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 Fri, 03 May 2019 23:35:15 GMT
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