gaborkaszab commented on issue #6042:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/6042#issuecomment-1325015704
> > What should the behavior be (should there be an entry for {B} and if so,
what should be shown for it? and for {C}?)?
>
> The update is a delete + append operation. So, `<table>.partitions` will
show entries for both {B} and {C} I think.
Hi @ajantha-bhat,
In the example described by @wypoon the output of querying the partitions
table would be a bit misleading in my opinion as {B} would still be there even
though we renamed that partition to {C} before. On the other hand I believe if
we rewrite the table to compact the data files with the delete files then {B}
would be gone from the output.
I wonder if there is any way to get around this problem. With position
deletes would it be possible to compare the record_count of a partition with
the new pos_delete_record_count and don't show the partition if they match? Is
there a use case where these 2 numbers won't be equal even though the whole
partition has been deleted using position deletes? This won't solve the issue
with equality deletes, though.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
