arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Add new DurationInterval Type to Arrow Format
Date Sun, 05 May 2019 22:56:37 GMT
OK -- Micah -- I think it's fine to change from DurationInterval ->
Duration if no one else chimes in here by tomorrow or so

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 5:02 AM Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org> wrote:
>
> yeah, I think Duration is better than DurationInterval
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 3:35 AM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've just reviewed the format and C++ changes in
> > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3644 which look good to me modulo
> > minor comments.
> >
> > Can someone take a look at the Java changes soon so we move this
> > toward completion?
> >
> > One question came up of whether "DurationInterval" is the name we
> > want. It might be more clear to call it simply "Duration"
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:57 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry for the type OK, I think https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3644
> > is
> > > now ready to review.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:56 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, I think https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3644 is no ready to
> > > > review.
> > > >
> > > > It includes Java implementation of DurationInterval and C++
> > > > implementations of DurationInterval and the original interval types. 
I
> > > > added documentation to Schema.fbs regarding the original interval types
> > > > (TL;DR; YEAR_MONTH is expected to be supported by all implementations
> > > > DAY_TIME is not, which I believe as based on previous ML
> > conversations).
> > > > Please let me know if there are issues with this language and I can
> > remove
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, April 8, 2019, Krisztián Szűcs <szucs.krisztian@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The vote carries with 4 binding +1 votes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Micah, what are the next steps?
> > > >> Are You going to finalize the PR?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:13 AM Uwe L. Korn <uwelk@xhochy.com>
wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > +1 (binding)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2019, at 2:44 AM, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> > > >> > > +1 (binding)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > In <CAKa9qDm+aO-9q_6x3XCXCJ5wOuqZb3spuLtGOY4mi3v5AB=
> > > >> pkw@mail.gmail.com>
> > > >> > >   "[VOTE] Add new DurationInterval Type to Arrow Format"
on Wed,
> > 3 Apr
> > > >> > > 2019 07:59:56 -0700,
> > > >> > >   Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I'd like to propose a change to the Arrow format to
support a
> > new
> > > >> > duration
> > > >> > > > type. Details below. Threads on mailing list around
discussion.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > // An absolute length of time unrelated to any calendar
> > artifacts.
> > > >> > For the
> > > >> > > > purposes
> > > >> > > > /// of Arrow Implementations, adding this value to
a Timestamp
> > > >> ("t1")
> > > >> > > > naively (i.e. simply summing
> > > >> > > > /// the two number) is acceptable even though in some
cases the
> > > >> > resulting
> > > >> > > > Timestamp (t2) would
> > > >> > > > /// not account for leap-seconds during the elapsed
time between
> > > >> "t1"
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > "t2".  Similarly, representing
> > > >> > > > /// the difference between two Unix timestamp is acceptable,
but
> > > >> would
> > > >> > > > yield a value that is possibly a few seconds
> > > >> > > > /// off from the true elapsed time.
> > > >> > > > ///
> > > >> > > > ///  The resolution defaults to
> > > >> > > > /// millisecond, but can be any of the other supported
TimeUnit
> > > >> values
> > > >> > as
> > > >> > > > /// with Timestamp and Time types.  This type is always
> > represented
> > > >> as
> > > >> > > > /// an 8-byte integer.
> > > >> > > > table DurationInterval {
> > > >> > > >    unit: TimeUnit = MILLISECOND;
> > > >> > > > }
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Please vote whether to accept the changes. The vote
will be open
> > > >> > > > for at least 72 hours.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [ ] +1 Accept these changes to the Flight protocol
> > > >> > > > [ ] +0
> > > >> > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept the changes because...
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> >

Mime
View raw message