the Operation.REPLACE snapshot string it generates, while keeping the internal class named _RewriteFiles to match the Java builder logic.

That said, if you feel strongly about matching the Java API's user-facing method (rewrite()) rather than the snapshot operation (replace()), I'm happy to rename the public method to rewrite() for consistency. Let me know what you prefer!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah there is a bit of a distinction here, since rewrite is basically the rewrite of data files and replace is the logical change to your snapshot metadata. My thinking is that the users in java today are used to interacting with this api through:

table.newRewrite()
    .deleteFile(old)
    .addFile(new)
    .commit();

So someone coming from Java Iceberg will look for rewrite, not replace. But ultimately maybe there is more of a history as to why the it follows this naming convention im missing on.

WDYT @kevinjqliu?

operation=Operation.REPLACE,
transaction=self._transaction,

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I noticed that branch is missing here is there a reason for that?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @geruh, thanks for noticing, this was an oversight. The changes have been made in c3570d8 and a test has been added for this.

io=self._io,
branch=self._branch,
snapshot_properties=self._snapshot_properties,
)


class _ManifestMergeManager(Generic[U]):
_target_size_bytes: int
Expand Down
Loading
Loading