arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Removng alternate proposal from layout of types and offsets for unions in layout.md
Date Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:56:47 GMT
+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com> wrote:

> +1 from me. Columnar all the way.
>
> - Wes
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Zheng, Kai <kai.zheng@intel.com> wrote:
> > It's a good idea. There is no physical type corresponding to int48,
> using int48 will need extra decoding step to access the type and offset
> values. As it would change to use int8 type for the union type, this
> alternative proposal would also be invalidated and removed.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kai
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Micah Kornfield [mailto:emkornfield@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 6:23 AM
> > To: dev@arrow.apache.org
> > Subject: Removng alternate proposal from layout of types and offsets for
> unions in layout.md
> >
> > The current layout.md lists an alternate proposal for the layout of of
> these values:
> >
> > "Alternate proposal (TBD): the types and offset values may be packed
> into an
> > int48 with 2 bytes for the type and 4 bytes for the offset."
> >
> > Any objections to removing this proposal and moving forward with keeping
> them as two separate arrays?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Micah
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message