What specific arguments are there for it being a first class type besides it is elsewhere? Is there some kind of optimization iceberg or an engine could do if it was typed versus just a bucket of bits? Fixed width binary seems to cover the cases I see in terms of actual functionality in the iceberg libraries or engines…
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 6:54 PM Yan Yan <yyany...@gmail.com> wrote: > One conversation I used to come across regarding UUID deprecation was from > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/1611 > > Thanks, > Yan > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:07 PM Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> Hi Joshua, >> >> I do not have a strong preference about the UUID type, but I would like >> the highlight, that the type is handled inconsistently in Iceberg with >> different file formats. (See: >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/1881) >> >> If we keep the type, it would be good to standardize the handling in >> every file format. >> >> Thanks, Peter >> >> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 17:08 Joshua Howard, <joshthow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> UUID is a current data type according to the Iceberg spec ( >>> https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/#primitive-types), but there seems to >>> have been some discussion about removing it? I could not find the original >>> discussion, but a reference to the discussion can be found here ( >>> https://github.com/trinodb/trino/issues/6663). >>> >>> I generally agree with the consensus in the Trino issue to keep UUID in >>> Iceberg. To summarize… >>> >>> - It makes sense to keep the type now that row identifiers are supported >>> - Some engines (Trino) have support for the UUID type >>> - Engines w/o support for UUID type can determine how to map >>> >>> Does anyone want to remove the type? If so, why? >> >>
