Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

[Blog] StarRocks and Apache Polaris Integration #2851

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

Open
Youngwb wants to merge 4 commits into apache:main
base: main
Choose a base branch
Loading
from Youngwb:starrocks-integration

Conversation

@Youngwb
Copy link

@Youngwb Youngwb commented Oct 21, 2025

Add blog about how to integrate StarRocks with Apache Polaris

flyrain reacted with thumbs up emoji
Copy link
Contributor

@dimas-b dimas-b left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your blog post, @Youngwb ! It looks good to me overall... some comments below.

Comment on lines 49 to 50
### Business Value of the Pairing
**StarRocks** delivers performance; **Polaris** delivers openness. Together they let you:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Polaris as an ASF project should remain vendor-neutral. I'm not sure this paragraph as it stands fits that model 🤔

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this mainly explains the advantages of combining Polaris and StarRocks, which are conclusions drawn from the characteristics of the two. Moreover, the descriptions below mention not only StarRocks but also other engines, such as Spark, Flink, and Trino.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Spark, Flink, Trino are mentioned as sub-cases, while StarRocks appears to be elevated as a solution with a "performance advantage". I do not question that property of StarRocks, but it does not feel right to me to highlight that in a Polaris blog post.

Also "Business Value" appears to suggest deployment choices to the reader. I believe Polaris blogs should remain purely technical to avoid the impression of favouring one compatible engine over another.

In other words, why is this section specific (pairing) to StarRocks? IMHO, the previous sections provide sufficient details to the reader in order to form an independent opinion.

It is perfectly fine to link to StarRocks documentation that provides more details, of course (as done in other sections).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Business Value" is indeed a controversial term and I'd prefer to not not use it and stay purely technical in the blog post.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

modified, please review it again.

dimas-b reacted with thumbs up emoji
flyrain
flyrain previously approved these changes Oct 22, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@flyrain flyrain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @Youngwb for adding it.

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from PRs In Progress to Ready to merge in Basic Kanban Board Oct 22, 2025
Copy link

@xxubai xxubai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: starrocks-polaris-intergration.md -> starrocks-polaris-integration.md


## Configure StarRocks Iceberg Catalog

First, you need to have a StarRocks cluster up and running. Please refer to the [StarRocks Quick Start Guide](https://docs.starrocks.io/docs/quick_start) for instructions on setting up a StarRocks cluster.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to specify that it uses a Shared-Data architecture?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's not necessary, users can choose the architecture they need for deployment.


## Configure StarRocks Iceberg Catalog

First, you need to have a StarRocks cluster up and running. Please refer to the [StarRocks Quick Start Guide](https://docs.starrocks.io/docs/quick_start) for instructions on setting up a StarRocks cluster.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please refer to the StarRocks Quick Start Guide for instructions on setting up a StarRocks cluster.

Which section should we include that in?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think there is no need to specify a particular section; users can choose a suitable deployment method through this page.

cd apache-polaris-1.1.0-incubating
```

2. Build Polaris
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are published Docker images. Why do users have to build Polaris and the admin tool?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

add link to Polaris quick-start guide , user can choose the way which suits them to deploy polairs

cd apache-polaris-1.1.0-incubating
```

2. Build Polaris
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: now that we use 1.1.0 in this example, why bother with building from source? 1.1.0 has binary artifacts.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, I also started to learn about Polaris from the Polaris Quick Start(https://polaris.apache.org/releases/1.1.0/getting-started/quickstart). This document starts with building Polaris, so I used this method before and only later learned about the binary artifacts. I added a link to the Polaris Quick Start in this documentation. I think we can add content about binary artifacts to the Polaris Quick Start later, this way, new users can directly deploy using the binary artifacts.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fair point.

Here is an example of creating an external catalog in StarRocks that connects to Polaris using credential vending:

```sql
CREATE EXTERNAL CATALOG polaris_catalog
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to add per-engine docs under https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/getting-started/using-polaris/ ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that makes sense. It's out of scope of this PR though, this isn't a doc.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Certainly not for this PR. This was just a general idea for enhancing our docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@dimas-b dimas-b left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👍 Thanks @Youngwb !

Let's wait for a few more reviews.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@snazy snazy snazy left review comments

@flyrain flyrain flyrain left review comments

@dimas-b dimas-b dimas-b approved these changes

@jbonofre jbonofre Awaiting requested review from jbonofre

+1 more reviewer

@xxubai xxubai xxubai left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /