+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:49 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:46 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 9:56 AM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, everyone - >>> >>> Following the discussion on v4 stats tightness [1], I'd like to call a >>> vote on the spec change that replaces the per-column `tight_bounds` field >>> with a single file-level `tight_stats` flag. >>> >>> Summary of the change: >>> >>> - Stats tightness is tracked once per file with a `tight_stats` flag >>> on the tracked file instead of a `tight_bounds` field on every >>> column's stats struct. >>> - The tightness flag covers all statistics (bounds and null, NaN, >>> and value counts), not just bounds, so metadata-only queries can >>> trust the counts as well. >>> - When the `tight_stats` flag is absent, readers must assume stats >>> are not tight. >>> - A deletion vector no longer implicitly makes stats wide; >>> `tight_stats` is the authoritative indicator, and engines are >>> allowed to retighten stats without rewriting data files. >>> >>> References: >>> >>> 1. Discussion thread: >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/tv7bvqctdfh5qng1sx5rp8r4r00nsv60 >>> 2. Design options doc: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13DbwnwKQXjvY3vRcFJo-qVAQWk-GB4zLzzYmFdPntZg/ >>> >>> 3. Spec PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18585 >>> >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >>> >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the tight_stats spec change >>> [ ] +0 >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, with reason >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anoop >>> >>
