Note that LZ4 compression destroys the whole "I can read only the parts of the footer I'm interested in", so I wouldn't say that LZ4 can be the solution to everything.
Cheers, Jan On Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 12:33 Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 12:12:02 -0700 > Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote: > > I had an idea about this topic. > > What if we say the offset is always a multiple of 16? (I'm saying 16, but > > it works with 8 or 32 or any other power of 2). > > Then we store in the footer the offset divided by 16. > > That means you need to pad each row group by up to 16 bytes. > > But now the max size of the file is 32GB. > > > > Personally, I still don't like having arbitrary limits but 32GB seems a > lot > > less like a restricting limit than 2GB. > > If we get crazy, we add this to the footer as metadata and the writer > gets > > to pick whether you multiply offsets by 32, 64 or 128 if ten years from > now > > we start having much bigger files. > > The size of the padding becomes negligible over the size of the file. > > > > Thoughts? > > That's an interesting suggestion. I would be fine with it personally, > provided the multiplier is either large enough (say, 64) or embedded in > the footer. > > That said, I would first wait for the outcome of the experiment with > LZ4 compression. If it negates the additional cost of 64-bit offsets, > then we should not bother with this multiplier mechanism. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 6:19 AM Alkis Evlogimenos > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We've analyzed a large footer from our production environment to > understand > > > byte distribution across its fields. The detailed analysis is > available in > > > the proposal document here: > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZS_DM_J8n6NKff3vDQPD1Y4xyDdRceYFANUE0bOfb0/edit?tab=t.o2lsuuyi8rw6#heading=h.26i914tjp4fk > > > . > > > > > > To illustrate the impact of 64-bit fields, we conducted an experiment > where > > > all proposed 32-bit fields in the Flatbuf footer were changed to > 64-bit. > > > This resulted in a *40% increase* in footer size. > > > > > > That said, LZ4 manages to compress this away. We will do some more > testing > > > with 64 bit offsets/numvals/sizes and revert back. If it all goes well > we > > > can resolve this by going 64 bit. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:49 PM Jan Finis < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Alkis, > > > > > > > > one more very simple argument why you want these offsets to be i64: > > > > What if you want to store a single value larger than 4GB? I know this > > > > sounds absurd at first, but some use cases might want to store data > that > > > > can sometimes be very large (e.g. blob data, or insanely complex > geo > > > data). > > > > And it would be a shame if that would mean that they cannot use > Parquet > > > at > > > > all. > > > > > > > > Thus, my opinion here is that we can limit to i32 all fields that > the > > > file > > > > writer has under control, e.g., the number of rows within a row > group, > > > but > > > > we shouldn't limit any values that a file writer doesn't have under > > > > control, as they fully depend on the input data. > > > > > > > > Note though that this means that the number of values in a column > chunk > > > > could also exceed i32, if a user has nested data with more than 4 > billion > > > > entries. With such data, the file writer again couldn't do anything > to > > > > avoid writing a row group with more > > > > than i32 values, as a single row may not span multiple row groups. > That > > > > being said, I think that nested data with more than 4 billion > entries is > > > > less likely than a single large blob of 4 billion bytes. > > > > > > > > I know that smaller row groups is what most / all engines prefer, > but we > > > > have to make sure the format also works for edge cases. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Am Mi., 15. Okt. 2025 um 05:05 Uhr schrieb Adam Reeve > <[email protected] > > > >: > > > > > > > > > Hi Alkis > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for all your work on this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > I'd be in favour of keeping the offsets as i64 and not reducing > the > > > > maximum > > > > > row group size, even if this results in slightly larger footers. > I've > > > > heard > > > > > from some of our users within G-Research that they do have files > with > > > row > > > > > groups > 2 GiB. This is often when they use lower-level APIs to > write > > > > > Parquet that don't automatically split data into row groups, and > they > > > > > either write a single row group for simplicity or have some logical > > > > > partitioning of data into row groups. They might also have wide > tables > > > > with > > > > > many columns, or wide array/tensor valued columns that lead to > large > > > row > > > > > groups. > > > > > > > > > > In many workflows we don't read Parquet with a query engine that > > > supports > > > > > filters and skipping row groups, but just read all rows, or > directly > > > > > specify the row groups to read if there is some known logical > > > > partitioning > > > > > into row groups. I'm sure we could work around a 2 or 4 GiB row > group > > > > size > > > > > limitation if we had to, but it's a new constraint that reduces the > > > > > flexibility of the format and makes more work for users who now > need to > > > > > ensure they don't hit this limit. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any measurements of how much of a difference 4 byte > offsets > > > > > make to footer sizes in your data, with and without the optional > LZ4 > > > > > compression? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 21:02, Alkis Evlogimenos > > > > > < > alkis.evlogimenos-z4fuwbjybqlnpcjqcok8iauzikbjl...@public.gmane.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > From the comments on the [EXTERNAL] Parquet metadata > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZS_DM_J8n6NKff3vDQPD1Y4xyDdRceYFANUE0bOfb0/edit?tab=t.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > document, > > > > > > it appears there's a general consensus on most aspects, with > the > > > > > exception > > > > > > of the relative 32-bit offsets for column chunks. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm starting this thread to discuss this topic further and work > > > > towards a > > > > > > resolution. Adam Reeve suggested raising the limitation to 2^32, > and > > > he > > > > > > confirmed that Java does not have any issues with this. I am > open to > > > > this > > > > > > change as it increases the limit without introducing any > drawbacks. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, some still feel that a 2^32-byte limit for a row group > is > > > too > > > > > > restrictive. I'd like to understand these specific use cases > better. > > > > From > > > > > > my perspective, for most engines, the row group is the primary > unit > > > of > > > > > > skipping, making very large row groups less desirable. In our > fleet's > > > > > > workloads, it's rare to see row groups larger than 100MB, as > anything > > > > > > larger tends to make statistics-based skipping ineffective. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
