szehon-ho commented on code in PR #7703:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/7703#discussion_r1206054291
##########
spark/v3.4/spark/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/spark/TestSparkDistributionAndOrderingUtil.java:
##########
@@ -1805,23 +1805,32 @@ public void
testRangeCopyOnWriteMergePartitionedSortedTable() {
// -------------------------------------------------------------------------
// delete mode is NOT SET -> CLUSTER BY _spec_id, _partition, _file +
// LOCALLY ORDERED BY _spec_id, _partition, _file,
_pos
+ // delete mode is NOT SET (fanout) -> CLUSTER BY _spec_id, _partition, _file
+ empty ordering
Review Comment:
Probably annoying to add another example with ORDERED BY, but is it still
correct with "ORDERED" above? Will it not be empty_ordering?
##########
spark/v3.4/spark/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/spark/source/SparkPositionDeltaWrite.java:
##########
@@ -389,10 +391,44 @@ protected Map<Integer, StructProjection>
buildPartitionProjections(
return partitionProjections;
}
+
+ // use the fanout writer only if enabled and the input is unordered
+ protected PartitioningWriter<InternalRow, DataWriteResult> newDataWriter(
+ Table table, SparkFileWriterFactory writers, OutputFileFactory files,
Context context) {
+
+ FileIO io = table.io();
+ boolean fanoutEnabled = context.fanoutWriterEnabled();
+ boolean inputOrdered = context.inputOrdered();
+ long targetFileSize = context.targetDataFileSize();
+
+ if (fanoutEnabled && !inputOrdered) {
+ return new FanoutDataWriter<>(writers, files, io, targetFileSize);
+ } else {
+ return new ClusteredDataWriter<>(writers, files, io, targetFileSize);
+ }
+ }
+
+ // the spec requires position deletes to be ordered by file and position
+ // use a fanout writer if the input is unordered no matter whether fanout
writers are enabled
+ // clustered writers only validate records for the same spec/paritition
are co-located,
Review Comment:
Optional: clustered writers only validate records for the same
spec/paritition are co-located which is not enough for position deletes =>
clustered writers assume that the position deletes are already ordered by file
and position?
(the validation seems a bit orthogonal to previous sentence. I dont mind
putting it in a as well somewhere, but doesnt seem its in the other comment in
newDataWriter, so hence thinking its better to omit)
--
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: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
