+1 from me. Columnar all the way. - Wes
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Zheng, Kai <kai.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > It's a good idea. There is no physical type corresponding to int48, using > int48 will need extra decoding step to access the type and offset values. As > it would change to use int8 type for the union type, this alternative > proposal would also be invalidated and removed. > > Regards, > Kai > > -----Original Message----- > From: Micah Kornfield [mailto:emkornfi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 6:23 AM > To: dev@arrow.apache.org > Subject: Removng alternate proposal from layout of types and offsets for > unions in layout.md > > The current layout.md lists an alternate proposal for the layout of of these > values: > > "Alternate proposal (TBD): the types and offset values may be packed into an > int48 with 2 bytes for the type and 4 bytes for the offset." > > Any objections to removing this proposal and moving forward with keeping them > as two separate arrays? > > Thanks, > Micah
