What is the actual argument here? I think having a persisted field doesn't
make sense since we expect perfect alignment. We would expect reading the
file in isolation with the metadata _pos column should still work right?

If we are just discussing removing a persisted value, I'm in favor of that.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 8:37 AM Gábor Kaszab <[email protected]> wrote:

> I hear you, and I share the same opinion. If we don't need such a field
> then it's just extra unnecessary complexity to write it. I'm not entirely
> convinced on the debugging use of the _pos field. Would be beneficial to
> reduce unnecessary noise and confusion by not adding the _pos field.
>
> Let's discuss this on the next sync! In the meantime, opinions are welcome
> here too.
>
> Thanks,
> Gabor
>
> Andrei Tserakhau via dev <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont:
> 2026. aug. 26., Sze, 15:32):
>
>> +1 on this question.
>>
>> Right now `_pos` column feels more like debug leftovers, it bring some
>> confusion for read-side weather it's expected to be readed or not.
>>
>> I think removing it would make implementation easier.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andrei
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 2:42 PM Leonid Lygin via dev <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the quick response!
>>>
>>> My biggest concern with `_pos` is not performance but rather clarity
>>> and implementation divergence:
>>>
>>> 1. including `_pos` is redundant, and (at least for me) provokes a
>>> re-read of the row alignment section — "why include `_pos` if files
>>> are fully aligned?";
>>> 2. having `_pos` fully duplicate the row position, there are two
>>> different legal ways to implement reads: either positionally, or using
>>> `_pos`.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 2:35 PM Gábor Kaszab <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hey All,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for bringing this up! (for me the initial mail went to spam,
>>> though...)
>>> >
>>> > Technically, with the dense representation we don't really need the
>>> _pos column in the column files, unless for troubleshooting. While checking
>>> the row counts is good, if they don't match we might get a better
>>> understanding on what the writer missed writing if we had the _pos col,
>>> also the order could be verified.
>>> >
>>> > Apart from debugging, I think either way is just fine. An additional
>>> detail to consider is that according to my experiments, there isn't really
>>> any storage cost for writing the _pos with delta encoding (e.g. with
>>> Parquet V2). So the conclusion was that since it comes for free, and might
>>> help for debugging, why not write it.
>>> >
>>> > Should we reopen this question? Any further feedback is welcome.
>>> >
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> > Gabor
>>> >
>>> > Leonid Lygin via dev <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont:
>>> 2026. aug. 26., Sze, 14:10):
>>> >>
>>> >> Definitely agree that including `_pos` raises questions.
>>> >>
>>> >> If "debugging" is to be understood as figuring out if the column files
>>> >> have gaps -- just checking the row counts is good enough for that. Is
>>> >> there a lot to be gained from figuring out where exactly the gap is
>>> >> occurring?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 1:57 PM Marco Kroll
>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Hi all,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I just saw the agenda [1] for tomorrow's (2026-08-25) sync and want
>>> to +1 the `_pos` column topic.
>>> >> > My understanding is that this column exists for two reasons:
>>> >> > 1. debugging
>>> >> > 2. detect if writers skipped deleted rows
>>> >> >
>>> >> > My take is that using the dense Null filled representation
>>> addresses both of these issues.
>>> >> > It implicitly encodes the position, very much like for deletion
>>> vectors and since all rows need to be present, comparing the row count of
>>> the base file with the column file can be used to verify that all rows were
>>> written.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The main thing to add to the doc would be that the row order must
>>> be identical to the base file.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Best
>>> >> > Marco
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [1]:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bd7JVzgajA8-DozzeEE24mID_GLuz6iwj0g4TlcVJcs/edit?tab=t.jvm7iiiulf8q#heading=h.rbisiun18esp
>>>
>>

Reply via email to