[#8912] feat(iceberg-rest): Expose Iceberg client metrics through Gravitino MetricsSystem #8913
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR adds observability for Iceberg client operations by bridging Iceberg's metrics reporting to Gravitino's MetricsSystem.
Key Changes:
IcebergClientMetricsSource: New metrics source with iceberg-client namespace (separate from iceberg-rest-server HTTP metrics)
IcebergRestMetricsStore: Implements MetricsStore to parse and record Iceberg commit/scan metrics using Iceberg's public APIs
Configuration: Enable with metricsStore = rest
Why are the changes needed?
Metrics sent to /v1/{prefix}/namespaces/{namespace}/tables/{table}/metrics are silently dropped when using dummy store. This PR enables monitoring of:
Iceberg table operations (commits, scans)
Data file operations (added/removed files, sizes)
Query performance metrics sent through the metrics API
Fix: #(issue)
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Yes, new configuration and metrics:
Exposed metrics (under iceberg-client namespace): commit reports, scan reports, data files added/removed, file sizes, scan/commit durations, and 27+ additional metrics.
How was this patch tested?