Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

Thanks everyone. It seems like there is a consensus, and I'll go ahead and mark the field as deprecated for now to avoid any future confusion. Kind regards, Fokko Op di 25 feb 2025 om 00:54 schreef Ajantha Bhat : > +1 to deprecate it again and remove it later on. > > I did some digging and found

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

+1 to deprecate it again and remove it later on. I did some digging and found out that Dremio was interested in this field for secondary indexes. https://lists.apache.org/thread/z948wfssgvrpf9b3g6660gh5cxb2d3sn But we didn't make progress on that. - Ajantha On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 5:03 AM Scott

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

Speaking for Dremio, I checked and we're not using distinct_counts anywhere, we interact with manifests exclusively through the Iceberg Java API which as mentioned doesn't support this field.I'm in favor of removing it, I didn't even know it existed as I tend to look at the Java DataFile/Conten

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

I can provide some context here. The field is very old and when we realized that it was not only unused but also difficult to produce and use in practice (can't be combined) we deprecated the field. However, some folks from Dremio wanted to bring it back because they said they could store values th

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

Oh, sorry for the mistake. My vote should be non-binding. On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, at 14:23, Xuanwo wrote: > Here is my +1 binding. > > The current status of `distinct_count` is quite confusing, which has also led > to additional discussions in `iceberg-rust` about whether we need to add it > and

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

Fokko, what is the next step to merging one of the two PRs? Jacob Marble 🔥🐅 On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 8:01 AM Jacob Marble wrote: > Xuanwo, do you favor deprecating or removing `distinct_count`? > > Due to lack of any real implementation, I myself favor removal (PR 12183). > > Jacob Marble > 🔥🐅

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

Xuanwo, do you favor deprecating or removing `distinct_count`? Due to lack of any real implementation, I myself favor removal (PR 12183). Jacob Marble 🔥🐅 On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:25 PM Xuanwo wrote: > Here is my +1 binding. > > The current status of `distinct_count` is quite confusing, whic

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

Here is my +1 binding. The current status of `distinct_count` is quite confusing, which has also led to additional discussions in `iceberg-rust` about whether we need to add it and how to maintain it. Removing it seems reasonable to me, as there are no known use cases for `distinct_count` in a

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

My mistake, I suggested sending out an email with a quick vote on the PR. I like the suggestion to use this thread for discussion since the number of options is limited. I'm in favor of deprecating the field, to avoid that we re-use the field-id in the future. Kind regards, Fokko Op di 11 feb 20

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

Hi Jacob, Thanks for initiating the vote. Typically, we would first have a DISCUSSION thread to reach a consensus on the preferred option and then follow it up with a VOTE thread for confirmation. Maybe we can take this as a DISCUSSION thread? Best, Manu On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 7:20 AM Jacob M

[VOTE] Deprecate or remove distinct_count

This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. I propose that distinct_counts be either deprecated (#12182 ) or removed (#12183 ) from the spec. According to #767