Overview
This weblog submit describes help for materialized views for the Iceberg desk format.
Apache Iceberg is a high-performance open desk format for petabyte-scale analytic datasets. It has been designed and developed as an open group customary to make sure compatibility throughout languages and implementations. It brings the reliability and ease of SQL tables to massive information whereas enabling engines like Hive, Impala, Spark, Trino, Flink, and Presto to work with the identical tables on the similar time. Apache Iceberg types the core basis for Cloudera’s Open Information Lakehouse with the Cloudera Information Platform (CDP).
Materialized views are helpful for accelerating widespread courses of enterprise intelligence (BI) queries that encompass joins, group-bys and mixture features. Cloudera Information Warehouse (CDW) working Hive has beforehand supported creating materialized views in opposition to Hive ACID supply tables. Ranging from the CDW Public Cloud DWX-1.6.1 launch and the matching CDW Non-public Cloud Information Providers launch, Hive additionally helps creating, utilizing, and rebuilding materialized views for Iceberg desk format.
The important thing traits of this performance are:
- Supply tables of the materialized view are Iceberg tables (the underlying file format may very well be Parquet, ORC).
- The materialized view itself is an Iceberg desk.
- Materialized views will be partitioned on a number of columns.
- Queries containing joins, filters, projections, group-by, or aggregations with out group-by will be transparently rewritten by the Hive optimizer to make use of a number of eligible materialized views. This could probably result in orders of magnitude enchancment in efficiency.
- Each full and incremental rebuild of the materialized view are supported. Incremental rebuild will be completed below qualifying circumstances.
Create Iceberg materialized view
For the examples on this weblog, we are going to use three tables from the TPC-DS dataset as our base tables: store_sales, buyer and date_dim.
These tables are created as Iceberg tables. As an illustration:
create desk store_sales ( `ss_sold_time_sk` int, … … `ss_net_profit` decimal(7,2)) PARTITIONED BY ( `ss_sold_date_sk` int) saved by iceberg saved as orc ;
It’s the similar for the opposite two tables. We populated the tables utilizing INSERT-SELECT statements by studying from textual content format supply tables however they are often populated by means of any ETL course of.
Let’s create a materialized view that joins the three tables, has filter circumstances, and does grouped aggregation. Such a question sample is kind of widespread in BI queries. Notice that the materialized view definition accommodates the ‘saved by iceberg’ clause. Moreover, it’s partitioned on the d_year column.
drop materialized view year_total_mv1; create materialized view year_total_mv1 PARTITIONED ON (dyear) saved by iceberg saved as orc tblproperties ('format-version'='2') AS choose c_birth_country customer_birth_country ,d_year dyear ,sum(ss_ext_sales_price) year_total_sales ,rely(ss_ext_sales_price) total_count from buyer ,store_sales ,date_dim the place c_customer_sk = ss_customer_sk and ss_sold_date_sk = d_date_sk and d_year between 1999 and 2023 group by c_birth_country ,d_year ;
Present materialized view metadata
Just like a daily desk, you may describe the materialized view to point out metadata.
DESCRIBE FORMATTED year_total_mv1;
A number of key traits are listed beneath (extracted from the DESCRIBE output):
As proven above, this materialized view is enabled for rewrites and isn’t outdated. The snapshotId of the supply tables concerned within the materialized view are additionally maintained within the metadata. Subsequently, these snapshot IDs are used to find out the delta modifications that ought to be utilized to the materialized view rows.
SHOW MATERIALIZED VIEWS;
The final column signifies that the materialized view will be incrementally maintained within the presence of insert operations solely. If the bottom desk information is modified by means of an UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE operation, then the materialized view should undergo a full rebuild. In a future model, we intend to help incremental rebuild for such circumstances.
A materialized view can be explicitly disabled for rewrites. That is much like disabling indexes in databases for sure causes.
ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW year_total_mv1 DISABLE REWRITE;
Conversely, it may be enabled as follows:
ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW year_total_mv1 ENABLE REWRITE;
Question planning utilizing materialized view
Let’s first take into account a easy case the place the grouping columns and mixture expression precisely match one of many materialized views.
clarify cbo choose c_birth_country customer_birth_country ,d_year dyear ,sum(ss_ext_sales_price) year_total_sales from buyer ,store_sales ,date_dim the place c_customer_sk = ss_customer_sk and ss_sold_date_sk = d_date_sk and d_year between 2000 and 2003 group by c_birth_country ,d_year ;
CBO PLAN:
HiveProject(customer_birth_country=[$0], dyear=[$3], year_total_sales=[$1]) HiveFilter(situation=[BETWEEN(false, $3, 2000, 2003)]) HiveTableScan(desk=[[tpcds_iceberg, year_total_mv1]], desk:alias=[tpcds_iceberg.year_total_mv1])
The above CBO (price based mostly optimizer) plan exhibits that solely the year_total_mv1 materialized view is scanned and a filter situation utilized for the reason that vary filter within the question is a subset of the vary within the materialized view. Thus, the scans and joins of the three tables within the unique question should not wanted and this will enhance efficiency considerably as a result of each I/O price saving and the CPU price saving of computing the joins and aggregations.
Now take into account a extra superior utilization the place the group-by and mixture expressions within the question don’t precisely match the materialized view however can probably be derived.
clarify cbo choose c_birth_country customer_birth_country ,avg(ss_ext_sales_price) year_average_sales from buyer ,store_sales ,date_dim the place c_customer_sk = ss_customer_sk and ss_sold_date_sk = d_date_sk and d_year between 2000 and 2003 group by c_birth_country ;
CBO PLAN:
HiveProject(customer_birth_country=[$0], year_average_sales=[CAST(/($1, COALESCE($2, 0:BIGINT))):DECIMAL(11, 6)]) HiveAggregate(group=[{0}], agg#0=[sum($1)], agg#1=[sum($2)]) HiveFilter(situation=[BETWEEN(false, $3, 2000, 2003)]) HiveTableScan(desk=[[tpcds_iceberg, year_total_mv1]], desk:alias=[tpcds_iceberg.year_total_mv1])
Right here, the materialized view year_total_mv1 accommodates the SUM and COUNT mixture expressions that are used to derive the AVG(ss_ext_sales_price) expression for the question. Additional, for the reason that question accommodates GROUP BY c_birth_country solely, a second-level grouping is completed on c_birth_country to supply the ultimate output.
Incremental and full rebuild of materialized view
We are going to insert rows into the bottom desk and study how the materialized view will be up to date to mirror the brand new information.
Because of the desk modification, Iceberg creates new snapshots and the metadata desk “snapshots” will be examined to view the brand new snapshot model:
SELECT * FROM tpcds_iceberg.store_sales.snapshots;
Notice that the materialized view is now marked outdated for rewriting as a result of their contents at the moment are stale:
DESCRIBE FORMATTED year_total_mv1;
Outdated for Rewriting: Sure
Operating the unique question now is not going to leverage the materialized view and as a substitute do the complete scan of the supply tables adopted by the joins and group-by.
Allow us to now rebuild the materialized view:
ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW year_total_mv1 REBUILD;
This does an incremental rebuild of the materialized view by studying solely the delta modifications from the store_sales desk. Hive does this by asking the Iceberg library to return solely the rows inserted since that desk’s final snapshot when the materialized view was final rebuilt/created. It then computes the mixture values for these delta rows after becoming a member of them with the opposite tables. Lastly, this set of rows is outer joined with the materialized view utilizing the grouping columns because the be part of key and the suitable mixture values are consolidated—for instance, the outdated sum and the brand new sum are added collectively and the outdated min/max mixture values could also be changed with the brand new one relying on whether or not the brand new worth is decrease/greater than the outdated one.
The rebuild of the materialized view is triggered manually right here nevertheless it can be completed on a periodic interval utilizing the scheduled question method.
At this level, the materialized view ought to be out there for question rewrites:
DESCRIBE FORMATTED year_total_mv1; Outdated for Rewriting: No
Re-running the unique question will once more use the materialized view.
