ation changes.
>
> Thanks,
> Micah
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:50 AM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> In
>> "[VOTE] Clarifications and forward compatibility changes for Dictionary
>> Encoding (second iteration)" on Wed, 20
s,
> Micah
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:50 AM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> In
>> "[VOTE] Clarifications and forward compatibility changes for Dictionary
>> Encoding (second iteration)" on Wed, 20 Nov 2019 20:41:57 -08
12:50 AM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> In
> "[VOTE] Clarifications and forward compatibility changes for Dictionary
> Encoding (second iteration)" on Wed, 20 Nov 2019 20:41:57 -0800,
> Micah Kornfield wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > As discussed o
+1 (binding)
In
"[VOTE] Clarifications and forward compatibility changes for Dictionary
Encoding (second iteration)" on Wed, 20 Nov 2019 20:41:57 -0800,
Micah Kornfield wrote:
> Hello,
> As discussed on [1], I've proposed clarifications in a PR [2] that
> clari
github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4960
--
From:Ji Liu
Send Time:2019年11月26日(星期二) 14:04
To:dev ; Micah Kornfield
Cc:Wes McKinney
Subject:Re: [VOTE] Clarifications and forward compatibility changes for
Dictionary Encoding (second iteration
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks
Ji Liu
--
From:Fan Liya
Send Time:2019年11月26日(星期二) 14:01
To:dev ; Micah Kornfield
Cc:Wes McKinney
Subject:Re: [VOTE] Clarifications and forward compatibility changes for
Dictionary Encoding (second
I am sorry I did not follow the thread closely (will follow up later).
However, the proposal above looks good to me.
So I am +0.5 for this.
Best,
Liya Fan
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:12 PM Micah Kornfield
wrote:
> Could other members of the community chime in on this? In particular
> getting vie
Could other members of the community chime in on this? In particular
getting views from other language maintainers would be good.
Thanks,
Micah
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:23 PM Micah Kornfield
wrote:
> Forgot to say, My vote is +1 (binding).
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:09 PM Wes McKinney
Forgot to say, My vote is +1 (binding).
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:09 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> +1 (binding). Thanks Micah
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:42 PM Micah Kornfield
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > As discussed on [1], I've proposed clarifications in a PR [2] that
> > clarifies:
> >
> > 1
+1 (binding). Thanks Micah
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:42 PM Micah Kornfield wrote:
>
> Hello,
> As discussed on [1], I've proposed clarifications in a PR [2] that
> clarifies:
>
> 1. It is not required that all dictionary batches occur at the beginning
> of the IPC stream format (if a the first
Hello,
As discussed on [1], I've proposed clarifications in a PR [2] that
clarifies:
1. It is not required that all dictionary batches occur at the beginning
of the IPC stream format (if a the first record batch has an all null
dictionary encoded column, the null column's dictionary might not be
I wrote in on the original DISCUSS thread. I believe Antoine is
unavailable this week, but hopefully we can drive the discussion to a
consensus point next week so we can vote
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 12:01 AM Micah Kornfield wrote:
>
> I think at least the wording was confusing because you raised
I think at least the wording was confusing because you raised questions on
the PR and Antoine commented here.
I agree with your analysis that it probably would not be hard to support.
But don't feel too strongly either way on this particular point, aside from
coming to a resolution. If I had to
Can we discuss the delta dictionary issue a bit more? I admit I don't
share that same concerns.
>From the perspective of a file and stream producer, the code paths
should be nearly identical. The differences with the file format are:
* Magic numbers to detect that it is the "file format"
* Accumu
Hi Antoine,
There is a defined order for dictionaries in metadata. What isn't well
defined is relative ordering between record batches and Delta dictionaries.
However, this point seems confusing. I can't think of a real-world use
case we're it would be valuable enough to include, so I will remov
Le 24/10/2019 à 04:39, Micah Kornfield a écrit :
>
> 3. Clarifies that the file format, can only contain 1 "NON-delta"
> dictionary batch and multiple "delta" dictionary batches.
This is a bit weird. If the file format can carry delta dictionaries,
it means order is significant, so it may as
Hello,
As discussed on [1], I've proposed clarifications in a PR [2] that
clarifies:
1. It is not required that all dictionary batches occur at the beginning
of the IPC stream format (if a the first record batch has an all null
dictionary encoded column, the null column's dictionary might not be
17 matches
Mail list logo
