[feat] add_files support parquet files with field ids

[MrDerecho]

Feature Request / Improvement

Currently, if I am using pyiceberg to create/maintain my iceberg tables and I use Trino (AWS Athena) to do compaction on the same (using Spark)- the files created via compaction are unable to be "re-added" using the add_files method at a later time. If we can make this configurable that would be great. Thanks.

[kevinjqliu]

Is this the error message you see?

iceberg-python/pyiceberg/io/pyarrow.py

Lines 2515 to 2518 in 7cf0c22

	if visit_pyarrow(parquet_metadata.schema.to_arrow_schema(), _HasIds()):
	raise NotImplementedError(
	f"Cannot add file {file_path} because it has field IDs. `add_files` only supports addition of files without field_ids"
	)

[MrDerecho]

Yes, this is correct.

[kevinjqliu]

Ty, updated the title. LMK if this is something you would like to work on 😄

[sungwy]

Thanks for raising this @MrDerecho - in the initial version of add_files, we wanted to limit it to just parquet files that that were created in an external system. The assumption is that unless the files are created by an Iceberg client and are cognizant of the Iceberg schema, there would be no way for the parquet writing process to be use the correct field IDs in the produced parquet schema.

Currently, if I am using pyiceberg to create/maintain my iceberg tables and I use Trino (AWS Athena) to do compaction on the same (using Spark)- the files created via compaction are unable to be "re-added" using the add_files method at a later time.

This sounds like a really cool use case, but I'd like to understand it better - why isn't the application (Trino/Spark) that is doing the compaction committing the compacted files into Iceberg itself?

[MrDerecho]

For context: right now I manage a very large data lake of time partitioned data. The use case has to do with the archival process put into place wherein after a rolling period of time these files are “deleted” from the table and copied (before snapshot expiry) into a archive prefix for later use (if needed) and subject to a lifecycle policy I.e. glacier to physical deletion after some time. Because I use Trino to optimize- I have a mix of pyiceberg batch files and Trino spark generated files that will may require being “re-added” at a later date. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks for the help.

…

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:07 AM Sung Yun ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for raising this @MrDerecho <https://github.com/MrDerecho> - in the initial version of add_files, we wanted to limit it to just parquet files that that were created in an external system. The assumption is that unless the files are created by an Iceberg client and are cognizant of the Iceberg schema, there would be no way for the parquet writing process to be use the correct field IDs in the produced parquet schema. Currently, if I am using pyiceberg to create/maintain my iceberg tables and I use Trino (AWS Athena) to do compaction on the same (using Spark)- the files created via compaction are unable to be "re-added" using the add_files method at a later time. This sounds like a really cool use case, but I'd like to understand it better - why isn't the application (Trino/Spark) that is doing the compaction committing the compacted files into Iceberg itself? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1227 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AR6JWWZXATUGYZBS6TFHA4TZ3UHSLAVCNFSM6AAAAABPY5DDRGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMJTHA3DQNBXHA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[kevinjqliu]

I think we can relax the constraints for add_files to allow field ids that are aligned, such as one written by an external engine like Trino.

A use case I can think of is moving an iceberg table from one system and recreating it in another, similar to whats described above.

[kevinjqliu]

@MrDerecho would you like to contribute this feature?

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has been open for 180 days with no activity. It will be closed in next 14 days if no further activity occurs. To permanently prevent this issue from being considered stale, add the label 'not-stale', but commenting on the issue is preferred when possible.

[github-actions]

This issue has been closed because it has not received any activity in the last 14 days since being marked as 'stale'