Thanks Micah, I'll take the Java side implementation. Thanks, Ji Liu
------------------------------------------------------------------ From:Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> Send Time:2019年12月2日(星期一) 09:25 To:dev <dev@arrow.apache.org> Subject:Re: [Result] [VOTE] Clarifications and forward compatibility changes for Dictionary Encoding (second iteration) I've merged the PR and created ARROW-7283 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7283> [1] to track implementation for languages currently in the integration test. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7283 On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 1:03 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > The vote carries with 3 bindings votes +1 votes, 1 non-binding +1 vote and > 1 non-binding +.5 vote. > > To follow-up I will: > 1. Open up JIRAs for work items in reference implementations (c++/java) > 2. Merge the pull request containing the specification changes. > > Thanks, > Micah > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:50 AM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> In <cak7z5t_1bpigahnn13orr2o0qwzo54nb_4zv5eyfn6w8k+o...@mail.gmail.com> >> "[VOTE] Clarifications and forward compatibility changes for Dictionary >> Encoding (second iteration)" on Wed, 20 Nov 2019 20:41:57 -0800, >> Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > As discussed on [1], I've proposed clarifications in a PR [2] that >> > clarifies: >> > >> > 1. It is not required that all dictionary batches occur at the >> beginning >> > of the IPC stream format (if a the first record batch has an all null >> > dictionary encoded column, the null column's dictionary might not be >> sent >> > until later in the stream). >> > >> > 2. A second dictionary batch for the same ID that is not a "delta >> batch" >> > in an IPC stream indicates the dictionary should be replaced. >> > >> > 3. Clarifies that the file format, can only contain 1 "NON-delta" >> > dictionary batch and multiple "delta" dictionary batches. Dictionary >> > replacement is not supported in the file format. >> > >> > 4. Add an enum to dictionary metadata for possible future changes in >> what >> > format dictionary batches can be sent. (the most likely would be an >> array >> > Map<Int, Value>). An enum is needed as a place holder to allow for >> forward >> > compatibility past the release 1.0.0. >> > >> > If accepted there will be work in all implementations to make sure that >> > they cover the edge cases highlighted and additional integration testing >> > will be needed. >> > >> > Please vote whether to accept these additions. The vote will be open >> for at >> > least 72 hours. >> > >> > [ ] +1 Accept these change to the specification >> > [ ] +0 >> > [ ] -1 Do not accept the changes because... >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Micah >> > >> > >> > [1] >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d0f137e9db0abfcfde2ef879ca517a710f620e5be4dd749923d22c37@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/5585 >> >
