3 ms·
Great idea, poor naming. If you’re aiming for a standard of sorts, tying it to a specific software by reusing its name feels counter productive. “Ducklake Duck
by iampims 1y ago
Great idea, poor naming. If you’re aiming for a standard of sorts, tying it to a specific software by reusing its name feels counter productive.
“Ducklake DuckDB extension” really rolls off the tongue /s.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rtyu1120 1y agoQuite a bummer, particularly because the main selling point is that it can be utilized with any SQL database (iiuc).
- formalreconfirm 1y agoIf I understand the Manifesto correctly, the metadata db can be any SQL database but the client needs to be DuckDB + DuckLake extension no ?
- crudbug 1y agoGood point. I think - any ducklake implementation for any SQL compliant database will work. Of course, the performance will depend on the database.
- raihansaputra 1y ago*for now. The principle in the client side (especially read only) should be the same with Iceberg. Ideally there's an Iceberg adapter for clients.
- snthpy 1y agoTrue. The format looks really open so it would be better to have a more independent name. DuckLake for the DuckDB extension name is great in my opinion but for the table format something like SQLake or AcidLake might be more apt. The latter doesn't sound very appealing though, probably especially for ducks.