>
> It's ideal if your GPG key is in the web of trust (i.e. you can get it
> signed by another PMC member), but is not 100% essential.

That won't be an option for me this week (it seems like I would need to
meet one face-to-face).  I'll try to get the GPG checked in and the rest of
the pre-requisites done tomorrow (Monday) to hopefully start the release on
Tuesday (hopefully we can solve the last blocker/integration tests by then).

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:12 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's ideal if your GPG key is in the web of trust (i.e. you can get it
> signed by another PMC member), but is not 100% essential.
>
> Speaking of the release, there are at least 2 code changes I still
> want to get in
>
> ARROW-5717
> ARROW-6353
>
> I just pushed updates to ARROW-5717, will merge once the build is green.
>
> There are a couple of Rust patches still marked for 0.15. The rest
> seems to be documentation and a couple of integration test failures we
> should see about fixing in time.
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:26 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Krisztián and Wes,
> > I've gone ahead and started registering myself on all the packaging
> sites.
> >
> > Is there any review process when adding my GPG key to the SVN file? [1]
> > doesn't seem to mention explicitly.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Micah
> >
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/dev/version-control.html#https-svn
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:01 PM Krisztián Szűcs <
> szucs.kriszt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:52 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:13 AM Micah Kornfield <
> emkornfi...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The process should be well documented at this point but there are a
> > >> >> number of steps.
> > >> >
> > >> > Is [1] the up-to-date documentation for the release?   Are there
> > >> instructions for the adding the code signing Key to SVN?
> > >> >
> > >> > I will make a go of it.  i will try to mitigate any internet issues
> by
> > >> doing the process for a cloud instance (I assume that isn't a
> problem?).
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Setting up a new cloud environment suitable for producing an RC may be
> > >> time consuming, but you are welcome to try. Krisztian -- are you
> > >> available next week to help Micah and potentially take over producing
> > >> the RC if there are issues?
> > >>
> > > Sure, I'll be available next week. We can also grant access to
> > > https://github.com/ursa-labs/crossbow because configuring all
> > > the CI backends can be time consuming.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Micah
> > >> >
> > >> > [1]
> > >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Release+Management+Guide
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 8:29 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The process should be well documented at this point but there are a
> > >> >> number of steps. Note that you need to add your code signing key to
> > >> >> the KEYS file in SVN (that's not very hard to do). I think it's
> fine
> > >> >> to hand off the process to others after the VOTE but it would be
> > >> >> tricky to have multiple RMs involved with producing the source and
> > >> >> binary artifacts for the vote
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:55 PM Micah Kornfield <
> > >> emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > SGTM, as well.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I should have a little bit of time next week if I can help as RM
> but
> > >> I have
> > >> >> > a couple of concerns:
> > >> >> > 1.  In the past I've had trouble downloading and validating
> > >> releases. I'm a
> > >> >> > bit worried, that I might have similar problems doing the
> necessary
> > >> uploads.
> > >> >> > 2.  My internet connection will likely be not great, I don't
> know if
> > >> this
> > >> >> > would make it even less likely to be successful.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Does it become problematic if somehow I would have to abandon the
> > >> process
> > >> >> > mid-release?  Is there anyone who could serve as a backup?  Are
> the
> > >> steps
> > >> >> > well documented?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > Micah
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:25 PM Neal Richardson <
> > >> neal.p.richard...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Sounds good to me.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Do we have a release manager yet? Any volunteers?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Neal
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:06 PM Wes McKinney <
> wesmck...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > hi all,
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > It looks like we're drawing close to be able to make the
> 0.15.0
> > >> >> > > > release. I would suggest "pencils down" at the end of this
> week
> > >> and
> > >> >> > > > see if a release candidate can be produced next Monday
> September
> > >> 23.
> > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > > Wes
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:23 AM Wes McKinney <
> > >> wesmck...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > hi Eric -- yes, that's correct. I'm planning to amend the
> > >> Format docs
> > >> >> > > > > today regarding the EOS issue and also update the C++
> library
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:21 AM Eric Erhardt
> > >> >> > > > > <eric.erha...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > I assume the plan is to merge the
> > >> ARROW-6313-flatbuffer-alignment
> > >> >> > > > branch into master before the 0.15 release, correct?
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > BTW - I believe the C# alignment changes are ready to be
> > >> merged into
> > >> >> > > > the alignment branch -
> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/5280/
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Eric
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> > > > > > From: Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:24 PM
> > >> >> > > > > > To: Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > Cc: dev <dev@arrow.apache.org>; niki.lj <
> niki...@aliyun.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Timeline for 0.15.0 release
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > I should have a little more bandwidth to help with some
> of
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > > packaging starting tomorrow and going into the weekend.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Wes McKinney <
> > >> wesmck...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Hi folks,
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > With the state of nightly packaging and integration
> builds
> > >> things
> > >> >> > > > > > > aren't looking too good for being in release readiness
> by
> > >> the end
> > >> >> > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > this week but maybe I'm wrong. I'm planning to be
> working
> > >> to close
> > >> >> > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > many issues as I can and also to help with the ongoing
> > >> alignment
> > >> >> > > > fixes.
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Wes
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 11:07 PM Micah Kornfield <
> > >> >> > > emkornfi...@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >> Just for reference [1] has a dashboard of the current
> > >> issues:
> > >> >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwi
> > >> >> > > > > > >> ki.apache.org
> > >> >> > > > %2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FARROW%2FArrow%2B0.15.0%2BRelea
> > >> >> > > > > > >> se&amp;data=02%7C01%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbead81a42104034
> > >> >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> a4f308d736678a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6370376
> > >> >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> 90648216338&amp;sdata=0Upux3i%2B9X6f8uanGKSGM5VYxR6c2ADWrxSPi1%2FgbH4
> > >> >> > > > > > >> %3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >> >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Wes McKinney <
> > >> wesmck...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> hi all,
> > >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> It doesn't seem like we're going to be in a position
> to
> > >> release
> > >> >> > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> the beginning of next week. I hope that one more
> week of
> > >> work (or
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> less) will be enough to get us there. Aside from
> merging
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> alignment changes, we need to make sure that our
> > >> packaging jobs
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> required for the release candidate are all working.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> If folks could remove issues from the 0.15.0 backlog
> > >> that they
> > >> >> > > > don't
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> think they will finish by end of next week that would
> > >> help focus
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> efforts (there are currently 78 issues in 0.15.0
> still).
> > >> I am
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> looking to tackle a few small features related to
> > >> dictionaries
> > >> >> > > > while
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> the release window is still open.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> - Wes
> > >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:48 PM Wes McKinney <
> > >> >> > > wesmck...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > hi,
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > I think we should try to release the week of
> September
> > >> 9, so
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > development work should be completed by end of next
> > >> week.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > Does that seem reasonable?
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > I plan to get up a patch for the protocol alignment
> > >> changes for
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > C++ in the next couple of days -- I think that
> getting
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > alignment work done is the main barrier to
> releasing.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > Thanks
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > Wes
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:25 PM Ji Liu
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > <niki...@aliyun.com.invalid>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > Hi, Wes, on the java side, I can think of several
> > >> bugs that
> > >> >> > > > need
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> be fixed or reminded.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > i. ARROW-6040: Dictionary entries are required in
> > >> IPC streams
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > even
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> when empty[1]
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > This one is under review now, however through
> this
> > >> PR we find
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> there seems a bug in java reading and writing
> > >> dictionaries in IPC
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> which is Inconsistent with spec[2] since it assumes
> all
> > >> >> > > > dictionaries
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> are at the start of stream (see details in PR
> comments,
> > >> and this
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> fix may not catch up with version 0.15). @Micah
> Kornfield
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > ii. ARROW-1875: Write 64-bit ints as strings in
> > >> integration
> > >> >> > > > test
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> JSON files[3]
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > Java side code already checked in, other
> > >> implementations
> > >> >> > > seems
> > >> >> > > > not.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > iii. ARROW-6202: OutOfMemory in JdbcAdapter[4]
> > >> Caused by
> > >> >> > > trying
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > to load all records in one contiguous batch,
> fixed
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> by providing iterator API for iteratively reading in
> > >> >> > > ARROW-6219[5].
