+1 agree with others comments On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 12:16 AM Jihong Ma <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1, To avoid potential compatibility issue, we could introduce this param > as an optional field, as long as it is not a required field, we are fine > with a defined default block size. > > Regards. > > Jihong > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacky Li [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:29 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Discuss]Set block_size for table on table level > > I am OK with this feature, the only thing I am worrying about is the > compatibility of CarbonData file reader. Can you make it compatible when > you reading old CarbonData file without this property. > We have encountered many times that user need to delete the store and > re-load the data. > > Regards, > Jacky > > > 在 2016年9月26日，下午2:15，Ravindra Pesala <[email protected]> 写道： > > > > +1 > > At same time max and min block size should be restricted and validated > > while creating table. > > > > On 26 September 2016 at 07:36, Zhangshunyu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Purpose: > >> To configure block file size for each table on column level, so that > each > >> table could has its own blocksize. > >> My solution: > >> Add a new parameter in table properties, when create a table, the user > can > >> set it in ddl. Add a parameter in thrift format just like other > properties, > >> and write this info into thrift file so that this info would not lost > when > >> cluster is restarted. > >> > >> What's your opinion? > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: http://apache-carbondata- > >> mailing-list-archive.1130556.n5.nabble.com/Discuss-Set- > >> block-size-for-table-on-table-level-tp1472.html > >> Sent from the Apache CarbonData Mailing List archive mailing list > archive > >> at Nabble.com. > >> > > > > > > -- > > Thanks & Regards, > > Ravi > > > >
