amogh-jahagirdar commented on code in PR #12450: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12450#discussion_r2093745842
########## api/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/actions/ComputePartitionStats.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.iceberg.actions; + +import org.apache.iceberg.PartitionStatisticsFile; + +/** + * An action that computes and writes the partition statistics of an Iceberg table. Current snapshot + * is used by default. + */ +public interface ComputePartitionStats + extends Action<ComputePartitionStats, ComputePartitionStats.Result> { Review Comment: I'm late to this PR so my apologies if this has already been discussed in the past but have we considered just including the ability for computing partition stats to the existing `ComputeTableStats` Action? I'm a bit wary of adding too many actions, especially in this case where an external user who is using spark has to know that there are 2 separate actions for "stats" in general. In my head something like "compute table stats" + a partition stats option API on that seems better. I know the actual stats files are of course different but I'm mainly thinking from an action and API perspective, not exposing too many different concepts. The result type of the existing procedure would be both types of files. It may not be a big deal for sophisticated users who know when to use which but I think that many people will just want to generate stats and then the sophisticated users would drill down which ones they want and when to run it etc. Of course if we do try to add flags to the existing procedure we have to think through what's the default behavior when not specified (preserving compatibility) and then what additional modes we have. Thoughts @ajantha-bhat @karuppayya @nastra @aokolnychyi @rdblue ? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
