Dan, Here is the slack thread: https://apache-iceberg.slack.com/archives/C0BDHBAGARG/p1790113027624689
Yes, your assumption is correct. Thanks, Steven On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 8:28 AM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > Eduard, > > Could you link to the slack discussion (I wasn't able to find it)? > > Is it safe to assume that we can determine the average via the combination > of *total_bytes* and *value_count*? If that's true, it seems that > *total_bytes* would be more valuable for estimation purposes since you > have an explicit upper bound on size. > > -Dan > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 8:03 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey everyone, >> >> We had a few discussions around the *avg_value_size_in_bytes* field on >> the Iceberg slack and how it makes e.g. aggregations more difficult than >> necessary. We concluded that it's probably best to track the *total* >> instead of the *avg.* >> That being said, the field is being renamed to *total_bytes* in >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18308. >> >> Please speak up if you have any concerns about this change. >> >> Thanks, >> Eduard >> >
