Quick question: is there a good reason not to just have a logical Duration that annotates an int64 and let the unit be parameterized instead of hard coding it to be nanoseconds?
That would at least allow the full 10k years for other units, and allow better compression if nanosecond precision isn't needed. Thoughts? On Wed, Jul 9, 2025, 11:02 AM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> wrote: > OK to summarize what I think the current proposal for interval type is two > new logical types: > > 1. YearMonth interval annotates an int32. > 2. DurationNanos annotates an int64. > > There is now a separate thread, on int128 vs FLBA. Given the current > proposal I don't think this blocks anything. The main difficulty in adding > a newly annotated physical type would be API design allowing a potentially > wider type in the future. I think this is tractable but any blockers could > be discovered in the implementation phase? > > > +1 to FLBA and VLBA. What would BIT represent? Could you elaborate > > I think the intent would be boolean. > > On Wednesday, July 9, 2025, Alkis Evlogimenos > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 11:05 AM Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > But if we were designing a new Parquet format from scratch, I would > > > definitely advocate for a reduced set of 3 physical types: BIT, FLBA > > > and VLBA. > > > > > > > +1 to FLBA and VLBA. What would BIT represent? Could you elaborate? > > >