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > Ji Liu
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Farrow%2Fpull%2F4960&amp;data=02%7C01%7CE
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > ric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678a45%7
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216338&a
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> mp;sdata=eDF%2FAsJmVs7WjfEuNBYo%2F1TypIN44xx1TTlK6kQHZVg%3D&amp;
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > reserved=0 [2]
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > 2Farrow.apache.org
> > >> >> > > > %2Fdocs%2Fipc.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7CEric.Erh
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > ardt%40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678a45%7C72f988
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216338&amp;sdat
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> a=H0pM8bVKsOyeORDhHxLlS%2BpaS%2F5meT52wxTKmNssuMk%3D&amp;reserve
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > d=0 [3]
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > 2Fissues.apache.org
> > >> >> > > > %2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FARROW-1875&amp;data=02%7C0
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > 1%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 338&amp;sdata=coTpuoEGhfjyOSBTagdlohOTX24DQZmtbWC0gYsDmkM%3D&amp
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > ;reserved=0 [4]
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > 2Fissues.apache.org
> > >> >> > > > %2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FARROW-6202%5B5&amp;data=02
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > %7C01%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d73
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 6678a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63703769064
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 8216338&amp;sdata=gnyUMk8cUgwc802QBLF3eAp3mznYwonlbF0qmGyzgmY%3D
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > &amp;reserved=0]
> > >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fis
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> sues.apache.org
> > >> >> > > > %2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FARROW-6219&amp;data=02%7C01%7CEric
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> .Erhardt%40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678a45%7C72f988
> > >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216338&amp;sdata=d3
> > >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> LF%2BTeWSprASqO%2ByE4LywlsULHGcb1Iq%2F2byHrEPkY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > -- From:Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> Send
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > Time:2019年8月19日(星期一) 23:03 To:dev <
> > >> dev@arrow.apache.org>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > Subject:Re: Timeline for 0.15.0 release
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > I'm going to work some on organizing the 0.15.0
> > >> backlog some
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > this week, if anyone wants to help with grooming
> > >> >> > > (particularly
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > for languages other than C++/Python where I'm
> > >> focusing) that
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > would be helpful. There have been almost 500 JIRA
> > >> issues
> > >> >> > > opened
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > since the
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > 0.14.0 release, so we should make sure to check
> > >> whether
> > >> >> > > there's
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > any regressions or other serious bugs that we
> should
> > >> try to
> > >> >> > > fix
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > for 0.15.0.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:23 PM Wes McKinney
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > <wesmck...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > The Windows wheel issue in 0.14.1 seems to be
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > F%2Fissues.apache.org
> > >> >> > > > %2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FARROW-6015&amp;data=02
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > %7C01%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 736678a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6370376
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 90648216338&amp;sdata=D9lqHR16oRAFlPaIrcXq3UtW%2BLuJQW1u0Gom2u
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > WEWg0%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > I think the root cause could be the Windows
> > >> changes in
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Farrow%2Fcommit%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678a
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63703769064821
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 6338&amp;sdata=iPmFB%2BncIbmvp5D31vjB4A2KyuMP%2B83Vp7%2BDiOxvl
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > bs%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> 223ae744cc2a12c60cecb5db593263a03c13f85a
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > I would be appreciative if a volunteer would
> look
> > >> into what
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > was
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> wrong
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > with the 0.14.1 wheels on Windows. Otherwise
> > >> 0.15.0 Windows
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > wheels will be broken, too
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > The bad wheels can be found at
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> F%2Fbintray.com%2Fapache%2Farrow%2Fpython%23files%2Fpython%252
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > F0.14.1&amp;data=02%7C01%7CEric.Erhardt%
> > >> 40microsoft.com
> > >> >> > > > %7Ccbea
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> d81a42104034a4f308d736678a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> 7%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216338&amp;sdata=vZzx4HNS9qp2UWhFagqfJ
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > zbY%2BGzwspH1TO3wdfrbA6Y%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:28 PM Antoine Pitrou
> <
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:17:07 -0700 Micah
> > >> Kornfield
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > In C++ they are
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > independent, we could have 32-bit array
> > >> lengths and
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> variable-length
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > types with 64-bit offsets if we wanted
> (we
> > >> just
> > >> >> > > > wouldn't
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> able to
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > have a List child with more than
> INT32_MAX
> > >> elements).
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > I think the point is we could do this in
> C++
> > >> but we
> > >> >> > > > don't.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> I'm not sure we
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > would have introduced the "Large" types if
> we
> > >> did.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > 64-bit offsets take twice as much space as
> 32-bit
> > >> >> > > offsets,
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > so if
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> you're
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > storing lots of small-ish lists or strings,
> > >> 32-bit
> > >> >> > > offsets
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > are preferrable.  So even with 64-bit array
> > >> lengths from
> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > start
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> it would
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > still be beneficial to have types with 32-bit
> > >> offsets.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Going with the limited address space in
> Java
> > >> and
> > >> >> > > calling
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > it a
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> reference
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > implementation seems suboptimal. If a
> consumer
> > >> uses a
> > >> >> > > > "Large"
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> type
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > presumably it is because they need the
> ability
> > >> to store
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > more
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> than INT32_MAX
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > child elements in a column, otherwise it is
> > >> just
> > >> >> > > wasting
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > space
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> [1].
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > Probably. Though if the individual elements
> > >> (lists or
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > strings)
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> are
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > large, not much space is wasted in
> proportion,
> > >> so it may
> > >> >> > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> simpler in
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > such a case to always create a "Large" type
> > >> array.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > [1] I suppose theoretically there might be
> some
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > performance
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> benefits on
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > 64-bit architectures to using the native
> word
> > >> sizes.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > Concretely, common 64-bit architectures
> don't do
> > >> that, as
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > 32-bit
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> is an
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > extremely common integer size even in
> > >> high-performance
> > >> >> > > > code.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > Regards
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > Antoine.
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >>
> > >
>

Reply via email to