Hey Sung,

Typically we only push patches into the minor versions, we could also go to
version 0.8.0 immediately.

Regarding the memory consumption, thanks for putting those numbers
together! I would also love to get #929
<https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/929>, so we can push down
the large/small type to PyArrow (only for to_arrow), and apply #986
<https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/986> on top if you want to
force it to either small or large types.

WDYT?

Kind regards,
Fokko


Op vr 2 aug 2024 om 19:46 schreef Sung Yun <sun...@apache.org>:

> Hi folks,
>
> We identified inefficient memory usage hikes with the current way of
> upcasting pyarrow types to large_<type> on read, when reading tables with
> certain characteristics. A detailed set of example benchmarks of this issue
> is on the google document linked on PR #986:
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/986
>
> The proposed solution introduces a config to override this behavior to use
> small types instead, and I'd like to add this into the patch release to
> give users better control over their memory usage.
>
> Also, this is just a gentle reminder that this DISCUSS thread is still
> open for any new issues that are identified from 0.7.0 release, that we
> should fix in the patch release.
>
> Thank you,
> Sung
>
> On 2024/07/30 23:57:04 Sung Yun wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > We are starting to compile the list of issues to fix and port into the
> > 0.7.1 release.
> >
> > The current list of known issues is as follows:
> >
> > Fix pydantic warning on table commit: #972
> > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/972> (thanks for the
> quick
> > fix ndrluis!)
> > Issue when rewriting an unpartitioned table: #979
> > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/issues/979>
> > Issue when evolving and writing in the same transaction: #980
> > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/issues/980>
> >
> > Please feel free to respond to this thread with any issues that should be
> > tracked for the patch release.
> >
> > Thank you!
> > Sung
> >
>

Reply via email to