Thank you very much! I will try to document this on the website.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 6:06 PM Szehon Ho wrote:
> Yes, that is correct!
>
> Thanks
> Szehon
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 5:58 PM Pucheng Yang
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Szehon,
>>
>> Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!
>>
>> No, I don
Yes, that is correct!
Thanks
Szehon
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 5:58 PM Pucheng Yang
wrote:
> Hi Szehon,
>
> Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!
>
> No, I don't see anywhere that is failing. My question is more of a general
> question after browsing all the issues. So from what you said, it s
Hi Szehon,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!
No, I don't see anywhere that is failing. My question is more of a general
question after browsing all the issues. So from what you said, it seems
Iceberg in theory can support a very large number of columns (say 100K) w/o
hitting any hard limi
Hi Pucheng
There were some parts in the implementation where column field ids
collided with partition field ids.
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10020 introduced mechanisms for
affected code to get unique ids, and known places have been fixed.
(Particularly the Spark procedure rewrite_posit
Hey community,
I was following https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/9220 (Max number
of columns) and down the rabbit hole and I found there are a lot of
discussions about issues with tables having more than 1k columns. However,
after reviewing discussions, it is still a little confusing to me
