>Make delete counts required to avoid ambiguity w.r.t NULL vs unknown. Thanks Anton for driving this. Does this mean that we can't upgrade v2 table to v3 table in a lazy approach? That means it's not a mere table metadata upgrade, but we need to upgrade all partition statistics?
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 1:10 AM Denny Lee <denny.g....@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) - love this, Anton! > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:54 AM Prashant Singh <prashant010...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> Thank you Anton ! >> >> Best, >> Prashant Singh >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:42 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non binding) >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 3:01 AM Anton Okolnychyi <aokolnyc...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > I propose the following updates to our partition stats spec in V3: >>> > >>> > - Modify `position_delete_record_count` to include a sum of position >>> deletes across position delete files and DVs >>> > - Keep `position_delete_file_count` to represent the number of >>> position delete files (ignoring DVs) >>> > - Add `dv_count` to represent the number of DVs >>> > - Make delete counts required to avoid ambiguity w.r.t NULL vs unknown. >>> > >>> > Here is the PR with the spec update: >>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12098 >>> > >>> > - Anton >>> >>
