-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 557
feat: Add metadata-only replace API to Table for REPLACE snapshot operations #3131
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
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 |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -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]: ... | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -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. | ||
|
|
@@ -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: | ||
| # 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: | ||
|
Member
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. 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.
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. 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
Otherwise, I can also remove it from
Member
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. 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: |
||
| 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
Member
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. 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.
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. |
||
|
|
||
| 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 | ||
|
|
@@ -909,6 +1021,15 @@ def delete(self) -> _DeleteFiles: | |
| snapshot_properties=self._snapshot_properties, | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| def replace(self) -> _RewriteFiles: | ||
| return _RewriteFiles( | ||
|
Member
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'm sort of confused by the naming since we are introducing a user facing API
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. 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 That said, if you feel strongly about matching the Java API's user-facing method (
Member
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. 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, | ||
|
Member
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 noticed that branch is missing here is there a reason for that?
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. |
||
| io=self._io, | ||
| branch=self._branch, | ||
| snapshot_properties=self._snapshot_properties, | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class _ManifestMergeManager(Generic[U]): | ||
| _target_size_bytes: int | ||
|
|
||
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 can replicate the
_DeleteFileslogic here by using the@cache_propertyon _the compute deletes function. Especially since_commit()callsself._deleted_entries()for validation and then calls the super commit to write and get delete entries.iceberg-python/pyiceberg/table/update/snapshot.py
Line 407 in 721c5aa
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.
Hi @geruh, great suggestion, I've applied the changes in c8162a8.