ned between different engines and implementations?
>>> In the same opportunity, I would suggest adding "owner" as well, which
>>> is automatically added by Spark.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 2:16 AM Taeyun Kim
>>> wrote:
>>
; I’ve already explained my reasoning in earlier messages, including the
>>> example about making table and column descriptions more accessible for
>>> LLM‑generated SQL.
>>> From my perspective, table‑level comments, like column‑level comments,
>>> should also be standardi
well, which is
> automatically added by Spark.
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 2:16 AM Taeyun Kim
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see, thank you for your response.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Taeyun
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: &qu
quot;Ryan Blue"
> To: ;
> Cc:
> Sent: 2025-08-05 (화) 07:45:43 (UTC+09:00)
> Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts on Adding a `doc` Property for Schema Objects
>
>
> If there isn't a significant difference between table-level
> description and schema-level description, the
Hi,
I see, thank you for your response.
Best regards,
Taeyun
-Original Message-
From: "Ryan Blue"
To: ;
Cc:
Sent: 2025-08-05 (화) 07:45:43 (UTC+09:00)
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts on Adding a `doc` Property for Schema Objects
If there isn't a significant difference betw
-
> From: "Ryan Blue"
> To: ;
> Cc:
> Sent: 2025-07-26 (토) 08:05:55 (UTC+09:00)
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on Adding a `doc` Property for Schema Objects
>
>
> Why would you need to version table descriptions? Are there cases where
> they are changing
) 08:05:55 (UTC+09:00)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Adding a `doc` Property for Schema Objects
Why would you need to version table descriptions? Are there cases where they
are changing rapidly and inaccurate due to schema changes?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 7:48 PM Taeyun Kim wrote:
Thank you for
on a
> convention alone may no longer be sufficient. It might be worth considering
> a standardized, schema-level field for them.
>
> Thank you.
> Taeyun
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Ryan Blue"
> To: ;
> Cc:
> Sent: 2025-07-25 (금) 08:48:48 (UTC+09:0
t: 2025-07-25 (금) 11:20:08 (UTC+09:00)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Adding a `doc` Property for Schema Objects
I'd rather not complicate the schema definitions in the table metadata. You may
append `schema-id` to the key of table property to manage different schema
versions.
Storing verbo
--
> From: "Ryan Blue"
> To: ;
> Cc:
> Sent: 2025-07-25 (금) 08:48:48 (UTC+09:00)
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on Adding a `doc` Property for Schema Objects
>
>
> Iceberg does allow you to store table descriptions. The convention is to
> use a table property, &quo
worth considering a
standardized, schema-level field for them.
Thank you.
Taeyun
-Original Message-
From: "Ryan Blue"
To: ;
Cc:
Sent: 2025-07-25 (금) 08:48:48 (UTC+09:00)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Adding a `doc` Property for Schema Objects
Iceberg does allow you to s
Iceberg does allow you to store table descriptions. The convention is to
use a table property, "comment". While this isn't a schema-level
doc/comment, I don't know of anything that makes a distinction between
schema description and table description, so I think it should work for
your use.
On Tue,
12 matches
Mail list logo
