Thank you all for your comments and suggestions! Let me rewrite the document.
On 2025/03/17 22:28:35 Gengliang Wang wrote: > Hi Qi, > > Thanks for the proposal. I am generally +1 with the idea. Could you clarify > which option is preferred in “Q1. What are you trying to do?”? > Understanding this will help us align our discussion. > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 3:05 PM Reynold Xin <rx...@databricks.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Pretty much anything (say vs current timestamp operations in Spark). > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:51 PM serge rielau.com <se...@rielau.com> wrote: > > > >> What are you comparing performance against? > >> On Mar 17, 2025 at 11:54 AM -0700, Reynold Xin > >> <rx...@databricks.com.INVALID>, wrote: > >> > >> Any thoughts on how to deal with performance here? Initially we didn't do > >> nano level precision because of performance (would not be able to fit > >> everything into a 64 bit int). > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:34 AM Sakthi <sa...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (non-binding) > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:32 AM Zhou Jiang <zh...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 for the nanosecond support > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Mar 16, 2025, at 16:03, Dongjoon Hyun <do...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > +1 for supporting NanoSecond Timestamps. > >>>> > > >>>> > Thank you, Qi. > >>>> > > >>>> > Dongjoon. > >>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
