[SPIKE] Investigate treating dynamic tables as RelationType.Table
#1040
Labels
enhancement
New feature or request
RelationType.Table
#1040
Is this your first time submitting a feature request?
Describe the feature
spin off of @jtcohen6's #1038
Investigate treating dynamic tables as
RelationType.Table
instead ofSnowflakeRelationType.DynamicTable
with the understanding that we need to run an additionaldescribe
query at the start of thedynamic_table
materialization to figure out if it's actually a dynamic or a static table (among other configs).Similar to the workaround described here: #1016 (comment)
This should only be done in the event that #1038 does not pan out, performance-wise
Pros
create or replace
when switching between tables and dynamics tables. (The team is looking into this, it may be feasible but it may not be.)Cons
describe
statement per DT, until we can re-plumb the materialization logic (or start caching more relation attributes) to avoid rerunning.create or replace table
for DT → table, this will have a known edge case where switchingmaterialized: 'dynamic_table'
tomaterialized: table
does not work.Describe alternatives you've considered
if #1038 works, we don't need to do this
Who will this benefit?
No response
Are you interested in contributing this feature?
No response
Anything else?
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: