First, sorry: I think I accidentally marked as done the comment in the doc
about x86 performance.

Those x86 numbers are critical, especially AVX512 in a recent intel part.
There's a notorious feature in the early ones where the cores would reduce
frequency after you used the opcodes as a way of managing die temperature (
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56852812/simd-instructions-lowering-cpu-frequency
); the later ones and AMD models are the ones to worry about.

FWIW in hadoop we are starting to see RISC-V PRs for CRC performance, which
boosts throughput reading data from hdfs or even locally if you haven't
turned crc checks off. I wouldn't worry about RISC-V for parquet FP *yet*,
but it's interesting to see that work appearing, especially in the context
of the EU's active development of a sovereign cloud (i.e. one the US govt
can't disable on an order from their president)
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101092993



On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 at 04:15, Prateek Gaur via dev <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi team,
>
> *ALP ---> ALP PeudoDecimal*
>
> As is visible from the numbers above and as stated in the paper too for
> real double values, i.e the values with high precision points, it is very
> difficult to get a good compression ratio.
>
> This combined with the fact that we want to keep the spec/implementation
> simpler, stating Antoine directly here
>
> `*2. Do not include the ALPrd fallback which is a homegrown dictionary*
>
> *encoding without dictionary reuse accross pages, and instead rely on
> awell-known Parquet encoding (such as BYTE_STREAM_SPLIT?)*`
>
> Also based on some discussion I had with Julien in person and the biweekly
> meeting with a number of you.
>
> We'll be going with ALPpd (pseudo decimal) as the first
> implementation relying on the query engine based on its own heuristics to
> decide on the right fallback to BYTE_STREAM_SPLIT of ZSTD.
>
> Best
> Prateek
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 5:09 PM Prateek Gaur <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Sheet with numbers
> > <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NmCg0WZKeZUc6vNXXD8M3GIyNqF_H3goj6mVbT8at7A/edit?gid=1351944517#gid=1351944517
> >
> > .
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 5:09 PM PRATEEK GAUR <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi team,
> >>
> >> There was a request from a few folks, Antoine Pitrou and Adam Reeve if I
> >> remember correctly, to perform the experiment on some of the papers that
> >> talked about BYTE_STREAM_SPLIT for completeness.
> >> I wanted to share the numbers for the same in this sheet. At this point
> >> we have numbers on a wide variety of data.
> >> (Will have to share the sheet from my snowflake account as our laptops
> >> have fair bit of restriction with respect to copy paste permissions :) )
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Prateek
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 2:25 PM PRATEEK GAUR <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Julien,
> >>>
> >>> Yes based on
> >>>
> >>>    - Numbers presented
> >>>    - Discussions over the doc and
> >>>    - Multiple discussions in the biweekly meeting
> >>>
> >>> We are in a stage where we agree this is the right encoding to add and
> >>> we can move to the DRAFT/POC stage from DISCUSS stage.
> >>> Will start working on the PR for the same.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for bringing this up.
> >>> Prateek
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:16 AM Julien Le Dem <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> @PRATEEK GAUR <[email protected]> : Would you agree that we are past
> >>>> the DISCUSS step and into the DRAFT/POC phase according to the
> proposals
> >>>> process <
> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/tree/master/proposals
> >>>> >?
> >>>> If yes, could you open a PR on this page to add this proposal to the
> >>>> list?
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/tree/master/proposals
> >>>> Thank you!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 2:38 PM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > I have filed a ticket[1] in arrow-rs to track prototyping ALP in the
> >>>> Rust
> >>>> > Parquet reader if anyone is interested
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Andrew
> >>>> >
> >>>> > [1]:  https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/issues/8748
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 1:33 PM Micah Kornfield <
> >>>> [email protected]>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > C++, Java and Rust support them for sure. I feel like we should
> >>>> > > > probably default to V2 at some point.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > I seem to recall, some of the vectorized java readers (Iceberg,
> >>>> Spark)
> >>>> > > might not support V2 data pages (but I might be confusing this
> with
> >>>> > > encodings).  But this is only a vague recollection.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:38 AM Andrew Lamb <
> [email protected]
> >>>> >
> >>>> > > wrote:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > > Someone has to add V2 data pages to
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/blob/production/content/en/docs/File%20Format/implementationstatus.md
> >>>> > > > > :)
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Your wish is my command:
> >>>> > https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/124
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > As the format grows in popularity and momentum builds to evolve,
> >>>> I feel
> >>>> > > the
> >>>> > > > content on the parquet.apache.org site could use refreshing /
> >>>> > updating.
> >>>> > > > So, while I had the site open, I made some other PRs to scratch
> >>>> various
> >>>> > > > itches
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > (I am absolutely 🎣 for someone to please review 🙏):
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > 1. Add Variant/Geometry/Geography types to implementation status
> >>>> > matrix:
> >>>> > > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/123
> >>>> > > > 2. Improve introduction / overview, add more links to spec and
> >>>> > > > implementation status:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/125
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Thanks,
> >>>> > > > Andrew
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 4:09 AM Antoine Pitrou <
> >>>> [email protected]>
> >>>> > > wrote:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > Hi Julien, hi all,
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 15:14:58 -0700
> >>>> > > > > Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > Another question from me:
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > Since the goal is to not use compression at all in this case
> >>>> (no
> >>>> > > ZSTD)
> >>>> > > > > > I'm assuming we would be using either:
> >>>> > > > > > - the Data Page V1 with UNCOMPRESSED in the
> >>>> ColumnMetadata.column
> >>>> > > > > > <
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/786142e26740487930ddc3ec5e39d780bd930907/src/main/thrift/parquet.thrift#L887
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > field.
> >>>> > > > > > - the Data Page V2 with false in the
> >>>> DataPageHeaderV2.is_compressed
> >>>> > > > > > <
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/786142e26740487930ddc3ec5e39d780bd930907/src/main/thrift/parquet.thrift#L746
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > field
> >>>> > > > > > The second helping decide if we can selectively compress
> some
> >>>> pages
> >>>> > > if
> >>>> > > > > they
> >>>> > > > > > are less compressed by the
> >>>> > > > > > A few years ago there was a question on the support of the
> >>>> > > DATA_PAGE_V2
> >>>> > > > > and
> >>>> > > > > > I was curious to hear a refresh on how that's generally
> >>>> supported
> >>>> > in
> >>>> > > > > > Parquet implementations. The is_compressed field was exactly
> >>>> > intended
> >>>> > > > to
> >>>> > > > > > avoid block compression when the encoding itself is good
> >>>> enough.
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > Someone has to add V2 data pages to
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/blob/production/content/en/docs/File%20Format/implementationstatus.md
> >>>> > > > > :)
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > C++, Java and Rust support them for sure. I feel like we
> should
> >>>> > > > > probably default to V2 at some point.
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > Also see https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/issues/3344
> for
> >>>> > Java.
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > Regards
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > Antoine.
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > Julien
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:57 AM Andrew Lamb
> >>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > Thanks again Prateek and co for pushing this along!
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 1. Design and write our own Parquet-ALP spec so that
> >>>> > > > implementations
> >>>> > > > > > > > know exactly how to encode and represent data
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > 100% agree with this (similar to what was done for
> >>>> > ParquetVariant)
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 2. I may be missing something, but the paper doesn't
> seem
> >>>> to
> >>>> > > > > mention
> >>>> > > > > > > non-finite values (such as +/-Inf and NaNs).
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > I think they are handled via the "Exception" mechanism.
> >>>> Vortex's
> >>>> > > ALP
> >>>> > > > > > > implementation (below) does appear to handle finite
> >>>> numbers[2]
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 3. It seems there is a single implementation, which is
> >>>> the one
> >>>> > > > > published
> >>>> > > > > > > > together with the paper. It is not obvious that it will
> be
> >>>> > > > > > > > maintained in the future, and reusing it is probably not
> >>>> an
> >>>> > > option
> >>>> > > > > for
> >>>> > > > > > > > non-C++ Parquet implementations
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > My understanding from the call was that Prateek and team
> >>>> > > > re-implemented
> >>>> > > > > > > ALP  (did not use the implementation from CWI[3]) but that
> >>>> would
> >>>> > be
> >>>> > > > > good to
> >>>> > > > > > > confirm.
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > There is also a Rust implementation of ALP[1] that is part
> >>>> of the
> >>>> > > > > Vortex
> >>>> > > > > > > file format implementation. I have not reviewed it to see
> >>>> if it
> >>>> > > > > deviates
> >>>> > > > > > > from the algorithm presented in the paper.
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > Andrew
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > [1]:
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/vortex-data/vortex/blob/534821969201b91985a8735b23fc0c415a425a56/encodings/alp/src/lib.rs
> >>>> > > > > > > [2]:
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/vortex-data/vortex/blob/534821969201b91985a8735b23fc0c415a425a56/encodings/alp/src/alp/compress.rs#L266-L281
> >>>> > > > > > > [3]: https://github.com/cwida/ALP
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 4:47 AM Antoine Pitrou
> >>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > Hello,
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > Thanks for doing this and I agree the numbers look
> >>>> impressive.
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > I would ask if possible for more data points:
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 1. More datasets: you could for example look at the
> >>>> datasets
> >>>> > that
> >>>> > > > > were
> >>>> > > > > > > > used to originally evalute BYTE_STREAM_SPLIT (see
> >>>> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PARQUET-1622 and
> >>>> > > > specifically
> >>>> > > > > > > > the Google Doc linked there)
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 2. Comparison to BYTE_STREAM_SPLIT + LZ4 and
> >>>> BYTE_STREAM_SPLIT
> >>>> > +
> >>>> > > > ZSTD
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 3. Optionally, some perf numbers on x86 too, but I
> expect
> >>>> that
> >>>> > > ALP
> >>>> > > > > will
> >>>> > > > > > > > remain very good there as well
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > I also have the following reservations towards ALP:
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 1. There is no published official spec AFAICT, just a
> >>>> research
> >>>> > > > paper.
