+1 (non-binding) This applies nicely for column updates too. Thanks Anoop.
~ Anurag On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 11:11 AM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 11:03 AM Hongyue Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:49 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:46 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 9:56 AM Anoop Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, everyone - >>>>> >>>>> Following the discussion on v4 stats tightness [1], I'd like to call a >>>>> vote on the spec change that replaces the per-column `tight_bounds` field >>>>> with a single file-level `tight_stats` flag. >>>>> >>>>> Summary of the change: >>>>> >>>>> - Stats tightness is tracked once per file with a `tight_stats` >>>>> flag on the tracked file instead of a `tight_bounds` field on >>>>> every column's stats struct. >>>>> - The tightness flag covers all statistics (bounds and null, NaN, >>>>> and value counts), not just bounds, so metadata-only queries can >>>>> trust the counts as well. >>>>> - When the `tight_stats` flag is absent, readers must assume stats >>>>> are not tight. >>>>> - A deletion vector no longer implicitly makes stats wide; >>>>> `tight_stats` is the authoritative indicator, and engines are >>>>> allowed to retighten stats without rewriting data files. >>>>> >>>>> References: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Discussion thread: >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/tv7bvqctdfh5qng1sx5rp8r4r00nsv60 >>>>> >>>>> 2. Design options doc: >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13DbwnwKQXjvY3vRcFJo-qVAQWk-GB4zLzzYmFdPntZg/ >>>>> >>>>> 3. Spec PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18585 >>>>> >>>>> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Adopt the tight_stats spec change >>>>> [ ] +0 >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, with reason >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Anoop >>>>> >>>>