Qualifying circumstances for incremental rebuild
An incremental rebuild is just not potential below the next conditions:
- If the bottom desk was modified by means of a DELETE/MERGE/UPDATE operation.
- If the mixture perform is something apart from SUM, MIN, MAX, COUNT, AVG. Different aggregates corresponding to STDDEV, VARIANCE, and comparable require a full scan of the bottom information.
- If any of the supply tables had been compacted for the reason that final rebuild. Compaction creates a brand new snapshot consisting of merged recordsdata and it’s not potential to find out the delta modifications for the reason that final rebuild operation.
In such conditions, Hive falls again to the complete rebuild. This fall-back is completed transparently as a part of the identical REBUILD command.
A Notice on Iceberg materialized view specification
At present, the metadata wanted for materialized views is maintained in Hive Metastore and it builds upon the materialized views metadata beforehand supported for Hive ACID tables. Over the previous 12 months, the Iceberg group has proposed a materialized view specification. We intend to undertake this specification sooner or later for Hive Iceberg materialized view help.
Efficiency with materialized views
To be able to consider the efficiency of queries within the presence of materialized views in Iceberg desk format, we used a TPC-DS information set at 1 TB scale issue. The desk format was Iceberg and the underlying file format was ORC (comparable exams will be carried out with Parquet however we selected ORC as most Hive prospects use ORC). We ran the ANALYZE command to collect each desk and column statistics on all the bottom tables.
We began with twenty three TPC-DS queries and created variants of them such that we had a complete of fifty queries within the workload. Every question had between one to a few variants. A variant was created by one of many following modifications: (a) including further columns within the GROUP-BY clause (b) including further aggregation perform within the SELECT checklist, and (c) including or modifying single desk WHERE predicates. We obtained the EXPLAIN CBO (price based mostly optimization) plan in JSON format for all of the fifty queries and provided the plans to a materialized view recommender that’s supported by Cloudera Information Warehouse. Primarily based on the ranked suggestions, we picked the highest seven materialized views and created them within the Iceberg desk format. We ran the fifty question workload on a CDW Hive digital warehouse on AWS utilizing a big t-shirt dimension (see Digital Warehouse sizes) . Every question was run thrice and the minimal whole execution time was captured. The question efficiency outcomes are proven beneath with and with out the materialized view rewrite enabled. The next configuration choice is toggled for this:
SET hive.materializedview.rewriting = false;
Out of the fifty queries, there are sixteen queries which the optimizer deliberate utilizing materialized views. A number of of the longer working queries benefited essentially the most by the materialized views – for instance the query65 a, b, c variants confirmed a discount of practically 85% within the elapsed time. General, throughout all queries, the common discount in whole elapsed time was 40%. We additionally checked out solely the question compilation time overhead for queries that didn’t hit the materialized views. A slight enhance of 4% within the common question compilation time, roughly 60 milliseconds, was noticed because of the optimizer trying to judge the feasibility of utilizing materialized views.
This efficiency analysis centered on the question rewrite efficiency utilizing materialized views. In a future weblog, we are going to consider the incremental versus full rebuild efficiency.
Conclusion
This weblog submit describes the materialized view help in Hive for the Iceberg desk format. This performance is out there in Cloudera Information Warehouse (CDW) Public Cloud deployments on AWS and Azure in addition to in CDW Non-public Cloud Information Providers deployments. Customers can create materialized views on Iceberg supply tables, and Hive will leverage these to speed up question efficiency. When the supply desk information is modified, incremental rebuild of the materialized view is supported below qualifying circumstances (said above); in any other case, a full rebuild is completed.
The help for Apache Iceberg because the desk format in Cloudera Information Platform and the flexibility to create and use materialized views on high of such tables supplies a strong mixture to construct quick analytic purposes on open information lake architectures. Join one among our subsequent hands-on labs to attempt Apache Iceberg on Cloudera’s lakehouse and see the advantages and ease of utilizing materialized views. It’s also possible to join the webinar to be taught extra about the advantages of Apache Iceberg and watch the demo to see the newest capabilities.
Acknowledgement
The authors want to acknowledge the help of Soumyakanti Das in gathering the efficiency outcomes.