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 2. I may be missing something, but the paper doesn't
> seem
> >>>> to
> >>>> > > > mention
> >>>> > > > > > > > non-finite values (such as +/-Inf and NaNs).
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 3. It seems there is a single implementation, which is
> >>>> the one
> >>>> > > > > published
> >>>> > > > > > > > together with the paper. It is not obvious that it will
> be
> >>>> > > > > > > > maintained in the future, and reusing it is probably not
> >>>> an
> >>>> > > option
> >>>> > > > > for
> >>>> > > > > > > > non-C++ Parquet implementations
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 4. The encoding itself is complex, since it involves a
> >>>> fallback
> >>>> > > on
> >>>> > > > > > > > another encoding if the primary encoding (which
> >>>> constitutes the
> >>>> > > > real
> >>>> > > > > > > > innovation) doesn't work out on a piece of data.
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > Based on this, I would say that if we think ALP is
> >>>> attractive
> >>>> > for
> >>>> > > > us,
> >>>> > > > > > > > we may want to incorporate our own version of ALP with
> the
> >>>> > > > following
> >>>> > > > > > > > changes:
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 1. Design and write our own Parquet-ALP spec so that
> >>>> > > > implementations
> >>>> > > > > > > > know exactly how to encode and represent data
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 2. Do not include the ALPrd fallback which is a
> homegrown
> >>>> > > > dictionary
> >>>> > > > > > > > encoding without dictionary reuse accross pages, and
> >>>> instead
> >>>> > rely
> >>>> > > > on
> >>>> > > > > a
> >>>> > > > > > > > well-known Parquet encoding (such as BYTE_STREAM_SPLIT?)
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > 3. Replace the FOR encoding inside ALP, which aims at
> >>>> > compressing
> >>>> > > > > > > > integers efficiently, with our own DELTA_BINARY_PACKED
> >>>> (which
> >>>> > has
> >>>> > > > the
> >>>> > > > > > > > same qualities and is already available in Parquet
> >>>> > > implementations)
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > Regards
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > Antoine.
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:47:33 -0700
> >>>> > > > > > > > PRATEEK GAUR <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> > > > > > > > > Hi team,
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > We spent some time evaluating ALP compression and
> >>>> > decompression
> >>>> > > > > > > compared
> >>>> > > > > > > > to
> >>>> > > > > > > > > other encoding alternatives like CHIMP/GORILLA and
> >>>> > compression
> >>>> > > > > > > techniques
> >>>> > > > > > > > > like SNAPPY/LZ4/ZSTD. We presented these numbers to
> the
> >>>> > > community
> >>>> > > > > > > members
> >>>> > > > > > > > > on October 15th in the biweekly parquet meeting. ( I
> >>>> can't
> >>>> > seem
> >>>> > > > > to
> >>>> > > > > > > access
> >>>> > > > > > > > > the recording, so please let me know what access rules
> >>>> I need
> >>>> > > to
> >>>> > > > > get to
> >>>> > > > > > > > be
> >>>> > > > > > > > > able to view it )
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > We did this evaluation over some datasets pointed by
> >>>> the ALP
> >>>> > > > paper
> >>>> > > > > and
> >>>> > > > > > > > some
> >>>> > > > > > > > > pointed by the parquet community.
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > The results are available in the following document
> >>>> > > > > > > > > <
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PlyUSfqCqPVwNt8XA-CfRqsbc0NKRG0Kk1FigEm3JOg/edit?tab=t.0
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > :
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PlyUSfqCqPVwNt8XA-CfRqsbc0NKRG0Kk1FigEm3JOg
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > Based on the numbers we see
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > >    -  ALP is comparable to ZSTD(level=1) in terms of
> >>>> > > compression
> >>>> > > > > ratio
> >>>> > > > > > > > and
> >>>> > > > > > > > >    much better compared to other schemes. (numbers in
> >>>> the
> >>>> > sheet
> >>>> > > > > are
> >>>> > > > > > > bytes
> >>>> > > > > > > > >    needed to encode each value )
> >>>> > > > > > > > >    - ALP going quite well in terms of decompression
> >>>> speed
> >>>> > > > (numbers
> >>>> > > > > in
> >>>> > > > > > > the
> >>>> > > > > > > > >    sheet are bytes decompressed per second)
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > As next steps we will
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > >    - Get the numbers for compression on top of byte
> >>>> stream
> >>>> > > split.
> >>>> > > > > > > > >    - Evaluate the algorithm over a few more datasets.
> >>>> > > > > > > > >    - Have an implementation in the arrow-parquet repo.
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > Looking forward to feedback from the community.
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > Best
> >>>> > > > > > > > > Prateek and Dhirhan
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
>

Reply via email to