>
> Quick question: do you actually have an issue with truncate on binary
> columns ?
No issue - as a consumer of Iceberg metadata I'd just like to clarify if we
should expect to see partition fields with truncated binary. I was
initially coding against the spec and planned to reject a truncate
Hi Brian,
Welcome to this list :)
Quick question: do you actually have an issue with truncate on binary
columns ? The Truncate transform (in Iceberg API) supports BINARY
using TruncateByteBuffer, so it would make sense to clearly state this
in the spec.
Regards
JB
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:45 AM
Another aspect that just occurred to me, there could be concern on just
directly updating the spec as is since it's ultimately the source of truth
(not the reference implementation). If there's concern that such a change
would make other implementations technically non-compliant because they
don't
Thanks for bringing this up Brian! In my view, the decision tree for this
would look something like:
1.) Is there anything incorrect with supporting truncate on the basis of
width for binary columns? I can't really think of any reason, it seems
legitimate to me (handling characters outside of utf-
Hello, this is my first time writing on this list so I'll introduce
myself. I'm Brian Hulette, I've been involved with a couple of Apache
projects in the past (Arrow and Beam), and now I'm working on BigQuery's
support for Iceberg.
My colleague raised an issue [1] a while ago about a discrepancy
