-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Epic] Applied State (part 2) #9425
Comments
@graciegoheen / @MichelleArk sorry for the direct Q on this but struggling to understand from docs / issue / PRs. Has the support for batch metadata collection been added for BQ specifically? I saw the general work in dbt-adapters and snowflake and redshift specific but I don't think BQ? Thank you |
@adamcunnington-mlg I believe so, yes: |
@jtcohen6 I think that is just the initial support and not the batch-route - which is the critical bit. Please advise - many thanks |
Hey @adamcunnington-mlg -- I've summarized some spiking done to evaluate the cost/benefit of implementing a batch-route for metadata freshness in BigQuery here: dbt-labs/dbt-bigquery#938. There are more details in the spike report, but my overall conclusion is that there isn't currently a way to implement a batch-strategy that achieves performance improvements for metadata-based source freshness given limitations of BigQuery's Python SDK. |
@MichelleArk I believe this is a missed conclusion here. I've left some details against your more comprehensive response; dbt-labs/dbt-bigquery#938 (comment) These details are also in the original FR; #7012 (comment) |
I'm going to close this issue out since it was for our 1.8 release |
@graciegoheen I just wanted to confirm understanding - that the batch route for BQ metadata is still not implemented. Michelle completed a spike and there's a branch with changes on but it wasn't finished/merged. Is there an ETA on when that will be done? It feels like 90% of the work was done |
Hi @adamcunnington-mlg - that is correct, it is still not implemented. @jtcohen6 left a response in the issue in dbt-bigquery back in May (see here):
This is not a top priority for us atm, but would be helpful to understand the difference in performance between these approaches to decide on the appropriate next step. |
Ah! @adamcunnington-mlg I see you follow up in this issue. The implementation has been de-risked, so there's nothing blocking this work. This is not a focus for our team right now, but we would definitely review a PR for it if someone from the community wanted to open one up :) |
This epic comprises the remaining work on the Applied State initiative to support better visibility into the current state of the database in a more performant way.
dbt-core 1.8
loaded_at_field
set tonull
at table level to overwrite default value set at the source level #9320next
loaded_at_field
#9979The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: