Github user tigerquoll commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21308 I am assuming this API was intended to support the "drop partition" use-case. I'm arguing that adding and deleting partitions deal with a concept that is a slightly higher concept than just a bunch of records that match a filter. Backing up this fact is the concept that partitions are defined independently of any records they may or may not contain - You can add an empty partition and the underlying state of the system will change. Also - as an end user I would be very upset if I meant to drop a partition, but because of a transcription error accidentally started a delete process with a filter that didn't directly match a partition definition that takes a million times as long to execute. Partitions are an implementation optimisation that has leaked into higher level APIs because they are an extremely useful and performant implementation optimisation. I am wondering if we should represent them in this API as something slightly more higher level then just a filter definition.
--- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org