apache / apache/iceberg-python
Upsert with 1M rows extremely slow due to `create_match_filter` and `txn.delete()` performance
- 主要语言
- Python
- 星标
- 1.1k
- 派生
- 581
- 平均合并
- 1 天 17 小时
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 77
描述
### Apache Iceberg version
0.11.0
### Please describe the bug 🐞
CC @goutamvenkat-anyscale @koenvo @Fokko
Hello! We are implementing distributed writes from Ray Data to Iceberg. As part of upserts, we:
1. Write data files in parallel across Ray workers (each worker writes its share of Parquet files directly to storage and returns `DataFile` metadata + the upsert key columns back to the driver)
2. On the driver, concatenate all upsert keys collected from workers, call `create_match_filter` to build a delete predicate, then call `txn.delete()` followed by an append to commit
Upserting 1M rows (383 MiB) into an Iceberg table takes **~17.5 minutes**, almost entirely in the delete step:
```
create_match_filter (1M keys → In filter): 10.26s
txn.delete(): 1054.35s
append + commit: 1.14s
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total upsert commit: 1065.75s
```
PyIceberg version `0.11.0`
This matches what's reported in #2159 and #2138.
The bottlenecks are:
1. **`create_match_filter`** — constructs a Python `BooleanExpression` node per row, which is expensive at 1M+ keys
2. **`txn.delete()`** — evaluates the resulting giant `In` expression against the table's data files with no partition pruning, effectively doing a full table scan
We have a few questions:
1. **Merge-on-read upserts** — is this on the roadmap, and if so, roughly when? MoR would let us avoid the expensive delete + rewrite cycle entirely for large upserts.
2. **Optimizing `create_match_filter` or `txn.delete()`** — is there a recommended way to speed these up today? For example, batching the `In` filter, or passing a partition-level hint to constrain the file scan?
3. **Partition-aware deletes** — if the upsert key columns overlap with partition columns, is there a supported way to restrict `txn.delete()` to only the relevant partitions, rather than scanning the full table?
## Related
- #2159 — Upserting large table extremely slow
- #2138 — Upsertion memory usage grows exponentially as table size grows
- #2943 — Optimize upsert performance for large datasets
### Willingness to contribute
- [ ] I can contribute a fix for this bug independently
- [x] I would be willing to contribute a fix for this bug with guidance from the Iceberg community
- [ ] I cannot contribute a fix for this bug at this time
贡献指南
这个仓库没有索引到贡献指南
调研方向
从报告中描述的 create_match_filter 和 txn.delete() 入口点开始,然后根据提供的计时结果重现 1M 行 upsert 基准测试。查看相关 issue #2159、#2138 和 #2943,了解现有上下文。完成标准是取得经测量的改进,或提供一种有文档记录且受支持的方法,以避免报告中的整表删除成本。
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
评估
- 技术栈
- python
- 领域
- data-engineering, databases
- Issue 类型
- 缺陷
- 难度
- 5/5
- 预计耗时
- 一周以上
- 活跃度
- 冷清
- 描述清晰度
- 需要澄清
- 新手友好度
- 35/100