-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 432
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PARQUET-2474: Add FIXED_SIZE_LIST logical type #241
Open
rok
wants to merge
6
commits into
apache:master
Choose a base branch
from
rok:PARQUET-2474
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
41fca3f
Add FIXED_SIZE_LIST
rok 4f12dd3
Review feedback
rok cb93b27
Update LogicalTypes.md
rok 83481f6
Review feedback, split into FixedSizeListType and VariableSizeListType
rok 471efc3
Removing VariableSizeListType
rok 77651fd
Review feedback
rok File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting choice to annotate a binary primitive field instead of a repeated group field. I see pros and cons with this design:
PROs:
CONs:
I think the PROs outweigh the CONs here, so I think this is fine with me. I just want everyone to be aware about the ramifications.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @tustvold, as you also brought up this point. I agree that having a new property of a repeated group would be more flexible, but it also comes at some cost, as outlined above. Also, it couldn't be just a logical type in this case, as a logical type cannot change the handling of R-Levels.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm now feeling that maybe wrapping a
Vector[PrimitiveType, Size]
is also ok, but currently representing this is a bitweird in the model. May I ask would aVector
having data below?And would vector contains a "nested" vector?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the main reason I'd like to propose this type, see apache/arrow#34510.
Lack of composability is a downside, but I think it's still worth the compromise. I've not seen need for fixed_size_list(struct) in tensor computing, but that's probably just because it's not available.
In tensor computation this is usually addressed with bitmasks, which can be stored as a
fixed_size_list(binary, num_values)
.Perhaps we should call this type
FixedSizeArray
to disambiguate?I think case 2. is ok, but case 1. should be expressed with a separate null bitmask that's not part of the type.