> > 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?
It adds additional effort/complexity for engines to consider each unit (perhaps minimal)? I do think it's reasonable to parameterize `TimeUnit` for consistency and future proofing but for now we should say it only supports Nanoseconds (unless someone is signing up to support the other units in the implementation). I think the point was raised previously that hard-coded names were preferred but I don't recall if that was when we were still calling this DayTime? Cheers, Micah On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 9:58 AM Matt Topol <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > > > > > >
