+1 agree it should be solved separately.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 21:24 Wes McKinney wrote:
> Patch here: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1225
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Li Jin wrote:
> > +1 for the change too.
>
Patch here: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1225
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Li Jin wrote:
> +1 for the change too.
+1 for the change too.
+1 for the change
I'm all for making the metadata small and to solve it in a different if the
field is really needed. Users who do not need the feature shouldn't have to
pay for it.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Wes McKinney wrote:
> The JIRA for this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse
The JIRA for this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-1409.
I will wait a little while for others to weigh in, but after that I
can write a patch to remove the attribute and bump the metadata format
version number.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Bryan Cutler wrote:
> +1, sounds ok to
+1, sounds ok to me to try to solve this problem a different way in the
future once needed.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> Seems reasonable. I was among those that originally argued for this field
> but given that we haven't used it yet, I think your proposal makes sen
Seems reasonable. I was among those that originally argued for this field
but given that we haven't used it yet, I think your proposal makes sense.
+1
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Wes McKinney wrote:
> When we originally drafted the metadata for record batches, we
> included a "page id" in
