+1 (binding) On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:46 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 9:56 AM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, everyone - >> >> Following the discussion on v4 stats tightness [1], I'd like to call a >> vote on the spec change that replaces the per-column `tight_bounds` field >> with a single file-level `tight_stats` flag. >> >> Summary of the change: >> >> - Stats tightness is tracked once per file with a `tight_stats` flag >> on the tracked file instead of a `tight_bounds` field on every >> column's stats struct. >> - The tightness flag covers all statistics (bounds and null, NaN, and >> value counts), not just bounds, so metadata-only queries can trust >> the counts as well. >> - When the `tight_stats` flag is absent, readers must assume stats >> are not tight. >> - A deletion vector no longer implicitly makes stats wide; >> `tight_stats` is the authoritative indicator, and engines are allowed >> to retighten stats without rewriting data files. >> >> References: >> >> 1. Discussion thread: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/tv7bvqctdfh5qng1sx5rp8r4r00nsv60 >> 2. Design options doc: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13DbwnwKQXjvY3vRcFJo-qVAQWk-GB4zLzzYmFdPntZg/ >> >> 3. Spec PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18585 >> >> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 Adopt the tight_stats spec change >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, with reason >> >> Thanks, >> Anoop >> >
