-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 268
feat: Infer partition values from bounds #1079
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0eb32af
feat: Infer partition values statistics
jonathanc-n 871e1cf
clippy
jonathanc-n 434c2f5
Merge branch 'main' into add-to-partitioned
jonathanc-n 68176b5
Merge branch 'main' into add-to-partitioned
jonathanc-n 6df1942
Merge branch 'main' into add-to-partitioned
jonathanc-n 27fc18e
Merge branch 'main' into add-to-partitioned
jonathanc-n f6dd3f6
change function name
jonathanc-n 0efd2e6
Merge branch 'add-to-partitioned' of https://github.com/jonathanc-n/i…
jonathanc-n a060a1f
fmt
jonathanc-n 7c59336
fix
jonathanc-n e634857
Merge branch 'main' into add-to-partitioned
jonathanc-n File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CMIIW, it looks like the possible lower upper can be different, and their partitions are the same. So we need to check
transform(lower) != transform(upper)
? iceberg-python has the same logic, should we fix it? cc @kevinjqliu @FokkoThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think so,
transform(lower) == transform(upper)
doesn't mean the transformed result of each row are all same.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is interesting. The check here restricts the appended data file to have the same value for partition column. But in spec, the data file only needs to guarantee that the partition value of partition column within single data file is same. e.g. for
year(ts)
,2015-10-13
,2015-11-13
is ok to exist in single data file I think. But under this restriction, we could not append data file containing these two row, right?I'm not sure whether worth it, I think there are two ways to avoid this restriction:
transform(lower) == transform(upper)
means the transformed result of each row are all same?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that if the transform preserves order, we can relax the check.